Mediums at Large

I've watched good movies, and I've watched bad movies. I've read good books, and I've read bad books. I've seen good TV, and I've seen bad TV. I've heard good music and I've heard bad music. I've bought good comic books, and I've bought bad comic books. I've played good video games, and I've played bad video games. I don't have a large enough sample size concerning stage productions to make a statement.

There are stories, ideas, characters, themes, motifs, ideas, and settings stretching far and wide across boundless boundaries and back again. They are all unique. Different subjects work differently in different mediums because different subjects require different mediums. Something like Half-Life could only work through the interactive, first-person narrative format a video game can provide. Likewise, the abstract horror and tortures of Guernica can only exist as oil on canvas.

And yet there's this false hierarchy that's always preached and always accepted: Books are always better. Read a book, support your local library, turn off the TV and read, enjoy silent reading time, etc. etc. etc. Literature and prose are the kings of all communications, and all others are garbage. Every kids' TV show has an episode where the characters learn books exist, and embark on a 22 minute adventure where reading is fun. Likewise, those same shows have episodes where somebody becomes obsessed with TV or video games, then needs to be weened off. An addiction to reading? That's good! An addiction to TV? That's bad! Let's not forget, these lessons are being dispensed on television. Is this irony or flagellation?

Understand me, I'm not being anti-literate. Books are one of the oldest and most versatile forms of entertainment and art. There's an infinite realm of possibilities and opportunities in the written word. Books are good, but books are only one of many different viable options. If books were the best option, there would be no alternatives because we found the perfect medium. But other options do exist because books are not perfect.

The problem with books is simple: They're not a visual medium. Whatever the author wants to convey, they convey. If the author says the hero is tall, the hero is tall. If he says the room was silent, the room was silent. If the author says everybody ran, screaming for their lives, everybody runs screaming for their lives. There's no ambiguity in words, right? Wrong! Words are nothing but ambiguity.

The author conveys what he chooses to convey, but the reader has the task of interpreting those words. When the author said the hero was tall, you could imagine him being six foot two, or you could imagine him being eighteen foot nine. When the author says the room is silent, you could imagine a surreal vacuum where no sound escapes, or simply an awkward pause in conversation while the radio drones on in the background. When the author says everybody ran screaming for their lives, you could imagine a hectic group funneling out the fire escape, or a frenzied mob crawling and clawing each other, stampeding and trampling others before dying in an explosive blast. Literature is a tabula rasa. A blank slate for the reader to interpret the author's words and meanings. They will vary from person to person. This is what visual mediums fix.

Visual mediums replace the open world of the author with a set and established image concocted in joint effort between the screenwriter and director. Peter Benchley told us Jaws was terrifying, Steven Spielberg showed us.

As I said earlier, there is no one medium better than another. There are only mediums more suited for the task at hand. Truly successful and inspiring (and profitable) works are frequently tested in different realms. MASH became a TV show. Legos became a video game franchise. The Addams Family became a cartoon. Spider-Man became a stage musical. Some work, and some send Broadway hopefuls to the hospital.

Which brings me to another complaint: Movies are not the end-all, be-all of media evolution.

Bitch and moan as much as you want concerning adaptations and remakes saturating the film market. Research and returns prove scientifically audiences prefer an established franchise. So movie studios dredge the world of art and entertainment for all viable properties, even if they seem like bad ideas at the time. I've either accepted this or I've become numb, because this truth doesn't bother me anymore.

What does bother me is the one-way expectation expected by others. Any noteworthy piece of art, be it a book, TV show, toy line, musical or video game is practically expected to be adapted into a feature length film. It's not an issue of "if" it's a matter of "when."

I first noticed the taste of this bitter pill while reading an internet discussion board concerning the recently released and forgotten Need For Speed adaptation. Somebody couldn't believe they were making a blatant Fast and Furious knockoff, meanwhile in their own words, "Where is our Bioshock movie, already?"

Not "I would have preferred a Bioshock movie," not "Bioshock would have made for a better movie," not "Is there any news on a Bioshock movie?" Just entitled expectations and disdain that his whims weren't met. I can't blame him. Everything has to be a movie, nowadays. That's the goal. If your work becomes a movie, you've succeeded. Abed never hoped for six seasons. He hoped for six seasons AND a movie.

If we can suddenly realize this faulty logic, maybe we can stop the stigma against adaptations by only making adaptations that work. The prime example of which being movies based on video games. There have been nearly three dozen feature-length movies based on video games, and they are all terrible. Video games don't fit amongst the restrictions of the motion picture medium. Gone is the interactivity, gone is the pacing, gone is the controllable camera, gone is the first-person experience. It becomes a third-person story on rails. It's as immersive as an animatronic ride.

Plain and simple, not everything needs to be a movie. Some stories don't work as movies. Franchises can always expand outwards, but it doesn't have to be in one inevitable direction.

Feel free to leave comments about how the first Resident Evil movie wasn't completely terrible, because I never get tired of hearing those flimsy excuses.

It's a Bad, Bad, Bad, Bad Flick

We've all said it. "That's a "Bad" movie." But what do we mean by "Bad?" Bad like Al Capone, or bad like the dog that's scooting on your dining room carpet right now? Waitaminute, do you even have a dog? Go stop him!

Really, a bad movie could be bad for any number of reasons. Breaking it down, I've arrived at the conclusion all bad movies fall into one of six categories. The next time you see a bad movie, try and pinpoint what exactly made it bad, and what could have been fixed to make it better.



1) The Poorly Made Movie
 
This is a rarity in modern-day filmmaking. The movie industry is bigger than its ever been, and its still growing. Studios don't have to take chances on amateurs anymore. The days of Bert I Gordons and Edward D Woods are gone. Digital filmmaking has opened the world of movie-making to the masses, and everybody trying to break into the industry already has an extensive portfolio. If studios think you're remotely unqualified, they'll replace you with one of the 500 others waiting in the wings. There are no amateurs anymore. Just paid professionals and unpaid professionals. 
 

60 hour weeks. No travel reimbursement. College students only.
Must have 10 years experience. Masters degree preferred. This is a non-paying position.

 
But therein lies the irony. By opening the door for so many, we left the door open for everybody. People who don't want to learn the necessary skills and techniques. People who thought it looked easy, and assumed it was. People who think White Balance has to with laundry and Lavalier Mic is a French disk jockey. If the filmmakers don't care, why should the audience?
 

"Good enough" should not be an aspiration.

2) The Poorly Conceived Movie


Not every idea is good, but a good idea can come from anywhere. I've seen spectacular movies based on a board game, a theme park ride, sketch-comedy TV, and game shows. I have also seen bad versions of these same exact things.

As the saying goes, you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. There are some projects, licenses, and franchises that are doomed to failure. There are also completely original ideas that stink worse than month old roquefort. You could contact the greatest writers, directors, actors and spin doctors, they'd all tell you the same thing: There's just no substance. But the movie gets made anyways.

At what point did this begin seeming like a bad idea? The answer may surprise you...

3) The Boring Movie


However you choose to define movies (entertainment, art, escapism, culture, storytelling, etc.), they are an act of communication. Communication relies on engagement. It relies on captivation. It relies on a listening and responsive audience. And if the audience is busy checking their watch or playing Candy Crush, you've failed.

Pathos be damned, I want more popcorn. That's exciting!

Movies can be exciting, funny, scary, thought-provoking, fantastical, empathetic, and any number of other things, but they have to be doing something throughout their 90-minute runtime. There's nothing quite as embarrassing as a comedy that doesn't make you laugh, an action film that makes you yawn or a drama that confuses drearieness with seriousness. If you waste the audience's time, they'll let you know.

Yaaawn..... I said, yaaaaawn!

 4) The Unoriginal Movie
 
Pretend you're a marketing guru with a finger fresh on the pulse of modern society. You know what people want, how they want it, and the fastest way to make a money with it. It's no surprise when Jimmy McMoviemaker wants you to capitalize on the latest fads and interests. So you do. Fast forward to opening night, and...  your new project garners a net loss of $35 million. Turns out, everybody preferred your movie when they saw it the first time, several years ago. Suddenly, you're living in a refrigerator box under the freeway next to the guy who invented HitClips.

Wow! An entire minute of low-fidelity pop music!

 
Trends come and go, but before they do, they die a slow, painful, agonizing death. What may have been cool and popular ten years ago now seems old and stale. If you can't be fresh, be original. If you can't be original, at least be early. Always move forward with the future. If you stay too long in the past, you'll be passed up.

Here's a freebie: This genre is dead. Move on.

5) The Insulting Movie

People will watch anything, right? Plunk down a couple million bucks, they'll line up like sheep. There's no need to do any research on the film's subject; just reinvent it however you like. It doesn't matter if the characters are internationally renowned, shoehorn in some more accessible character traits. Change the setting away from 1960s Britain to modern-day America. Make the main characters young, thin, attractive, and in love. Cut out just enough of the violence, sex and depravity to earn a PG-13 rating. Have them drinking Dr Pepper. Add a wise-cracking companion and pop songs. And whatever you do, don't follow the book its based on. It doesn't have a happy ending. Besides, most of the potential audience probably haven't read it.

Dictated, not read.

People are not dumb. Actually, that's a lie. But still, people don't like being insulted. Respect the people by respecting the medium. Star Wars: A New Hope was made by a man combining his love of classic westerns with samurai films, adding original elements of fantasy and sci-fi. Star Wars: The Phantom Menace was made by a man with a billion dollar special effects studio and contract obligations to Pepsi, Taco Bell. Lego, Lays, EA Games and Colgate.

You think I'm joking about this?

6) The Stupid Movie 

Let's be honest. If you had to produce a new movie on a shoestring budget, knowing full well you had no hope of ever attracting more than a million individual viewers, would you put lots and lots of effort into scripting, only to have absolutely no return on investment? Or would you just accept the carte blanche challenge, create something completely off-the-wall, and have fun while doing it?

Chichen Itza is not in the Grand Canyon.

It's the beloved "So-Bad-Its-Good" movie. A movie that defies all laws of logic and sensibility by pretending they never existed in the first place. These movies aren't good because they never tried to be good. They knew damn well what they were, and they embraced the ever-loving hell out of it. Think late-nite horror marathons hosted by comedians. Think SyFy original films. Think independent cinema. The people responsible for these films are either young professionals cutting their teeth, or seasoned professionals who have a psychotic signature style. Either way, they have a happy-go-lucky energy that's apparent after only a few minutes of viewing... unless it's just a happy accident. Trying to make lightning strike twice results in a poorly made or boring film instead of a "so bad it's good." Or in the case of a remake, a poorly conceived movie.

It's not too late to scrap production. Get out while you still can.

R You Serious?

The MPAA, despite all its missteps, has done one thing very well: It has kept film as a business, as an art, and as an entertainment medium out of the hands of the government.

In the 1930's, The Hays Code went into effect in order to keep film deregulated. Essentially, The Hays Code was a strict ban on material that could be deemed offensive to the potential audience, including sex, drug use, foul language, and any form of racism (quite progressive, given the era.)

Before and After The Hays Code. Ruining the lives of shoulder fetishists everywhere.

But times change, and begrudgingly, so does protocol. In the 1960s, the comically outdated Hays Code was phased out in favor of the MPAA rating system, allowing for more controversial material to a willing, receptive, and most important, appropriate audience.

The rating system has changed a bunch since then, but one thing has remained constant: The R-Rating has restricted content from those under the age of 17.

Why? Because. The MPAA rating system exists to warn and alert parents of questionable content. It's censorship, but it's self-censorship. The MPAA and the National Association of Theater Owners both agree this is the best possible policy. If this was not the case, the government would intervene, and force mandatory regulation. Don't believe me? Look at TV. Look at radio. The FCC's got its tentacles all over them, and they'll never break free.

National Association of Theater Owners. Good thing nobody else has that acronym.

Now let me be clear. I don't agree with censorship. But it's a necessary evil. No matter how much I bitch and moan and whine and complain, Prudence Dogood and the Lady's Auxillary of Smallburg, USA will raise a much bigger fuss. They have to do something while their casseroles are in the oven. If we restrict admission to vulgar, racy and violent films, we can literally say 'We have done everything we can.' The children are safe, and sheltered children make the best adults (it's a self-perpetuating fallacy).

Movies are not being censored. They are not being altered. They are not being butchered or outlawed. They are simply being dangled above the head of high school sophomores.

If you don't like it, make your voice heard. Not at theater, of course. There's nothing the box office clerk can do about it except you you a look of dismay. And don't rebel either. I speak from experience, there is nothing a theater usher likes better than kicking a 14 year-old out of 'Fart Academy 5.'

You're just going to do this anyways. Can't you do it in the new Dreamworks movie?

I mean it. If you ever scream at a box-office clerk over a 40 year-old, nationwide ordinance, you deserve to have your Friday night ruined. Go ice skating or something. You also deserve to have your tires slashed and your mailbox knocked over, but I have no power over that (mechanics and mailmen of America, let's make a deal...)

No, make it clear that the content of R-Rated movies is a non-issue that doesn't require an enforceable rule. That you could care less if your sixteen year-old daughter saw a provocative social drama about heroin and AIDS. That your freshman son is certainly mature enough to handle a movie about three stoners who befriend a gorilla and teach it to smoke. That if your kids are old enough to drive themselves to the theater and pay with their own credit cards, they should see a bunch of Martians ruthlessly shoot up a stranded batallion of space marines if they so desire.

Protocol has changed before to reflect a changing audience. The MPAA and NATO needs to know its time to change again.

The 2012 Halftime Report

2012, come in. Please, have a seat. Get comfy. Can I get you something to drink?

First let me clear. You're not in trouble. If you were, we wouldn't be meeting on such friendly terms. However, we do need to talk about your performance. You see, back around October of last year, we were all very very eager to have you. You had a number of great releases lined up, and we were all waiting on tenterhooks.You were going to be the biggest thing to happen to movies since 2007.

But then... you choked.

You had everything you needed, and you choked.

Let me drop this interview motif like the mockumentary structure in District 9. When I rank movies, I rank them on a scale of 1 to 5. Five being a perfectly constructed film, and One being an insult to the audience. For those who can't math, three falls right in the middle. I reserve threes for films that make no real impression. Stuff I forget immediately after leaving the theater. Stuff that has no real flaws, but no redeeming factors either. I have never had to use so many three star rankings as I have this year.

Practically everything I was anticipating being a knockout punch has been just average. The Spider-Man reboot, Prometheus, Seeking a Friend for the End of This Really Long Title, The Five-Year Engagement, John Carter, Pirates: Band of Misfits, both of the postmodern Snow White movies. All average, three star efforts.

Hell, even Pixar and Studio Ghibli. Two movie-making institutions renowned for their pursuit of excellence. Six stars between them.

Meanwhile, everything I was anticipating being just average has been dumb dumb dumb. Men In Black III: The Search for More Money, Dark Shadows, Silent House. I got into all of them for free, I still feel like I was ripped off.

2012 is not going down as being a great year for movies. That ship has sailed. But, it's not too late to cut your losses. 2012 hasn't batted a complete .000, The Avengers and Cabin in the Woods were both phenomenal. As for The Hunger Games, while I won't consider it among the greatest of sci-fi films, I will admit it was very very good.

Fangirls are no less annoying regardless if their obsession has any worth.

In addition, everyone knows the first half of a year is the bad half of the movie-going year. The movie-going year is divided into four parts:

1) January - March: Crap. Studios are focusing on awards season. A whole bunch of low-effort junk comes out because it saves mad duckets on marketing.

 2) April - July: Summer blockbuster season. every studio has one or two big BIG movies, and a bunch of flashy stuff that they're hoping will get decent returns before word of mouth causes a total lack of disinterest.

3) August - October: Risky ventures and unconventional pics. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. Lots of diamonds in the rough, but mostly just rough.

4) November - December: Oscar bait, family films and any Summer Blockbuster that had problems in post.

So, maybe the mediocre first half of 2012 will be swept under the rug by a phenomenal second half. We can only hope.

Extremely Similar and Incredibly Close

Here's something interesting I discovered about Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close. It got the Oscar nom for Best Picture because it's exactly the same as the other eight films.

Don't believe me?



It's the personal story of how one boy and his best friend were separated by an infamous act of international violence...

...Causing the young boy to lose his father in a tragic accident, establishing a mystery centered around a lock and key...


...But by using an unconventional strategy, backed by a mathematical algorithm involving normally overlooked people...


...He keeps alive the memories of his father, his enduring legacy and the impact he had on his adolescent life...


...By going on a futile journey for solace, to find answers as to why his once-perfect life has unfairly been upended...

...And Viola Davis is there, who has much bigger problems than the young, white, protagonist, but she agrees to help anyways...


...And there's a deeply depressed man, plagued by his own silence...


...But in the end, after meeting numerous interesting people, the hero learns to let go of the past and focus on his future in the city he loves.

The 2011 Honorary Awards

My Top Ten of 2011 is coming later this week; just as soon as the final disc from Netflix comes in. But, I can give you something in the meantime:

The 2011 Honorary Awards!

The "It Wasn't That Bad" Award:
The movie, while not a contender for my Top Ten, I felt was unjustly maligned by both critics and audiences. It doesn't deserve accolades, but deserves more than it got.

The Green Hornet

Leaving the theater early in 2011, I knew instantly The Green Hornet was a shoo-in for this award. It was silly, preposterous, and yet I loved it. I have this weird thing with superhero movies. When they're good, they're very good. When they're bad, they're still pretty good. See also my opinions on The Shadow, Daredevil, The Punisher and Green Lantern.

Seth Rogen is back in form, his acting skills are equally on par with his work on Freaks & Geeks and Undeclared. Jay Chou as Kato also plays his role well, especially considering he's taking the reins from Bruce Lee. On the negative side, Cameron Diaz and Christoph Waltz are squandered, each turning in a forgettable performance, only one step above stock characters ("Hi, I'm pretty and blonde and you can confide in me!" "Grr, I'm evil and wearing a suit. I will kill you because I'm a gangster and I don't like the law!") Not only that, Michel Gondry's decision to direct completely undercuts his whole filmography, tarnishing what was once a finely sharpened auteur style. This film looks like it could have been directed by anybody.

But The Green Hornet is what it is. It was created in the 60s to cash in on the growing Kung-Fu craze, and it exists today to cash in on the Superhero craze. It's funny to think how back in the 60s, The Green Hornet was the sensible, procedural drama while Batman was the goofy, campy adventure series. Nowadays Christopher Nolan's Batman is a gritty, noir-esque super-serious drama while Green Lantern is the half-smirked action/comedy. The world's weird like that.

The idea of Seth Rogen as a superhero is laughable, but the film hangs numerous lampshades on this. The way it's presented, however, makes the casting decision seem fitting. The drama between Chou and Rogen, especially the brains-versus-talent dichotomy, is believable and makes the film worth seeing. Any action sequence not involving a car is realistic and intense, if not exaggerated for dramatic effect and slightly goofy for entertainment purposes. Any action sequence involving a car is so ludicrous, I couldn't look away. The Green Hornet isn't a great superhero film, but it wasn't that bad.
Honorable Mentions: Elektra Luxx, Sucker Punch, Cowboys and Aliens, Sanctum


The Danny McBride Spirit Award:
For special achievement in portraying an annoying or unlikable character in an otherwise good film.

The Moopets from The Muppets

The Muppets are an institution that everybody, from audiences to film studios, take for granted. There is this untapped potential to make them do anything, solely because they are the only puppet show in town. They made great stuff like Fraggle Rock and The Muppet Movie, but they also made stuff like Muppets Tonight and The Muppets Wizard of Oz. Luckily, The Muppets (the movie) was everything good about The Muppets (the franchise) with one notable exception: The Moopets (the characters).

The Muppets have always enjoyed driving running gags into the ground, and they even do it to success in the movie, such as traveling by map. But The Moopets... egh. The concept of an off-brand Muppet revue subsisting purely on the marquee value of similar names, whilst undermining the key components of the franchise they're cashing in on was moderately funny, but the joke did not go away. I know the characters were supposed to be annoying and unlikable, but when they pop up every fifteen minutes, they just become insufferable. The worst part of an otherwise great movie.
Honorable Mentions: Sebastian Shaw (Kevin Bacon) - X-Men: First Class, Sid (Nick Krause) - The Descendants


The Gary Oldman Achievement Award:
For the best onscreen character, both in terms of writing and performance.

Peter Vincent from Fright Night
Portrayed by David Tennant, Written for the screen by Marti Noxon, Based on a character created by Tom Holland

Peter Vincent is a shallow parody of Criss Angel, and in a crappy movie, the character development would have ended there. But Peter Vincent is so much more. He's a dedicated vampire folklorist, masquerading as a stage magician to mask his true identity and hide his scarred personal history from both the creatures of the night and the non-believing public. And he's played by David Tennant. I'm a bit biased here, but I'm just so happy David Tennant's getting work.

Like any good ass-kicking vampire hunter, Vincent's equal parts intelligent and athletic. He's quick with quips and isn't deterred by mere injuries... at least he is at the climax. He evolves as a character. In the beginning, he's just an alcoholic, entitled celebrity. And not just any alcohol, Midori. From the beginning, he's eccentric, abusive, and really fun to watch. Then at the climax, he's a pissed-off, drunken, full-on shotgun-wielding Van Helsing, and still really fun to watch.
Honorable Mentions: Evil Ed (Christoph Mintz-Plasse) - Fright Night, Hanna (Saoirse Ronan) - Hanna, Libby/Boltie (Ellen Page) - Super, Uggy the Dog (as Himself) - The Artist, Alan Krumwiede (Jude Law) - Contagion, Marcus (Sam Huntington) - Dylan Dog: Dead of Night

The 'This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things' Award:
The shittiest movie of the year that makes me wonder why certain people are allowed to live without having beehives thrown through their living room windows.

Bucky Larson: Born to be a Star

Bucky Larson is an exercise in stupidity. The entire plot sounds like the winner of a film variation of the Little Lytton contest. It's what happens when comedians try to push boundaries without having anything worthwhile to justify doing so. It's not just unfunny, at parts it doesn't even try to be funny. Even during the Freidberg/Seltzer monstrosities, it's obvious when they're trying to make jokes. They fail miserably, but they can at least be interpreted as jokes by the very loosest of definitions. The feeble attempts at jokes in Bucky Larson disappear sporadically as the the script shuffles from one plot point to the next like a three-legged cow with gout. Writing a screenplay is hard. Writing a comedy is very hard. Shelving boxes at Payless Shoes is very easy. Stick with what you know.

Nick Swardson looks almost exactly like Simple Jack. The marketing campaign is the worst I've ever seen; I do not need the floating, disembodied head of Peter Dante goading me into seeing a film while I'm trying to watch The Venture Brothers. I hate that fatheaded bastard. The only reason he gets work is because he makes Adam Sandler look like Charlie Chaplin. Sandler definitely knows this, Dante will never catch on because he's the kind of person who would appear in the film Bucky Larson. It's not shocking, abrasive, break-the-rules humor, it's the cinematic equivalent of a senile old man who leaves his house forgetting to wear pants; yes, it's vulgar and you'd think for a moment it would be a funny experience, but when you actually witness it, you just feel bad for the pantsless man.

I did the math; during Bucky Larson's opening weekend at my theater, I made more money working a standard eight-hour shift than the movie grossed in all fifteen weekend showtimes. Clearly, Hollywood should be investing in me.
Horrible Mentions: Big Momma's House 3, Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked, The Smurfs, Jack &; Jill, The Three Musketeers, Zookeeper, Mr. Popper's Penguins


The All-Coveted "I'm an Idiot" Award:
For the most anticipated, highly regarded film I never got around to seeing, be it because of limited releases, lack of marketing, or my own sheer laziness (mostly that last one).

Moneyball

I live in Saint Louis. Saint Louis is a baseball city. In 2011, the Saint Louis Cardinals won the World Series. Even if you don't like baseball, if you lived in Saint Louis in 2011, you liked baseball. So when Moneyball came to theaters in late September, just as the Redbirds were turning their losing season around into an underdog story we'll be touting for years to come, I was just baseballed out.

It didn't matter the film was getting glowing reviews, or that Brad Pitt gave one of the best performances of his life, or that Aaron Sorkin wrote the script, I just couldn't take any more baseball. It was at my multiplex for ten weeks. That's two and a half months. It didn't get pushed out until the Thanksgiving releases arrived. It was just too much baseball for me.

But the Cards lost Pujols, we have no dugout, and Tony LaRussa's retired. This won't be an issue in 2012. Until then, congratulations Moneyball, I'm an idiot.
Honorable Mentions: Trollhunter, Midnight in Paris, Melancholia, Martha Marcy May Marlene, Machine Gun Preacher, Win Win, A Very Harold and Kumar 3D Christmas


The Game-Changer:
The most influential film of the year, in whatever regards, sure to influence Hollywood's actions and decisions in the near future.

Bridesmaids

While I didn't think Bridesmaids was anything fantastic in terms of jokes or storytelling, its sheer popularity speaks mounds of the future of comedy. You follow movie blogs, you know this already, but I'll say it again anyways: Women have always gotten the short end of the stick in the field of comedy. From Gracie Allen to Lucille Ball to Sarah Silverman, comediennes have to give 120% effort to get 80% of the recognition. Both in terms of their peers and their target audiences.

Pick any so-called comedy from the past fifteen years with a female lead. Is it a romance where a pretty, svelte girl has to overcome self-imposed obstacles all while trying to capture the attention of a comparably pretty man? Probably. Double or nothing it starred Katherine Heigl or Sarah Jessica Parker. Am I right?

This is what female comedies have been reduced to; a 21st-century variation of the Cinderella story. You can have a husband, and a family, and a career, and a size-four waist, and a high rise New York City apartment, and the only obstacle you'll encounter is occasionally tripping over your four inch heels. And this is comedy for some reason. You can understand why men aren't taking the craft seriously.

But Bridesmaids is the game changer. It proves the fairer sex can be just as crude, vulgar, sharp, incisive and slapsticky as the boys. But it's a slow road. Every scene where Kristen Wiig fawns over the inexplicably Irish cop, but pushes him away because because, and every scene where Wiig and Rose Byrne have a passive-agressive catfight prove the genre still has a long way to go. But a journey of 1000 miles begins with asingle step, and this journey began with Maya Rudolph in a wedding gown taking a shit on a city street.
Honorable Mentions: Mars Needs Moms for killing the 3D Motion Capture animation medium. The Adventures of Tintin for reviving it. Spy Kids 4D for proving Hollywood is never out of gimmicks. The Tree of Life for bringing experimental films to the forefront. Red State for challenging the studio distribution system.

The Omega Films

I found this question on Reddit, and I thought I'd regurgitate it here:

"Humanity is wiped out. What 10 movies would you suggest the advanced alien race that discovers our civilization watch to understand humanity?"

Just imagine: like in Superman, you are fully aware of the impending end of the world. But instead of saving the life of your only son, you schlep on down to the miraculously-still-in-business Blockbuster Video, and save ten films instead. And don't overthink this; just assume translations and subtitles are universal, region codes are non-existent, and the aliens have the required technology to watch these movies. What ten movies do you save?

I'm not asking you to pick your 10 favorite movies, and I'm not asking you to pick the 10 greatest movies. I'm asking you to pick ten films to represent Earth and the human race. Who we were, what we were, and what we meant we said "Humanity."

WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

12 Angry Men
We fought for the truth. We believed in our fellow man. Even the corrupted and the criminal deserved the briefest benefit of the doubt. It was so easy to cast aspersions on others; somebody had to stand up for the wretched, the dark, the castoffs and the unwanted. Because among them may be an innocent. And we never give up in the name of innocence.

High Noon
We all wanted to be heroes. We all want to stand up for the little man, and protect him from oncoming evil. We knew it was dangerous, but we felt an obligation. A calling. Even if the little man we're protecting wouldn't stand beside us, we would fight the necessary fight. It was a thankless job, and frequently a dangerous one, but we did it nonetheless.

Schindler's List
We weren't perfect. We all made mistakes. Sometimes individually, sometimes as a nation. Sometimes we let our mistakes get out of hand. Even in mankind's darkest moments, the seemingly small actions of one man were able to shine through. True heroes made true sacrifices, and that made all the difference.

Inherit the Wind
We put our faith in two elements: What we believed, and what we knew. And often times, the two worlds collided. What was truth? What was folly? How did science and religion coexist when they seemingly contradicted each other, and how did the followers of the two opposing factions withstand each other? Ironically, in our eternal quest for truth, we neglected to answer our own questions.

To Kill a Mockingbird
As children, we saw life as simplistic and idealized to perfection. But there came a time when we matured, and saw the world for what it was. There was evil in this world, but there was always good to contrast it. There were victims, and there were victimizers. There were misunderstood people, feared, but good at heart. But there were also people in high standing who were rotten and repugnant. While it's not fair to blame these circumstances on any particular cause, it's easy to see how a childhood dies when confronted by them.

Wall-E
We had freedoms. We had pleasures. We had so many luxuries and extravagances we seldom bothered to think of negative consequences. And we were lazy. My god, were we lazy. Surely, somebody somewhere was fixing all the problems. We couldn't be bothered. We were enjoying our own lives. Somebody was doing all the dirty work for us. Yeah...

Trainspotting
We were always searching for new ways to pass the time, to have fun, to experience new and exciting boundaries. We liked to indulge. Sometimes destructively. Our bodies were fragile, but we never had any qualms about pushing them to the brink, just for a fleeting, momentary high. Oh, but we weren't all bad. Some of us realized our destructive natures. Some wanted out. Some were willing to pay the price. Or at least try.

Glory
Throughout our existence, there was much immigration, emigration, exodus and diaspora. Our slight differences made us stupid, arrogant, prejudiced, and spiteful. For the longest time, we refused to accept a human life was a human life. And while we were slow to change, we eventually did so. Step by step. Inch by inch. One fight at a time.

Bicycle Thieves
Many were content with the bare necessities; a roof over our head, clothes on our back, food on our plates, and a family to love. And yet, the simplest of achievements was never an assurance. There were always people willing to muck up the works. Disobedience, malfeasance, and small acts of petty larceny all had the power to turn the life of a single man upside down. Simply put, playing by the rules was a loser's game. Life is brutal, and existence is suffering.

Wild Strawberries
Despite the pits and valleys, we all knew one thing: our time was short. Everyone dead once lived, and everyone living would die. It was such a short period of time; what was the purpose? Was there a purpose? Was there reason? Did we even matter? Did humanity matter? Maybe not on a cosmic sense, maybe not even in a worldwide sense. But in a close, immediate and deeply personal sense, yes. And that was all that mattered.


Here lies the human race. We existed. We mattered.

Dasher, Dancer, Sneezy, Dopey, Larry, Curly, Tito, Marlon, Janet, Brad, Rocky, The Professor, Mary Ann, and Jerry Mathers as The Beaver

It's been well over a month and I haven't posted a damn thing in this blog. The following post was originally intended to be a Tweet, but I fleshed it out a tad to give credence to the notion that I'm not yet dead.

There are two films ready to be released later this year. Actually, there are lots more than two, but I'm focusing on two specifically. Both are generating lots of buzz, both are eagerly anticipated by audiences, both received accolades at their respective festival premieres, and both are safe bets as serious Oscar contenders.

One is called 'Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy.'

The other is called 'Martha Marcy May Marlene.'

The first is a Cold War-era espionage thriller, set in Britain, directed by the guy who directed Let the Right One In, starring everybody's favorite cinematic chameleon, Gary Oldman.

The second is a psychological thriller, set in the Castskills, starring the soon-to-be-much-more-famous sister of the Olsen twins, directed by some guy without a Wikipedia page.

But plots aside, I want you to think slowly about the two titles. Aren't they very similar?

Four, stand-alone words. No connection. No syntax. Just four, seemingly random words, batched together to form two titles of two very similarly anticipated movies, with very close release dates.

The first I don't care for. It sounds silly. And I don't care about its context or its history as a franchise. It sounds like a children's picture book, and I'm having trouble taking it seriously.

The second I will never remember. It will be the year 2144, my brain will be in a jar at the National Archives, hooked up to machines to offer all future generations insight about motion pictures, and I'll still be calling it something like "Martha May Megan Mallory."

But why do I bring this up? Because I like wasting your time. Also, because I can see the future. I can see all the way to March 2012. I can see the jokes being fed through the teleprompters at the Oscar ceremony. And I can hear them echo all the way back to today.They are all the same. They are all jokes about the similarity of the titles of the two films. And they are old. And unfunny. And they've already been told a million times before. Even Jay Leno is tired of making jokes about these two film titles.

I can smell a bad joke coming miles away. And this smells like sauerkraut, mixed with wallpaper paste, left in a musty attic.

We're at an iMPAAsse.

I've seen commercials advertising the special theatrical release of The King's Speech. It's not longer, it's not the director's cut, it doesn't have an additional scene after the credits. It's the PG-13 version.

The King's Speech is a great biopic. It's inspiring, it's powerful, it's historical, it's both lighthearted and deep. It's cinematic magic, and while it wasn't my choice for Best Picture for 2010, it should be made available to the widest audience possible.

Do you know why it was rated R in the first place? If you'll recall, there was no violence, there was no sex, no nudity, no thematic elements, and no drug use or alcohol abuse (save for some chain smoking and a scene where Guy Ritchie is determined to find the perfect bottle of wine.)

If you'll recall, there was one scene responsible for it's restricted rating. In a moment of frustration, Geoffrey Rush urges Colin Firth to belt out a cathartic tirade of expletives. The tirade is as follows:

"Fuck. Fuck! Fuck, fuck, fuck and fuck! Fuck, fuck and bugger! Bugger, bugger, buggerty buggerty buggerty, fuck, fuck, arse! Balls, balls, fuckity, shit, shit, fuck and willy. Willy, shit and fuck and... tits."

According to the MPAA, this is naughty language that can only be exposed to adults. According to my sources, the edited version is as follows, and perfectly suited for all ages:

"Shit. Shit! Shit, shit, shit and shit! Shit, shit and bugger! Bugger, bugger, buggerty buggerty buggerty, shit, shit, arse! Balls, balls, shitty, shit, shit, fuck and willy. Willy, shit and fuck and... tits."

Hearing the word "Fuck" thirteen times in swift succession is dangerous to malleable young minds. Hearing it twice is perfectly fine. Of course, this is twice as many times normally allowed. Under normal MPAA guidelines, a film may say "Fuck" once and maintain a PG-13 rating. Clearly, the MPAA has a soft spot for Colin Firth's charming, British allure. Buggerty? Delightful!

Oh, and let's not forget "Shit." To the MPAA, that word is completely inconsequential. "Shit" and "Shoot" might as well be interchangeable (though not as verbs. That would be silly.)

Why do I take such personal issue with this? Does it have anything to do with my getting a three-day suspension in the 6th grade for saying "Shit" in a private conversation to a friend? No, not a bit. Clearly I hold no ill-regard towards the shit-eating language police and their goddamn, ass-backwards, cock-guzzling rules.

Fuck no. Not at all.

83rd Academy Award Nominations

Best Picture:
As I said before, 2010 wasn't a great year for movies. If you asked me a month ago which ten films were getting the nominations for best picture, I could have picked them. I'm not Nostradamus, it was just painfully obvious. I think everybody would have come to the same conclusion. Last year there were surprises like A Serious Man and District 9. We don't have anything like that this year. There were only two or three dark horses sitting in the wings, but if they somehow achieved the impossible and garnered a coveted nomination, I can't tell which of the ten final nominees would be bumped in their favor. This is a seriously conclusive final list, and while predictable, I can't really object to it.

Best Animated Feature:
This, however, was a surprise. Not a single person doubted Toy Story 3 and How to Train Your Dragon cinching up two of three nomination slots here. The mystery laid with who was lucky contender number 3. The poor, poor sap who would have to take home the 'Participant' trophy in the most heated competition since Shrek went up against Monsters Inc. (And yes, I still claim How to Train Your Dragon has a chance of winning.)

Everybody thought it was going to be Despicable Me, and I was readying aspirin for such a conclusion. Despicable Me is such an obnoxious movie. Everything from the character design, to the hackneyed story, to the clumsy animation, to those stupid little minion things which are being slapped on products left and right as if we're still going to remotely care about them in five years. It's just awful.

Then Tangled came out. It was a typical by-the-books Disney story, but the animation was so graceful, so expressive, so immersive, it was a shot of adrenaline in the flatlining CGI animation genre. It was a serious contender.

But I always forget: Animators nominate the animated movies. And there's nothing animators like better than seeing their craft treated like royalty. Stuff like Persepolis and the Secret of Kells always have a way of muscling in over "Animals Go on an Adventure 3 in 3D." As such, I really should have guessed The Illusionist was getting the third nomination.

Doesn't matter, though. It's still not winning.

Art Direction:
I wasn't expecting Scott Pilgrim to get a nomination for anything, but it would have been nice to see him here. But no sour grapes; I can't complain about any of the five nominations. They're all expressive, all unique, all immersive. Even Alice in Wonderland. Despite it being horrifically overrated and even moreso unnecessary, it's dripping with Tim Burton's stylistic, gothic charm. It's actually the only good thing about the film. But... I'm bitter and spiteful, and I'm rooting for any of the other four films nominated.

Best Documentary (Feature Length):
What the hell?! I've... I've heard of these films. All five of them. I haven't seen them, but I've heard of them. That's... that's not supposed to happen! They're supposed to have one single documentary everybody's heard of and four films that were screened once in a private gallery 20 miles below Tribeca. What is going on with the world!?

Makeup:
Wolfman? Really?

Sound Mixing:
Salt? Really?

Visual Effects:
Hereafter? Really?

Directing:
Christopher Nolan was robbed for a nomination, but that's par for the course, innit? It's always the film nominated, and never the director. It's as if Auteur Theory runs perpendicular to the AMPAS. Kubrick never won. Hitchcock never won. Godard never won. Bergman, Lynch, Tarantino, and Altman never won. But Kevin Costner and Mel Gibson both won.

In conclusion, there are the basic flaws with the Oscar nominations, but nothing too grievous. Just the same problems we have every year. It's a very middle-of-the-road year. I can't get ecstatic, but I'm not foaming at the mouth.

I only have one thing to say, and I am dead serious about this: The last two years, the four acting categories have been preceded by five actors, each giving lengthy, bland speeches about the five nominees in each category. That's twenty speeches per broadcast, each delivered with the same enthusiasm that a fifth grade gives at a Thanksgiving pageant.

Given the choice between hearing the nominated scores and original songs being performed and hearing these speeches, I would rather hear the songs/scores twice. I would rather watch more commercials than see these speeches. We have to stop this pointless endeavour. It's long, it's boring, it's unnecessary padding, it kills the momentum, it forces out time for recognition in the other categories, and it's masturbatory.

Stop. Doing. This!

Cat Scratch Fever

Christopher Nolan announced several casting decisions earlier today concerning his next project, "The Dark Knight Returns." The heavily-awaited sequel to The Dark Knight has been the focus of much speculation by the fans.

Clayface was an early contender for the next featured villain; his character's backstory and subsequent struggles with identity and humanity seem right up Nolan's alley. However, Nolan was quick to dismiss these rumors. Nolan's Batman universe is cemented in realism. Fantastical elements (such as a walking, talking, shapeshifting pile of goo) will never be part of the franchise.

The Riddler was also an early speculated fan-favorite. Mere weeks after The Dark Knight came out, photoshopped images and posters flooded the net. Such images proffered casting possibilities ranging from Neil Patrick Harris to Johnny Depp to Joseph Gordon-Levitt. It's the same sort of badgering and mouth-foaming fandom that was responsible for Venom being shoehorned into Spider-Man 3, so I thank Christopher Nolan from the bottom of my heart for not succumbing to fanbase peer pressure.

Instead, Nolan has decided on Tom Hardy to play the super-strong, steroid-allegory Bane. The web is now full of film fans pretending they know Tom Hardy from any role other than Eames in Inception. Bane was previously featured in the 1997 movie Batman and Robin, and I don't need to say anything else about that.

Also announced: Anne Hathaway as Catwoman, the professional cat burglar, sometimes adversary, sometimes ally, sometimes love-interest of both Bruce Wayne and Batman. I have not heard more nerds whining about such a trivial issue since Roger Ebert claimed video games weren't art.

Here are five reasons why the Anne Hathaway rage is unfounded:

1) You nerds will never be fucking happy.

In Batman Begins, nerds were complaining about Katie Holmes' portrayal of Rachel Dawes. They claimed her acting was wooden, stilted, and the worst part of the movie.

In The Dark Knight, nerds were complaining that Maggie Gyllenhaal's portrayal was lackluster and whiny, and she wasn't attractive to play Rachel. (Can someone please explain to me how and why nerds on the IMDB Message Boards have such ridiculously high standards?)

Now, before Anne Hathaway has even received a copy of the script, everyone is claiming she is all wrong for the role of Selina Kyle. I claim there is not a single actress in Hollywood that will ever satiate the whining masses. So it's a moot point at best.

In all fairness, past Catwomen have set the bar unreasonably high.

2) Anne Hathaway is not a terrible actress.

Granted, Anne's filmography is nothing to write home about. There's a bunch of formulaic romances, and a couple of quick paychecks, but it's still a damn fine resume. And let's be honest with ourselves; this isn't some prestigious, artistic, era defining piece of cinematic mastery. This is Batman. A man in a leather suit beating people up for two hours. It's the man's equivalent of the chick flick. Anne Hathaway not moving backwards or forwards with her career, she's moving laterally. Anne Hathaway is not someone randomly pulled off the streets; she is an acceptable choice for the role.

Besides, even though she's made some questionable decisions, she's also made some very good movies. She has an Oscar nomination for God's sake! Watch Rachel Getting Married, watch Brokeback Mountain, watch The Other Side of Heaven. Stop posting images of The Princess Diaries, and give credit where credit's due.

I'll double check, but I don't think Eartha Kitt's available...

3) Catwoman is not a sacred icon.

Halle Berry completely fucked up Catwoman. So did everyone else involved with that movie, but I don't care enough to look up their names, so Berry's getting all the blame from me. Anne Hathaway cannot possibly do anything worse to the character than what Halle Berry did.

Despite that cinematic embarrassment, Catwoman is not a particularly respected or feared member of Batman's rogue gallery. Her greatest asset is being the rare female adversary, but her popularity is nowhere near Harley Quinn's and Poison Ivy's. There is nowhere for Catwoman to go but up.

Egyptians worshiped cats. Maybe they were on to something...

4) Christopher Nolan knows what the fuck he's doing.

After Joel Schumacher razed, burned, and salted the Earth, nobody thought Batman could be saved. Or at least, he'd never be taken seriously again. But Christopher Nolan made Batman Begins and proved everyone wrong.

Nobody thought a superhero movie could be considered great cinema. That even the best superhero film would be just another popcorn flick. But Christopher Nolan made The Dark Knight and proved everyone wrong.

Christopher Nolan has made six of the best films of all time, and he has only made six films. Give the man the benefit of the doubt.

To Christopher, Thanks For Everything! - Julie Newmar

5) There is no possible way you are not seeing this film.

Really? Are you really claiming Anne Hathaway's casting bothers you? As if there was any possible reason you would not see this film on opening day?

It's the sequel to The Dark Knight. It could be five minutes long and made entirely with finger puppets; you would still see it. We know you better than you know yourselves.

Stop your bitching and go eat a Hot Pocket. The Batman franchise is fine.

You're getting awfully worked up for someone whose whole gimmick is cat puns.

Top Ten of Twenty Ten

Let's be honest with ourselves; 2010 was not a great year for movies. There was a lot of crap, a lot of disappointments, and a lot of forgettable meh. There were a few choice nuggets, though. There are every year. You just have to keep looking, keep watching, and keep sacrificing farm animals to the Gods of Cinema.

Before we begin, let me give out an honorary award I hope to make a regular tradition: The "It Wasn't THAT Bad" award. This is a special endowment I bestow upon a film that I feel was unfairly and unfortunately maligned by both critics and audiences. A special prize for one film that may not receive recognition in my top ten, but deserves more recognition than it got. The guilty pleasure, if you will. This year, that film is MacGruber.

Honorary Award: MacGruber
"If ripping throats gets that warhead back, I'll suck as many dicks as I've go— I'll rip as many throats as I have to!"

It Wasn't THAT Bad

MacGruber is a feature-length adaptation of the popular Saturday Night Live sketch, which explains a good portion of why people ignored it. MacGruber is a pastiche and parody of MacGyver and other action shows from the 80's. I laughed my ass off at this movie, honestly believing it to be the next big, raunchy comedy. The type unfunny people would quote out of context until I stab them in the throat with a Bic pen.

But no. No one saw MacGruber. Granted, it's not a masterpiece of filmmaking, but with certain comedies like this, you let storytelling fall by the wayside in exchange for laugh riots. A bad movie that's funny is not a bad movie.

I read several reviews for the movie, and they all seem to reach the same basic consensus: MacGruber was low-grade humor coupled with a nostalgia for a desirably forgotten era. Normally, I'd let that go. Who cares what critics say anymore? There was just one minor detail; Macgruber was not the only raunchy, lowest-common-denominator comedy brimming with 80's nostalgia. There was a second: Hot Tub Time Machine.

MacGruber barely made a blip on the radar. Hot Tub Time Machine opened to generally favorable reviews and a number-one weekend. I saw both films. MacGruber was funny. Hot Tub Time Machine was stupid and painful. There was a Michael Jackson joke. A joke they deemed so funny, they decided to use it in the trailer. Hackneyed comedy writers of America, hear me: Michael Jackson is dead. It's time to move on. Anybody who says MacGruber was bad and Hot Tub Time Machine was good has no business making assertions on any subject.

I guarantee Comedy Central will pick up the broadcast rights for MacGruber fairly soon, but a TV edit will not do the film justice. They went for a hard R, and it was well-earned. Like I said, MacGruber is not a great film. It's not in my top ten, and was never even the running, but the general wackiness is on par with Hot Shots and Austin Powers. And for a comedy, that's all you need.

Now on with the countdown:

"The rumors of my promiscuity have been greatly exaggerated. "
10) Easy A


When seeing movies outside of my demographic, I get paranoid. Walking into the theater, I always imagine one person is staring at me wondering if whether I'm in the wrong theater or if I'm some sort of pervert. Easy A was one of those experiences. I wasn't looking for a sleeper hit; I was completely bored and I needed a laugh. I probably would have skipped over it altogether since The Scarlet Letter was never a favorite book of mine, but I gave it the benefit of the doubt because I'm a sucker for postmodern interpretations.

The whole film examines the hypocrisy of sexuality in the modern world, especially at the teenage level. Supposedly, everything about sex is all right except for the actuality of women having sex. We've inadvertently created a society where a woman's ultimate goal is to be a sixteen year-old cocktease. Our hero, Olive doesn't ask to be thrust into the position of America's sexual liberator, but some people just have leadership thrust upon them. At times she treats it as a genuine crusade, other times a satirical expose, and sometimes, she just throws her hands up and declares, 'if you're going to villanize me, I'm going to be a fucking villain!'

My main grievance with the movie is the very puffy Amanda Bynes. Her appearance is an automatic point deduction. Also, there's a subplot involving Lisa Kudrow and Thomas Hayden Church that doesn't really percolate and just distracts from the story at hand. In the end though, I liked the movie. It was funny, it was genuine, and it was smart. Hell, it was even genius in some places. An overall enjoyable experience, even if it did mean attracting a roomful of gazes from wary teenagers.


"I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving, hysterical, naked, dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix."
9) Howl


I'm no phony, so I will admit my intellectual shortcomings instead of masking them in a mound of BS. I've never read a word of Allen Ginsburg in my life. You see that quote up there? They Might Be Giants used the first half of that quote in their song "I Should Be Allowed to Think," and I thought they were geniuses for that. Even months after seeing Howl, I haven't read a word. I'm terrible like that, but at least I'm honest. Also, no one looks good wearing a Tyrolean, and Pabst Blue Ribbon is terrible.

Howl is the historical narrative of beatnik poet and 60's countercultural icon Allen Ginsburg. Specifically, the film details the impact the titular epic poem, both its intended audience and the easily offendable. The film jumps across time showing Allen Ginsburg (played expertly by James Franco) narrating his life to a biographer, living life as a beatnik, writing Howl, debuting his poem in San Francisco, and defending it in an obscenity hearing.

The crowning achievement, however, is the animation. Roughly 40% of Howl is an animated recitation of the poem, breathing life and vivid imagery into the work that normally only manifests in the subconscious mind of the literati. To see the twisted, vivacious images of a man's imagination manifested into visual form is nothing short of amazing. It does to poetry what Fantasia did to music.

James Franco has proved himself to be one of the finest actors of our generation. He feels no shame appearing in Apatow productions, and can bring it in prestige pictures. Wherever Franco is heading, keep an eye on him. He's huge now, and he's just going to keep getting bigger.


"Which would be worse, to live as a monster or to die as a good man?"
8) Shutter Island


An equal mix of Alfred Hitchcock thriller and David Fincher mystery, Shutter Island was the first great film of 2010, and was the only great film for several months after.

Based on a book nobody's ever heard of, Shutter Island is the story of US Marshall Teddy Daniels investigating the disappearance of a patient at the Ashecliffe Hospital for the criminally insane. Which is on an island. With a shutter, apparently. The further Teddy investigates, the more he discovers about about the staff, the patients, and the nature of experiments performed. Soon, he fears for his own safety and sanity as the mystery begins to engulf him.

I can't do the story justice in written word, especially the climax. The revelation and withholding of information makes the film what it is. Many chide director Martin Scorsese for making a film so much in contrast with his previous works; to them, I say shut up. Martin Scorsese can make whatever film he Goddamn wants to make. This was an excellent film, and is right up there among his "more prestigious" works. Let the man have some fun once in a while. He'll get back to gritty crime dramas accenting the dual nature of New York City soon enough. The film also features memorable roles by Jackie Earle Haley and Max Von Sydow, two of my favorite actors. Shutter Island isn't a horror story in the traditional sense, but every time these two are onscreen, you get chills up your spine.

Shutter Island is one of those films that is better upon repeat viewings. Upon the first watch, you accept everything at face value, waiting for each turn. On each subsequent viewing, you acknowledge the turns, but try to interpret why they're happening, who is responsible for them, and what it all means on the grand scale. With every scene and every image, you have to decide whether this is part of the grand experiment, part of Teddy's distorted psyche, part of the day-to-day madness of the asylum, or just a freak coincidence. With these open interpretations, you could watch the film a hundred times, and never see the same film twice. Infinite re-playability is normally something I look for in a video game, but if a movie offers it as well, I'll accept it.

Also, this is a totally over-the-top, but "Who Is Sixty-Seven" is an anagram for "Its Noises Vex, Why?"


"You ever noticed how you let a Mexican into your house just because he's got gardening tools? No questions asked, you just let him right in. He could have a chainsaw."
7) Machete


And now I talk about a big man with a big knife.

Machete, if you don't remember, was one of four faux-trailers which ran alongside 2007's Grindhouse double feature. It was a joke. Just like the rest of Grindhouse, it was completely over-the-top and ridiculous. But shortly sometime after its commencement, Robert Rodriguez looked at it and decided 'you know, I really want to make this movie.'

Danny Trejo is a badass motherfucker. That's all that needs to be said. There's no comparing him to other badass actors, no listing reasons he's awesome, no hyperbolic jokes about his feats of strength. You just take one look at the man, and you quake in fear. And he never sold Bowflex.

Let me ask one thing... Lindsay Lohan? I mean, really? What the hell? I don't like Jessica Alba either, but at least her character is essential to the story. Lindsay Lohan's entire role in the movie consists of sassing people who probably want to punch her in the face, getting hopped up on a load of drugs, making voyeuristic lesbian porn, waking up naked in the middle of nowhere, and putting on a silly costume. Come to think of it, did she even realize the cameras were rolling? That sounds like a normal day for Lohan. The icing on the cake, however, is her participating in the final showdown despite not being involved with any of the preceding events or characters leading up to this climax. She's firing an automatic weapon at a group of people she's never even seen before. How did she even choose sides? She doesn't ruin the film, but I'd love to see a special edition Lohanless version.

Machete is awesome in two regards: First, it's a continuation of Rodriguez's trademark no-holds-barred action style. Blood, violence, more blood, guns, knives, and lots more blood. In the first fifteen minutes, Machete rappels with some guy's intestines.

Second (and here's the political part), the film is a shot in the arm for the long forgotten exploitation genre. While normal films try to bank on celebrities, stories, or other normal subject matter, exploitation films try to entice audiences with the promise of seeing something taboo, lurid or controversial. Blaxploitation films were big in the 70's featuring urban African Americans overcoming Whitey with violence and cunning. Machete is in the same vein, but with Mexicans and Mexican Americans.

The sheer exaggeration of the anti-immigration themes is both hilarious and thought-provoking. Neither side is right in this scenario; we can't just allow everybody to cross our borders, but we can't turn the border into a demilitarized zone. But everyone has an opinion on why the other guy is wrong. By making the Mexicans a lethal, bloodthirsty alliance and the rich white Texans completely demonic, we get to step back from out prejudices and predilections. We are no longer parts of the immigration debate, but outside observers. We're no longer burdened by previous affiliations.

That's good satire.


"Fuck this shit, I'm getting the bazooka!"
6) Kick Ass


I loves me a good superhero movie. To my dismay, I didn't get it with Iron Man 2. And I sure as shit didn't get it with Jonah Hex. But luckily the good men and women of the indie circuit know how to get things done. I have no idea how they get it done, but I'm happy they get it done.

Kick Ass is the story of Dave Lizewski, typical geek, comic book aficionado and haircut procrastinator. Wondering why superheroes are delegated to the realm of fiction, Dave buys a neon green wetsuit, a pair of nightsticks, and introduces the world to "Kick Ass." Then Dave gets his ass kicked and immediately learns why superheroes are delegated to the realm of fiction.

Kick Ass masterfully balances comedy, black comedy, and action. There are pure wacky bits, bloody fights, scenes of torture, and people just plain having fun with weapons. Christopher Mintz-Plasse proved there is life after McLovin, Nicholas Cage is the good version of Nicholas Cage, and Chloe Moretz plays the best damn character of 2010. She will have a long and awesome career.

A lot of people dislike the abundant amount of brutal violence Kick Ass has to offer, completely missing the point. The point is: being a super hero is really stupid. You can do a million push ups every day of your life, but if two guys come at you with a knife, you're boned. Of course you're going to wind up tied to a chair with some guido bashing your kneecaps with a baseball bat. He's a professional muscleman. You're a kid who reads comic books.

No matter how much Christopher Nolan made Batman seem realistic, Kick Ass is as realistic as a superhero movie gets (minus the whole jet pack/minigun thing). Until scientists invent magic, you cannot be a superhero. It's impractical, infeasible, and traditional criminals will end you with conventional means. Your only hopes will be the element of surprise, and pure, unadulterated luck. But hey, it's just a movie. Nobody's dumb enough to try something in real life they've seen in a movie or on TV, right?


" You just headbutted my boyfriend so hard he burst!"
5) Scott Pilgrim Vs The World


This year, I received a lot of great gifts for Christmas, but Santa was outdone by my sister. She gifted me the entire Scott Pilgrim collection. In a fury of literacy not demonstrated since I discovered the library's Mad Magazine back catalog, I powered through all six volumes. I'll release a side-by-side comparison some day, but for now, let's stick solely to why the movie is awesome.

There are movies made for the digital generation, and there are movies for the digital generation. The difference being the former is an actual representation of the target audience, and the latter is some guy in a suit saying, "look, there are sexy teens doing what regular teens do. Buy a ticket dammit." Scott pilgrim is the former.

Right when the film began and Scott announced the name of one of his songs was 'Launchpad McQuack,' I knew this was as authentic as movies would get. We are a generation reared on computers, video games, MTV and caffeine, and we won't sit still for fluff and pandering. Anime has always been a thing, and homosexuality has always been an accepted lifestyle, and the movie behaves as such.

This movie is just over-the-top in mis-en-scene and ridiculous verisimilitude (I have a BA in film, remember?) This movie is so far gone from reality, it circles back around and passes it up again. It moves like a cartoon, looks like a video game, feels like an anime, and ultimately creates a unique environment never before experienced by anyone. I loved every moment of it. It was polished to a gleam, and really showed the tenacity and dedication of the filmmakers. It's appearing on a lot of top ten lists, and while it's not a top contender for the Oscars, I would thoroughly enjoy a dark horse nomination for art direction. No other film will ever look or feel like this one, and we should appreciate that.

There are a few problems I have with it. Mostly Ramona-related. I never really believed her infatuation with Scott. She always seemed wooden, distant and cold. As if she never really loved Scott, but just dated him out of frustration/pity because she was tired of his relentless fawning. I've heard it described as Twilight for boys, and in this sense, that's accurate.

Every other cast member brings their A-game. I'd never associate Micahel Cera with a story like this, but lo and behold, the miracle of acting! Kieran Culkin steals every scene he's in. Mark Webber and Allison Pill nail their characters. Every one of the evil exes is different and memorable. Even Johnny Simmons stands out despite playing a character specifically designed to blend into the background.

It's a six-volume story crammed into two hours. Everything compliments either the preceding or succeeding scenes, the callbacks are well-timed, and while a lot was cut from the books, everything that stays is stronger. The ending is also much more satisfying. That being said, maybe it's for the better this film bombed. I'd much rather have it as a cult favorite rather than an international hit. Yeah. That's how I'm rationalizing it.


"And now the spinning. Thank you for nothing, you useless reptile."
4) How to Train Your Dragon


Dreamworks. The whipping boy of all internet movie commentators. Let me guess, another film about animals voiced by celebrities going on decidedly non-animal adventures while making puns? It was a big year for Dreamworks. A fourth Shrek movie, a totally-not-at-all-Incredibles-ripoff-just-another-movie-about-superheroes-with-existential-crises, and How to Train Your Dragon.

I was quick to give HTTYD the brush-off. I mean, come on, it's Dreamworks. I ignored the trailers. I ignored the hype. I even ignored the glowing critical reviews. But then a weird thing started happening: I didn't hear anybody say a bad thing about it. Everybody loved it. Still, I was apprehensive. I waited for the film to migrate from the multiplex to the dollar show, and I saw it there. It was a crowded half-theater that smelled like stale nacho cheese (just as I remembered it), but holy hell. How to Train Your Dragon is the finest thing Dreamworks Animation has ever done.

Even without 3D, the film was a visual spectacle. It was the type of immersive environment filmmakers have forgotten how to create. It's not enough to show us things in 3D, you have to make us feel as if we're part of that world. 3D is just a gimmick; it's the effect you're after. To achieve that without the big plastic glasses is a true signal of animation excellence.

Plus, you know, vikings. That's always an extra point from me.

You know, I just realized how many similarities HTTYD has to Kick Ass. Both films star a young, nebbish hero trying to prove his might. Both films feature a young blonde girl who kicks everyone's ass. Both feature a large, mustached, muscular father-figure who indoctrinates their child with the importance of fighting, and both films star Christopher Mintz-Plasse.

Maybe Dreamworks has turned a corner. Maybe after making lowest-common-denominator films for a decade, they've proven heir stability. They're no longer standing in Pixar's shadow, but their worthy competitor. Maybe the days of epic animation are among us, retiring the cocked-eyebrow, half-smile plague that has... Ah, who am I kidding. Dreamworks got lucky. Cocked-eyebrow, half-smiling animals making puns is all they got.
++++++++++++++++++++++

Before I get to my top three, I have another honorary award to give: The "I'm an Idiot" award. This award goes to the film I most wanted to see this year, but due to limited releases, missed opportunities, and (mostly) my own sheer incompetence, I never managed to see. This year, I award the honor to Buried.

Honorary Award: Buried
"Oh no, I've been Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuried!" (this quote may not actually appear in the film)

I'm An Idiot

Buried is (apparently) the story of Paul Conroy, an American contractor working in Iraq, who is ambushed, kidnapped, and wakes up in a coffin, buried alive. At his disposal is a cell phone with abnormally grand reception, a lighter, and his own wits.

I really wanted to see this. Ryan Reynolds is awesome when he's not in some formulaic romcom, and his ability to carry a scene coupled with the intense plot made for an interesting premise. I saw the poster at my local megaplex, and I checked the theater listings weekly to see if it was playing. A few weeks passed, then a few more weeks passed, then months passed, and I learned something: My local megeplex fucking lies about what movies they're getting.

Whether or not Buried was ever released in St. Louis, I may never know. Despite it's American cast and English dialogue, it was a Spanish film released on the indie circuit. And out in the midwest, getting anything from the indie circuit is a craps shoot. Still, it wouldn't have hurt me to check one other theater.

Congratulations, Buried. I am an idiot.


"...Oops"
3) 127 Hours


Aron Ralston is a badass. I mean this to the fullest extent. He's the stuff of legend. In my eyes, he's right up there with Pecos Bill and John Henry. As such, his biopic would also have to be the stuff of legends.

Unfortunately, his story consists of a man being trapped under a rock for five days. Which normally does not make for good cinema.

But just as Danny Boyle made "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" into a Bollywood picture, he does the impossible again. He made a film from the unfilmable. James Franco again proves his awesomeness with an A-Plus portrayal. I not only expect Franco to be nominated at the Oscars for this role, I expect him to win. His portrayal hits all the great acting apexes. Doubt, paranoia, fear, psychosis, insecurity, emotional pain, physical pain, longing, and lust. It redeems whatever the hell he was doing in the Spider-Man movies.

I was nervous going in that the climax was going to be a high-class version of Hostel. And, in a way, it was. The scene in question is very graphic and very disturbing. However, the masterful filmmaking by everyone involved makes it absolutely worthwhile. Throughout the movie, it's hinted that Aron's arm is going to have to come off. It's inevitable. By the time the scene in question rolls around, you NEED to that arm come off. If not, you will be grossly dissatisfied. Or dissatisfied by the grossness. One of the two.

The film is a masterpiece of 21st century editing. It knows when to go fast, and it knows when to linger. Parts seem like a music video, parts seem like a Vlog, and parts seem like the nightmare of a man who fell asleep watching TV commercials. Despite 85% of the film taking place in a narrow crevice, it never gets old, never gets boring, never gets dull. One word of warning: before watching, get yourself a very large beverage. Dehydration is a major theme, and they milk it for all its worth.


"We lived in farms, then we lived in cities, and now we're going to live on the internet."
2) The Social Network


This is not the Facebook movie. This is a movie about the man who created Facebook. Saying this is a movie about Facebook is like calling Citizen Kane a movie about newspapers. And in a way, The Social Network is a modern day version of Citizen Kane. A man rises from nothingness, has an idea to change the world, employs it successfully, gets filthy stinking rich, gets corrupted by power, alienates everyone around him, and ultimately is haunted by the memory of a simple desire from their former lives.

How ironic, the man who created one of the great innovations in communication, socializing, and communication could be such a recluse. For years, I just assumed Zuckerberg was a typical computer programmer compiling acronyms and abbreviations amongst random brackets and parentheses in some dimly lit basement somewhere. But no, he's a fucking genius, creatively and technically. That's what this movie does best: give us the real skinny on Zuckerberg... To a degree. Read any sort of review or examination, and you discover The Social Network is historically accurate as anything Hollywood does. While I'll always welcome an Aaron Sorkin script, his banter and dialogue greatly affects the our hero's character.

Case in point: what is the one thing that solidifies a geek, nerd, or loser? Not their interests, their physical image, their manner of dress or their intelligence. No, the societal rejects of the world are first and foremost cast aside due to their poor social skills. Their inability to communicate, to enunciate, to be confident, to befriend those around them and act civil. Have you ever read an article about moot? Yeah, he acts like the guy would moderate 4Chan. Zuckerberg in the movie is throwing quips left and right, turning phrases at a moment's notice, and always being one step ahead of everybody. Zuckerberg in real life probably acts like me.

But just as we don't expect Citizen Kane to be the William Randolph Hearst story, we let this deification of our central character slide under the radar. It's all for the better, anyway. This is the heavy favorite to win Best Picture at the Oscars. And I can see that. It's paced well, the dialogue is fun, the score is modern and energetic, the actors were top-notch, and it's topical, yet timeless. It's a near perfect film, but there's still one film from 2010 I like slightly better.


"Dreams feel real while we're in them. It's only when we wake up that we realize something was actually strange."
1) Inception


BWOOOOOOOOM!

Okay, that's outta my system.

Inception is indeed my favorite film of the year. When I first saw the trailer, I had no idea what the film was about. I was floored by the spectacular visuals and the trippy scenery. When trying to hype up my sister, I couldn't form words. I just showed her the exact same trailer, and she was hooked.

Inception does what any good Sci-Fi film should; it creates an entire universe that seems grander and more complex than just a single film. Going in, you know nothing about inceptions, extractions, or dream sharing, but coming out, you know everything as if it were common knowledge. On top of that, it's also a psychological thriller, a mystery, and has one of the most debatable ambiguous endings since Blade Runner.

Half of the complaints I heard were viewers didn't understand what was going on; that the science and techniques were under-explained or glossed over. By contrast, the other half of the complainers claimed the movie spent too much time explaining things; that exposition and pandering comprised a majority of the dialogue, and the screenwriter didn't respect the audience's intelligence. Well which is it? Did they explain too much or not enough? Either way, I understood what was going on and never felt confused, bored or insulted, so I must be among the smartest people who saw the film. Go me!

The cast was good despite no outstanding single performance. Marion Cotillard is getting a lot of buzz, but really, I didn't think she was anything special. If anything, I liked her least. It was an ensemble cast, and that's what I remember; the ensemble. The single greatest aspect of the film was the score. I have never seen a score work so well with its accompanying visuals. There is some serious Godel-Escher-Bach science going on here. I've read articles and watched videos detailing the fine details involved, and I'm certain no one without an advanced degree in mathematics could understand everything going on. Hans Zimmer not only deserves the Oscar for best composition, but also a Grammy, an AMA, the Fields Medal and the Stanley Cup.

The special effects were breathtaking. In today's SFX-laden world, I get frequently misanthropic. Everything has to be done with a computer, and everything winds up looking like it was done with a computer. Either no one knows what reality looks like anymore, or we've collectively written a new version of The Emperor's New Clothes. Christopher Nolan is going to save cinema from itself. Greenscreens and Chromakey are the cancer that is killing film. We've become so reliant on computer graphics and animation, nobody knows how to make a film without them anymore (J'accuse, CGI gopher!) Christopher Nolan employs classic analog effects, trick camerawork, clever editing, set design, models, and traditional stuntwork to create the necessary effects, and only uses computers for the truly impossible, IE a city block folding over on itself. And when he does visit the well, he is able to hide the fakiness by not thrusting it into the foreground. It looks *shocker* real!