The Bourne Legacy (2012)

Pales in comparison to the other Bourne films

I'm a fan of the Bourne series so I had high hopes for this film despite the absence of Jason Bourne/Matt Damon. Unfortunately, while the movie had some appealing elements it fails to manage them properly.

The biggest problem is the exceedingly slow start to the film. It takes an intolerably long time to get the main plot going; there's too much unnecessary exposition and too many superfluous "look how cool our hero is" action sequences. Furthermore, the best thing about the film is the genuine chemistry between Weisz and Renner, two very talented actors I'd like to see together again in a better vehicle. I'm amazed that the filmmakers could be so blind as to the appeal of the two leads that they let the movie meander for something like a third of its length before bringing them together.

Other problems include the lack of any genuine opposition for Aaron Cross (Renner). A supposedly superior assassin is eventually sent after him, but much too late and with too little character development or screen time. Compare that to Karl Urban's genuinely menacing turn in The Bourne Ultimatum.

Along the same lines, Edward Norton is miscast as the chief spook chasing Cross. He's too young (despite the obviously-artificial grey in his hair) to bring the needed gravitas to the role. Again, I couldn't help comparing him unfavourably to similar Bourne antagonists such as Chris Cooper, Brian Cox, and David Strathairn, all of whom had the necessary lined faces and weight of years to sell the idea that they're men who've given their lives--and souls--to a series of dirty jobs in the service of their country, and are therefore willing to cross any moral line, including coldly sentencing their own agents to death.

Finally, as I watched the film, and despite the aforementioned charisma of the two leads, I found myself growing tired of yet another variation of the action hero/damsel in distress trope. I couldn't help thinking what a more interesting movie this would have been if the roles had been reversed--if Weisz had been the uber-capable agent and Renner was the fish-out-of-water scientist reluctantly helping her. Someday, perhaps...

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013)

A rarity: A sequel that surpasses its predecessor

I can probably count on one hand the number of times this has happened. The precedent that this reminds me of, however, is Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back. We get more character development, more complexity, and as a result, a richer fictional world. All the while, the film ratchets up the tension, building to a big ending with a twist reveal and the inevitable mid-trilogy cliffhanger.

There are great performances from everyone, but especially from Jennifer Lawrence and Donald Sutherland, whose few incredibly tense scenes together are a highlight. (I also loved the scenes of President Snow at home, where we are shown that his harshness is borne out of fear and the sense that his entire world is slipping away because of the actions of this lone young woman.)

Assuming that the creative team can keep this going, the final chapter should be terrific.

Thor: The Dark World (2013)

Good for action, but lacking the emotional depth of the first film

Thor: The Dark World has a lot going for it: charismatic leads, strong supporting characters, lots of great action sequences, and a straightforward story. It's entertaining and is a decent, solid entry in Marvel's cinematic universe.

But it could have been so much more. I see in this movie yet more evidence of a troubling habit in Hollywood action films: cutting vital character moments for the sake of inserting more action.

The emotional underpinning of the first Thor film was the title character's growing maturity and redemption. In its follow-up, the heart of the film should have been Thor and Jane's growing romance. In particular, we had the opportunity for a compelling love triangle (Thor-Jane-Sif) that would underscore the differences between Asgard and Earth, between making the safe, obvious choice (Sif, the practically-immortal warrior maiden) and the hard, risky one (Jane, the vulnerable, short-lived human). But aside from a few seemingly throwaway lines that hinted at what could have been a much better story, we get none of this. This is a problem, because what is it that's driving Thor in this movie? It's his quest to save the woman he loves, even if it means betraying the realm where he grew up and is destined to rule. At least it's supposed to be, but we never get more than token acknowledgement of Thor's inner struggle--unlike the first film.

Instead, what we do get is a pretty standard action movie: seemingly unstoppable bad guys; the stalwart good guy and his spunky love interest; their quirky helpers; clever one-liners; and, of course, action, action, special effects, action. It all holds together well enough, but the first Thor movie had so much more of an emotional foundation. This one feels rushed, as though several important (quiet, emotional) scenes are missing. Apparently some of those will show up on the DVD; I certainly hope so.

Marvel should learn not to be afraid of making its movies a little longer. Thor, with his basis in mythology, deserves a big, epic canvas, and if it takes an extra 10-20 minutes or more of screen time to fit in the whole story, then so be it.

The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones (2013)

Nice try, but disappointing

My wife and I saw The Mortal Instruments together. She has read the books, I haven't. Our take on the film was nevertheless similar: so close, yet so far.

The film had many things going for it. The cast for one, a mix of impressive young talent (Collins, Bower, West, and Sheehan) and stalwart veterans (Hodge, Rhys Meyers, Pounder, and the always-impressive Lena Headey). The visuals are striking, the effects seamless, the fight scenes combining just the right mixture of battle ballet and visceral desperation.

But in many ways this is a film without focus and without heart. It's obvious that the world built in the novels is one of rich complexity, and it's understandably a challenge to squeeze that into a film. The best solution, usually, is to selectively pare away the gild to get to the heart of the story. In The Mortal Instruments, however, the filmmakers were too reluctant to let things go. As a result, we get too much world-building, back-story, and exposition--not to mention a lot of superfluous elements like warlocks, werewolves, and vampires--and not enough time spent for us to really care about these characters and what they're trying to achieve.

Speaking of which, just what were they trying to achieve? Find Carly's mom? Find the McGuffin, er, Mortal Cup? Kill demons, vampires, and other monsters in a cool way? There are too many goals, not enough focus on one of them. Couldn't the screenwriters have combined all these things into one big quest rather than making them seem so randomly connected, if at all?

A bigger problem is the inadequacy of the villain. Anyone will tell you that in an action/adventure story, a hero can only be as good as the villain he/she is facing. Rhys Meyer's Valentine, however, only gets a brief couple of mentions early in the film and isn't a factor until very, very late. He's not there throughout the story, thwarting our heroes nor subtly manipulating them like he should be. This means we're not that emotionally invested in the big final battle against him.

In the end, The Mortal Instruments ends up looking like a pale imitation of Buffy the Vampire Slayer (the exceptional TV series, not the so-so film). More humour, better character development, and a more imposing Big Bad--all hallmarks of BtVS--would have made this a much better film. And according to my wife, the books have all that and more, which makes it all the more disappointing that the film lacks these crucial elements.

Still better than Twilight, though. (But that's not much of a competition.)

Man of Steel (2013)

So much promise in the 1st half squandered in the 2nd half

After watching this film I can only conclude that Zack Snyder and Christopher Nolan watched The Avengers and came away with entirely the wrong idea as to why that movie worked so well.

Man of Steel had so much going for it, so it's disappointing that it fails to live up to its own promise. The first half of the movie is in many ways the best Superman film I've ever seen, and that's saying something, since I'm inevitably comparing it to the '78 Donner/Reeve classic. Man of Steel features some new, original twists on the Superman mythos and a refreshingly non-linear structure to the inevitable origin story. There's a lot of character development, and not just of Clark Kent--Lois Lane and Jonathan Kent also get their due. The cast is very talented and it shows.

Sadly, the film starts to fall apart in the second, action-packed half. Not entirely, mind you; there are moments that show how a much better movie could have shone through. Secondary characters like Perry White, Dr. Emil Hamilton, and Col. Nathan Hardy all get moments of heroism. This fits with what both of Kal-El's fathers have said before this, that he will inspire others by his example.

But the over-the-top destruction ultimately detracts from what the movie should be all about. Superman is a HERO. That means his primary concern is not just defeating the bad guy, but protecting innocent lives.

Again, think back to the Avengers. For all the pyrotechnics and cool fight scenes at the end, that movie emphasized over and over again that the heroes are primarily concerned with protecting "civilians". Us, in other words. "We keep the fight focused on us," Captain America tells the team, i.e. away from innocents. Iron Man nearly dies in the process. THIS is what makes them truly heroes. The public's adulation for them, shown in the film's end sequence, is justified.

The supposed "hero" of Man of Steel, however, aside from a couple of all-too infrequent and brief moments, seems to have little concern for innocent lives. Or perhaps it's more accurate to say that's the fault of the filmmakers. Buildings in Metropolis topple like so many sandcastles kicked over by bullies. News flash, Noland and Snyder: PEOPLE live and work in buildings, and your audience is well aware of this. I sat there thinking that the death toll had to be in the thousands if not hundreds of thousands.

And Superman, the ultimate comic book hero, never gets a chance to save those lives. Far worse, he's probably responsible for many of the deaths; he's far to willing to let his battles with his fellow Kryptonians wreak havoc in Smallville and Metropolis. I kept wondering why he didn't divert the fights to a sparsely-located mountain range or desert. Kryptonians tossing tree trunks and boulders at one another? Still spectacular, and it would have avoided the distraction of wondering how many bystanders were maimed or dying.

So ultimately, the problem with this movie and why it fails to truly capture the spirit of Superman is that the filmmakers never allow the hero to be one. They're too busy blowing things up real good, force-feeding the audience special effects eye candy, to bother living up to the premise of the film and of the character. Snyder and Nolan don't believe in heroes, they believe in production values.

So, nice try, once again, DC, but Marvel just keeps kicking your butt in the movie department.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009)

Too much action, too little character

Here's an irony for you: take one character out of a successful three-film franchise about a team of superheroes, put him in a film of his own... and he gets less character development than he did in any of the three previous films.

Apparently, the intention of producer Hugh Jackman and others with this film was to do more of a "character-driven" story. If that was their intention, they failed miserably. X-Men Origins: Wolverine suffers from far too little time spent developing character and, thereby, emotional resonance. Instead, we get an overdose of action. The problem is, when you don't care about the characters, you don't care about the outcome of the action very much, no matter how well-done those sequences are.

The opening title sequence, which shows Wolverine and Sabretooth fighting through over 100 years of war, is typical of this flick. Everything whizzes by so we can get to the next tidbit of eye candy. All the characters and their relationships are underdeveloped to the point of being caricatures. It's a shameful waste of talent, especially that of the two leads, Jackman and Schreiber.

This movie also commits a similar sin to that of the other recent X-Men movie (First Class): instead of focusing on the potentially-fascinating relationship between two leads, the filmmakers instead feel obliged to shoehorn in as many characters from the X-Men universe as possible. I suppose this is some attempt to court favour with the fans, but instead it just makes the movie worse; it takes time away from characters we should care about most, and leaves us with unsatisfying peeks at other characters who deserve more development.

Part of the fault lies with the very idea of trying to tell Wolverine's origin story. Anyone familiar with the character's long, convoluted back-story in the comics will tell you that there's just too much narrative to distill in a satisfactory fashion into a single movie. They would have been better off basing the film on Frank Miller's excellent Japan-based Wolverine mini-series, which leaves Wolvie's origins out of the narrative entirely. As I understand it, that's what they're doing for the next Wolverine movie, so I have hopes that it will turn out better. Then again, it couldn't be much worse than this noisy mess.

The Avengers (2012)

A movie that shouldn't work, but does--remarkably well

Full disclosure: I'm a big Joss Whedon fan. Buffy, Angel, Firefly, even his comic book efforts (Fray, Buffy Season 8)--I've loved them all. Even so, like any Whedon fan, I know he's capable of disappointing us (most of Buffy season 6, Titan A.E.), so I didn't approach this film without some reservations.

Even with the very talented Joss at the helm of this movie, you see, it still shouldn't work. Consider the following impediments: First, there are too many characters involved (six Avengers, three S.H.E.I.L.D. agents, and one villain, just for starters) to do justice to them all; Second, Whedon has really only been somewhat successful on television (Buffy, etc. had more of a "cult" audience rather than broad mainstream appeal) and less so on the big screen (Serenity was a flop); Third, in the finished product, there are a number of plot "conveniences" used (Thor is able to visit Earth despite the end of his own movie making that impossible, the Hulk suddenly gains control and is able to direct his rage, the alien invaders die when their mothership is destroyed, etc.) And yet, it all works, and works very well indeed. For that, I give credit mostly to Joss Whedon (surprise, surprise) who not only directed but also co-developed the story and wrote the screenplay, and also to the extremely talented cast.

As a long-time Whedon fan I can tell you that all the best things about his previous successes are evident here. The Avengers works because Whedon is extremely talented at writing for ensemble casts. Buffy, Angel, and Firefly worked BECAUSE each had a large cast, not in spite of that fact. It's the characters' relationships that matter, and the conflicts that arise between them even though they're on the same side. Thus, we get a fan-boy wet dream three-way fight between Thor, Iron Man, and Captain America early in the film that is completely logical. The tensions between the disparate members of this would-be team threaten to tear it apart--which is why the spectacular action finale is so rewarding, because it's the fulfilment of the desire we've had, as an audience, to see these characters come together. (The best moment in that final battle is a brilliantly-shot sequence that follows one Avenger to another as they work together to fight the alien invaders. It isn't just great action, it's the fulfilment of their collective characterization; the action has emotional heft, not just spectacular visuals.) While none of the characters really have a major arc (that would be too much to expect in a film that is, as I've asserted, fully loaded already), they do each get significant minor ones: Stark challenged by Cap to show that he can make a self-sacrificial play; Thor nobly, perhaps pathetically still trying to reach a remnant of goodness in his wayward brother; Black Widow struggling with the memory of atrocities she's committed; Nick Fury desperately looking for a way to make this dysfunctional group come together as a team; and so on.

And while we do get some early action sequences, the most rewarding scenes leading up to the big climax are, perhaps surprisingly in an superhero blockbuster, the character moments. As expected from Joss, we also get a lot of witty banter and great one-liners. But all of that is in service of building the characters and, more importantly, their relationships with one another. The actors deserve extra credit because in a film packed with so many characters and so much action, they have a relatively small amount of time to make their roles shine. Several moments stood out for me: the tension between government-man Cap and iconoclast Stark; Stark encouraging Banner to cast aside caution and contribute in the most powerful way he can; and especially that marvellously tense scene between Black Widow and Loki. (Isn't it interesting that although we first saw Black Widow in Iron Man 2--a film where, arguably, her character had less competition--we learn more about her and what motivates her in this movie that has so much else packed into it? Full credit again to Joss; his fans know how fond he is of strong female characters. She's even the one who really saves the day in the end!) We also get something else that Whedon fans are familiar with: a straightforward, easy-to-understand plot. Loki, the bad guy, wants to rule the world; with the McGuffin... er, tesseract... he can bring an alien army to earth to achieve that goal. The Avengers have to stop him or, failing that, fight his army. After so many blockbusters--especially superhero movies (Superman Returns, anyone?)--with convoluted plots, it's a relief to see one with such a simple story.

Other people involved in the film also deserve credit for its success. Seamus McGarvey is one of the best cinematographers around, and his talent is in abundant evidence here; the special effects are extremely well-done; and Alan Silvestri's score is epic and stirring--precisely what's needed for a film of this scale. All of their contributions come together in that thrilling "Avengers Assemble" scene during the final action sequence, when our heroes are standing together in a circle, facing their enemies, a team at last.

This is one of the best films in the superhero genre--up there, in my opinion, with the original Superman, with X-Men, with Spider-Man. In some ways it may be even better than those predecessors because, as I asserted above, it had so many more challenges to overcome to be successful. It works because, underneath all the action, this is a film with heart, with character, with humanity; a film about how seemingly incompatible people can come together for a common goal.

X: First Class (2011)

Undone by its best scene

The best scene in X-Men: First Class is, arguably, the brief cameo by Hugh Jackman/Wolverine. Unfortunately, that scene also undermines much of the logic of the film.

Just in case you aren't aware of it, a young Charles Xavier (Professor X) and Erik Lehnsherr (Magneto) encounter Wolverine in a bar as part of their efforts to recruit mutants to a team they're forming. They introduce themselves; he promptly and rudely tells them to go away, which they promptly do. It's a very short, very funny scene, a crowd-pleaser, and arguably one of the best scenes in the film, if not the best. It also, unfortunately, ruins the movie.

I can live with a prequel introducing continuity errors into a franchise, which X-Men: First Class does. I can live with an adaptation from another medium making significant changes to established characters--again, the film does this several times. What I cannot accept, however, is a film where supposedly intelligent characters repeatedly make stupid decisions, committing the same mistake over and over, and thereby undermine all their efforts to achieve their goals.

Back to that scene and how it illustrates this problem. Assuming that at least some of the facts about Logan from the comics and X-Men Origins: Wolverine are still true in this semi-reboot, Logan is an extremely experienced and talented fighter who is over 150 years old at the time of this story. Xavier and Lehnsherr are going up against a team of powerful, mature mutants, and yet they abandon recruiting this formidable warrior after a one-sentence brush off. Instead they bring in a group of children, essentially, who are under-powered and/or have little to no control over their powers. It logically would have taken years to shape those X-cadets into anything resembling a potent fighting force--time which, according to the logic of the story, Xavier and Lehnsherr didn't have.

And frankly, the kids aren't very interesting characters. Even if the scene with Wolverine had been dropped to avoid calling attention to the problem I've outlined, it still wouldn't help this charisma-challenged first X-Men team. The movie works best when it focuses on Xavier and Lehnsherr and their complex friendship. The writers could have left out the X-babies and just used Prof X and Magneto and we'd have a much better film. Either that or they should have been recruiting a group of older, more experienced mutants who would have been more of a match out of the gate for Shaw and his cabal.

There were some things I liked about this film (mainly the Xavier/Magneto bromance, but also the many exciting action sequences) and others I didn't (such as the awkward insertion of anti-mutant sentiment, January Jones' underwhelming portrayal of Emma Frost, Mystique's under-written motivation for joining Magneto, the many anachronisms such as Banshee's hairstyle, etc.) Overall, I was disappointed because with a few simple changes X-Men: First Class could have been a much better movie. The first two X-Men films still haven't been equalled. Bryan Singer, come back to the director's chair, we miss you!

Green Lantern (2011)

Not as bad as many make out, but not that good either.

I think a lot of the extremely negative reactions to Green Lantern come from disappointment. This film could have been so much better and pales in comparison to other, much better films in the superhero genre such as Iron Man and Thor. (Why is it Marvel's live-action movies are consistently better than DC's?)

The film has some positive points: the special effects are superlative, the action sequences are fun, GL's costume design is extremely cool, and the performances are decent. Although they try to pack a lot in, I found the film reasonably engaging and didn't get bored.

But I didn't get thrilled either. The music (which is pretty crucial to the epic, operatic world of superheroes) was forgettable. Speaking of lacking epic quality, a more threatening villain should have been used--Parallax looked like little more than a big cloud monster, and Hector Hammond? Seriously?

While the performances were adequate, no one shone (or got a chance to). I also think the lead should have been cast differently. I've seen Ryan Reynolds in a few films and while he has the good looks of a leading man, he lacks the charisma necessary for these sorts of roles. I mean, just compare him to Robert Downey Jr.

Ultimately, though, I think the big problem with Green Lantern is that the screenwriters and filmmakers were overwhelmed by the sheer weight of the Lantern mythos and tried to cram too much of it into one film. The space opera elements didn't mix properly with Hal's all-too human-sized issues at home, and the constant switching between Oa and Earth were jarring rather than building tension. It would have been better, I think, to just have Hal obtain the ring, fight Earth-based evil as he learns to use it, and leave all the exposition about the GL Corps and Oa for a sequel.

The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)

Too soon!

I have nothing against a franchise reboot. It certainly didn't hurt the recent Batman films, or Star Trek. However, the conditions have to be right. And conditions were decidedly NOT right for a Spider-Man reboot.

Sam Raimi's first two Spider-Man films are not only recent (the first only 10 years old), they are also successful, popular, and well-liked. We haven't had a long period of time go by and/or tolerated a series of mediocre franchise entries. As a result, the audience is inevitably comparing this film to the previous ones (I haven't seen a single IMDb review, even the sparse positive ones, that avoid mentioning the Raimi films). Even worse, it's obvious that the film-makers were comparing the films as well. As a result, it's nearly impossible for ASM to include things that WORKED from the previous films because they'll seem too similar. Thus, the whole origin sequence seems forcibly, awkwardly different rather than natural, organic, and elegant.

The film has other problems too. It's incredibly inconsistent in how it treats plot points. Significant elements are raised (the fate of Peter's parents, Spider-Man's hunt for Uncle Ben's killer) and are then dropped for no discernible reason.

Characterization, especially of Peter, is another problem: for a kid who's obviously a scientific/engineering prodigy, he's astonishingly inarticulate. I suppose this was an attempt to recreate the verbal stumbling typical of adolescence, but unfortunately it results in a character who seems more stupid than he really should be and a lot of awkward, forgettable dialogue.

It's too bad, because in some regards the film showed promise. Martin Sheen was great, as he always is. The effects and action sequences are well-done, if not exceptional. And one thing they did better than the Raimi films is including more of the non-stop wise-cracking typical of the comic book Spider-Man. I really think if the film-makers had either (a) let 5-10 more years go by or (b) as some other reviewers have suggested, just got a different director and cast and did Spider-Man 4 without retelling the origin story, it would have turned out a lot better.

Brave (2012)

A refreshing story in two main regards

I liked Brave a lot, for many different reasons (particularly the beautifully-done animation and spot-on performances), but for two in particular that set it apart from almost every other Hollywood movie made these days.

First of all, it's a film that is primarily about a mother-daughter relationship. How often do we see those? Not often, certainly not in major motion pictures, animated or not. We see several father-son stories, occasionally a father-daughter story, but a story about a mom and her daughter? All too rare.

Second, it's a story where the beautiful young princess does NOT, for a very refreshing change, wind up with a handsome prince at the end. That's right, not only is the beautiful princess the main character, there is no romantic plot or sub-plot. Again, something we don't see very often.

I highly recommend Brave for families for this reason. Don't worry, despite what I've said the movie is not a feminist diatribe--it's a fun and touching romp, with plenty to amuse both boys and girls. But the sub-text is invaluable and all-too-rare in our culture.

The American (2010)

Atypical espionage thriller

What I liked the most about The American is how QUIET this movie is. Even the soundtrack is subdued, with most scenes playing out with either minimal background music or none at all. The dialogue is also kept to a minimum; many scenes depict Clooney alone, saying nothing to anyone for long periods of time.

And yet, thanks to the film's startling opening scene and Clooney's performance--along with periodic insertions of soft but disturbing music--the movie maintains a constant level of tension. Despite the quiet, solitary moments, Clooney's Jack is a man who lives his life on a razor's edge; an enemy could be lurking around any corner. Clooney heightens the tension with his performance--he's always tense, always watchful, and lies to others so often he probably doesn't even know what the truth his himself anymore.

As some other reviewers have pointed out, this is not at all a typical Bourne/Bond-type spy thriller, so if you're expecting that you'll be disappointed (and the trailer, unfortunately, may delude you in that respect). This is a quiet character study, and enjoyable because I thought the film industry had forgotten how to do those. I think Clooney deserves a lot of credit for holding the focus here with his quiet intensity.

Watchmen (2009)

Faithful to its source, visually compelling, but lacking emotional depth

(Please note that my comments are based upon the director's cut DVD.)

Zack Snyder was either extremely brave or incredibly foolhardy--maybe a little bit of both--to take on the unenviable task of adapting Alan Moore's and Dave Gibbon's Watchmen to the screen. Many people--including Moore himself--considered the source material impossible to transfer to film, and after viewing this well-intentioned, mostly faithful, but emotionally flat version of the graphic novel, I'm convinced that they were right.

Still, it's not all bad. Snyder, cinematographer Larry Fong, and their teams give us a visually rich feast that fully realizes the world of the graphic novel... and then some. The acting is, for the most part, top notch, with Jack Earle Haley's Rorschach and Jeff Morgan as the Comedian being the stand outs. Everyone else carries their roles well, with the exception of Malin Ackerman, who while easy on the eyes doesn't bring enough emotional depth to her role as Laurie Jupiter/Silk Spectre II.

And to me, it's that same lack of emotional heft which is the main problem with this film. Snyder et al attempt to be as faithful to the graphic novel as they can, but inevitably they have to leave some things--actually, a lot of things--out. By packing the film full of all the characters of the source material, they do justice to none of them, leaving their stories feeling shallow.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not some fan-boy decrying the loss of his favourite scene from the comic, like those who criticized the Lord of the Rings movies for leaving out Tom Bombadil. It's just that all the characters' stories feel rushed; even if I hadn't read the original material I would have sensed that there was a lot, too much in fact, that we weren't being shown. We don't see enough of Dan's and Laurie's relationship developing; we don't get to see enough of Rorschach's past, nor the growing horror of his therapist as he's slowly dragged into the vigilante's world; we don't see enough of Dr. Manhattan's gradual disconnect from the world and the people in it; we don't see enough of Laurie's repugnance for the Comedian. As a result, I felt interested but unmoved as events in the film transpired. I wasn't bored, as Watchmen is almost always visually intriguing, but I never felt emotionally involved.

Ironically, it's when Watchmen strays from its source material that it's at its best. For example, the best action sequence in the film was when Silk Spectre II and Night Owl II take on several prisoners during a riot--a scene that doesn't occur in the comic, not to that extent. Also, in the film, Hollis Mason, the original Night Owl, goes down fighting (a scene which I think was added for the DVD version), which is true to and evocative of his past as a masked adventurer, making his death all the more affecting, because he's not just fighting a group of thugs, he's combating an enemy he can never defeat: old age. And the film's ending achieved something I would not have thought possible: it improved on Alan Moore's original finale. Watchmen's concluding plot twist is a logical outcome from all that transpired before it, and it seems like it would have been more believable than the graphic novel's mock alien invasion.

However, without a proper investment and anchor in the lives of the underdeveloped characters, the ending, as good as it is, leaves one feeling flat and unmoved. There were too many characters for us to get to know, so we don't really get to know any of them; as a result, we don't feel deeply about what happens to any of them. I mentioned above that Watchmen is often at its best when it departs from the original. Perhaps it fails because it didn't do this often enough. Perhaps Snyder should have been even braver and focused on a smaller number of characters and fewer plot points. The result would not have been as true to the graphic novel, but it probably would have been a better movie.

Troy (2004)

Entertaining but flawed

I should preface my remarks by stating that I am basing them upon the director's cut rather than the theatrical release.

Troy is an entertaining thrill ride that ultimately turns out to be--for the most part--emotionally hollow. This is disappointing, because the story of Troy is one of the first great stories and deserves better treatment.

The action sequences in the film, to be sure, are exciting to watch, whether it's the seamless integration of live action and CGI in the large scale battles or the intricate choreography of the one-on-one fights (Achilles' duel with Hector is, as expected, a highlight). But action alone doesn't make a good movie (as we've been trying to tell Michael Bay for years).

Fortunately, Troy also benefits from some good performances, especially from its two leads, Brad Pitt as Achilles and Eric Bana as Hector. Pitt deserves a lot of praise here; he spends most of the movie playing a character who is largely unsympathetic. Achilles treats most people around him with contempt. However, partly because he's Brad freakin' Pitt, but also because he's a talented actor, Pitt manages to make us feel there's more to Achilles than how he appears superficially.

Bana has the easier part as the respected leader and family man, but still gives Hector a lot of depth. He and Saffron Burrows were particularly affecting in their scenes together. Peter O'Toole is also quite good as Priam. His scene with Pitt, where he begs for the return of his son's body, is the highlight of the film in my opinion; it brought one of the greatest scenes in literature to life and was one of the few truly affecting moments in the movie. And Sean Bean, as usual, shines in his few moments as the under-used Odysseus.

However, while Troy is largely rescued by its epic battles and solid performances, it never achieves or even comes close to greatness. The film is weighted down by many problems. The Paris/Helen love story is difficult to pull off, especially since it's almost impossible to avoid portraying Paris as selfish and callow. It doesn't help that he's played by Orlando Bloom; while Bloom is a talented actor, he seems to have largely outworn his welcome from movie-goers. Another problem is the two-dimensional portrayal of a villainous, power-hungry Agamemnon. Brian Cox can chew scenery like no one's business, but he's capable of so much more.

>SPOILER ALERT<

The biggest problem, however, is that at the end, the writer and director took the cheap, predictable, Hollywood way out. The reason why the story of Troy is so powerful and long-lasting is the devastating impact of the war on nearly all of its participants. Consider: in the legend of Troy, Paris dies, along with all of the Trojan royal family; Ajax goes crazy and kills himself; Helen, after being forced to marry another Trojan prince, is captured and returned to Menelaus; Andromache's infant son is thrown to his death from Troy's walls, then she becomes a slave and concubine of the son of the man who killed her husband; Odysseus is condemned to exile from his home for 10 years... you get the picture. And don't get me started on the sorry fate of some of the characters who were left out of the film, such as Hecuba and Cassandra.

Compare that to how lightly everyone gets off in this film. The only Trojans who die are the grey-haired ones; in an all-too-typical and cynical Hollywood rewrite of the legend, almost everybody who's young and pretty gets to live. Yes, Hector and Achilles die, but they were warriors and so it was more or less expected they would. As a result, the war, bizarrely, appears to have had very little impact on anyone, and that robs the film of any emotional resonance.

The overall message of the legend of Troy is that while there is glory and honour and heroism to be found in times of war, there is also tragedy and brutality and death--and that the worst suffering often befalls innocents with little or no connection to the fighting. That message is completely lost in this rather shallow film, and that's unfortunate, perhaps even tragic, because a story this epic deserves much, much better treatment.

300 (2006)

Visually stunning, but ultimately disappointing

Any period piece runs the risk of historical inaccuracy, and if it's done in the interest of story and entertainment, it's largely forgivable. But when the movie makes its own mistakes glaring, well, that's harder to forgive.

There's no denying 300 is a remarkable achievement in many respects. It's a feast for the eyes, and its use of virtual environments to create a distinct look will no doubt influence filmmakers in the near future and beyond. It's also part of a trend of successful movies that lack a huge "brand name" star, which I think is positive; Hollywood has become over-reliant on its star system, to the point where the stars' private lives matter more than the films. That being said, Gerard Butler's performance is nuanced and charismatic; he deserves to be a star, and maybe 300 will be his breakout vehicle.

But for me, 300 eventually fell flat, and unfortunately, it undermined itself. My problem with the film boiled down to a key scene, the one depicting the initial meeting between Leonidas and Ephialtes.

*SPOILERS FOLLOW*

Leonidas explains why he can't use Ephialtes in the phalanx formation: the crippled shepherd cannot properly hold his shield to protect the man beside him, a vital requirement for a phalanx to work. Later, during the initial Persian attack, we see the Phalanx in action, and see Leonidas' words ring true.

And then everything falls apart.

Phalanx fighting was essentially a big shoving match that could often last hours, and that certainly wouldn't have provided Zack Snyder with the "cool" fight scenes he wanted and that the fans of the movie adore. Then the Spartans suddenly, with no clear reason other than to look cool, break out of their Phalanx formation and start fighting individually. And the Persians, who were so numerous and bunched so tight only a moment before, are suddenly spread out to provide the Spartans with easily disposed-of targets.

I could even have lived with that; I mean I've watched and enjoyed plenty of kung fu movies where the bad guys conveniently attack Bruce Lee one at a time. But here's the crux of the matter: the battle scenes undermine what Leonidas told Ephialtes. Leonidas himself admits the shepherd has skill with a spear. So he could have been behind the phalanx's front line, then set free to fight when everyone else abandoned formation. So suddenly the Spartan king's rejection of Ephialtes is reduced from a logical decision to a mere plot device, motivating the shepherd to betray his fellow Greeks to Xerxes.

This free-form fighting goes on to further undermine the film's emotional impact. The loss of the Captain's son should have been a huge emotional moment; the loss of the youth symbolizes a loss of hope and presages the Spartans' ultimate defeat. But the moment is emotionally empty. Dilios describes the Captain's reaction as "breaking formation" and going "blood-mad". But visually, he's only doing what all the other Spartans have already been doing, just with a little more passion. Breaking formation from the phalanx should indeed have been a big deal, but instead it's just another opportunity for cool moves and spurting blood.

I had other problems with the film as well, such as the depiction of the Persians as unrelentingly evil, corrupt, and even monstrous. Not for politically correct reasons, but for aesthetic ones. In the best war films there is some form of recognition that in the enemy is a reflection of ourselves. That's not possible here, though I'll grant that the source material has the same problem. The sub-plot with Queen Gorgo is a distraction from the main action and seems like an attempt by the filmmakers to do the politically correct thing and show a strong woman character in the film.

In the end, though, 300 undermines its own potential. It's great eye candy but not much more than that. I've heard that Steven Pressfield's novel of the Battle of Thermopylae, Gates of Fire, was under development as a feature film and that 300 preempted it. That's too bad; the novel is a much more accurate, and more importantly, emotionally-rich depiction of the story, and I would have much preferred to see it brought to the screen. Unfortunately, that's unlikely now for a long time to come.

Batman Begins (2005)

The Batman we've always wanted, even with its flaws

This is, in many respects, the Batman movie fans have been waiting for.

Christopher Nolan et al have crafted a film that is, finally, respectful. It shows respect for a pop culture institution that has been around for about 80 years, respect for the source material, and respect for the fans as well. Finally, we have a Batman movie that takes itself just serious enough while still retaining a sly sense of fun.

The stellar cast certainly helps. Veterans Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, Liam Neeson, Gary Oldman, and Rutger Hauer all perform admirably, as you would expect. Relative newcomer Cillian Murphy also gives a compelling performance as Dr. Jonathan Crane/The Scarecrow.

As for the lead, Christian Bale is appropriately intense as Bruce Wayne/Batman. The Dark Knight's psychology and motivation are a more important part of who he is than almost any other superhero, with the possible exception of Spider-Man. Bale is the first actor in the role to give the character the psychological depth his mythos deserves. And his rapport with the actors playing his mentors--Neeson, Caine, Freeman--is a genuine pleasure to watch.

The storyline is compelling, and we're kept on the edge of our seats by being kept one step ahead of our heroes. No spoilers, but I will say it is immensely satisfying how all the threads Nolan and Goyer weave are tied up just before the big climax. The action sequences are thrilling, with Batman being wonderfully creepy and frightening as he closes in on his prey, exactly as he should be.

I do have, however, a couple of complaints.

First, regarding how the murder of Bruce's parents was shown. It's very mundane and matter-of-fact, which may be what Nolan wanted. But that approach is entirely inappropriate for Batman. This is THE seminal event in Bruce Wayne's life, changing it forever--it made him become a legend; it should be legendary, epic. Plus he was only 8 years old; it should have been shot from his point of view, with everyone appearing larger than him (larger than life), the gun sounding like a cannon, and a little slow-mo to draw out the moment and emphasize its importance would not have hurt. This scene is the key to the character's motivation, and Nolan seemed to toss it away.

Second, regarding Katie Holmes. Don't get me wrong, she's a very good actress in the right role. And the character she plays, while non-canon, is vital to the plot and to the development of Wayne's character--she's not just Wayne's love interest, she's his conscience.

But Holmes' appearance, voice, and manner are all very girlish; I could accept her as Bruce Wayne's childhood sweetheart, but not as an Assistant D.A. with integrity to spare in a corrupt, gritty city like Gotham. Holmes did not show herself capable of conveying the steel a woman like that would have to have; the city would have eaten a girl like that alive years before. I can't help thinking that an actress like Michelle Rodriguez would have been a much better choice in this role, and I was surprised to learn Nolan never considered another actress for the part. No one's perfect, I guess.

I also didn't sense a lot of sparks between Holmes and Bale. Wayne's relationships with the men around him were much more interesting--but then again, that's appropriate for a solitary character like the Batman.

Overall, as a long-time fan of Batman, I was very pleased. If the rumours are true and Holmes has been ruled out of appearing in any sequels, so much the better.

Lost (2004)

Restored what little faith I have in TV

With so many high-quality shows ending or getting cancelled recently (Friends, Frasier, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel), and with the decline in quality of many others (The West Wing, Smallville), not to mention the egregious rise of turgid and tasteless "reality" programming, I'd just about written off TV as an entertainment medium. I was seriously considering ditching my TV and cable subscription in favour of my computer screen and broadband Internet connection.

Then along comes "Lost". I missed the first few episodes, but was able to catch up thanks to BitTorrent. Now I'm hooked. There are several things to like about this show, but here's a quick list:

1) Outstanding, intelligent, layered writing. There are multiple mysteries here, and for every answer we get, more questions emerge.

2) Rich, complex characters. Just when you think you've got a character pegged, you find out something new about them that's often surprising or even shocking. I'm enjoying watching the various relationships emerge and develop.

3) Strong performances. This is a remarkable cast of mostly journeymen actors with a couple of newcomers, and they're all turning in star-making work. Even some of the cameos have featured recognizeable, talented actors (e.g. Mira Furlan, Victoria Hamel).

4) A mysterious and fascinating setting. Of the four main story elements you learned in school, plot, character, theme, and setting, the latter is often the poor, neglected cousin. Not here. The island is dangerous, beautiful, creepy, and undeniably intriguing. It's like a character unto itself. Part of the fun of this show will be unravelling the Island's secrets.

5) Thematic depth. This isn't just a soap opera on a desert island. There are rich metaphors and themes to be mined here, such as on the challenges of morality; on the nature of communities and civilization; on our relationship with nature/the environment; and on spirituality, even mysticism, as well.

I'm grateful to see this show is a hit. Too often lately I've committed to a quality show early on ("Wonderfalls" being the most recent and much-lamented example) only to have a jittery network cancel it prematurely. I'm hoping "Lost" will have a long, successful run--if its creators, cast, and crew keep up the level of quality they've shown so far, I'm sure it will.

Mulholland Dr. (2001)

Quirky, unconventional, challenging--typical Lynch, typically brilliant

*SPOILER ALERT*

It's almost impossible to discuss this film without divulging spoilers. But you really should experience it without any preconceptions. Suffice it to say that I highly recommend the film. If you've enjoyed Lynch's work before, you'll probably love Mulholland Dr.; if you're not familiar with his movies but like an unconventional film experience that challenges your intelligence, you'll probably love it; but if you prefer conventional stories that don't require you to engage your cerebrum beyond paying attention, you'll probably hate it.

Anyway, if it sounds like you'd like it, go out and see it and don't read any further.

Okay.

The first clue that you are NOT in for a conventional film experience is when the words "A Film By David Lynch" appear on the screen in the film's opening seconds.

Unlike the much more widely-lauded Tarantino, with who he shares a penchant for non-linear narratives, Lynch is not content to merely let his film be a mere bloody and foul-mouthed homage to a number of B-movie genres. No, Lynch is, as he always does, going to challenge his audience--delighting many and royally ticking off others.

Lynch spends nearly two hours gradually building up a complex narrative--a mystery with some typically Lynchian quirks--and the characters in it, all the while suffusing the events on the screen with an ominous sense of foreboding and dread. Then he takes an unexpected left turn, deconstructing everything that went before. The result is breathtaking, and unlike most modern films that you can dissect in mere minutes, this one could keep you arguing for weeks.

Lynch is willing to take chances that make most other film-makers wet their shorts. He allows the camera to linger longer on a particular shot than most of today's ADD-ridden, MTV-trained directors are willing to do. He's unafraid to use unusual camera angles, or to try to find the disturbing qualities in mundane, ordinary inanimate objects. Brian De Palma spent most of the 80s trying to be Hitchcock's successor and failed; Lynch is the Master's true heir.

He gets great performances from his cast, too. Harring and Theroux are both strong, but Naomi Watts is the real stand-out, showing incredible depth and range. No wonder this role put her on the map, and deservedly so.

There's a lot of discussion about making sense of the film's abrupt narrative change, but I got it within minutes, on the first viewing. All the clues were there. I'm more interested in what the film's about.

Most of Lynch's work (especially his two other best-known works, "Twin Peaks" and "Blue Velvet") portrays the dichotomy of America: cheery, neighborly, painfully naive optimism on the one hand; and a dark, seedy and dangerous underbelly on the other. With that perspective, it's amazing that it took him so long to make a movie about Hollywood.

The first part of the film is not just a dream, it's an illusion, and that's what Hollywood is all about. And we don't just love and cherish those illusions, we need them desperately. When Betty/Diane's illusions are stripped from her, when she sees the hypocrisy of Hollywood, it doesn't bring enlightenment. She and the one person she loves most are both destroyed in the process.

As a result, we end up seeing the first two hours of the movie as Diane's desperate, final attempt to reboot her life. She attempts to live it out as it should have been, as it could have been. But reality intrudes. She's had the blindfold pulled from her eyes, and she's not just seen her worst, ugliest side, she's set it loose upon her ex-lover and eventually herself.

This is dark, even horrific stuff, and tragic as well. It's also damn brilliant.

Hidalgo (2004)

Corny fun

Hidalgo isn't exactly the most original movie to come along in awhile, but it certainly is a lot of fun.

The movie is based on a real event in the life of a real person, Pony Express rider and horse racer Frank Hopkins. Hopkins and his horse Hidalgo--both supposedly past their prime--enter a gruelling race across the Arabian desert.

We have elements of the Western, of sports movies, and of travelogues here. The film-makers seemed determined to insert all the expected elements--dare I say clichés--of all those genres into the film. But it's all done so well that it's not only forgivable, its comforting. You expect to see things like the underdog, washed-up, conflicted hero coming to terms with himself, the come-from-behind win, treacherous opponents, beautiful but harsh desert scenery, etc., etc.

There's even some meaningful sub-text thrown in. Hopkins is conflicted over his mixed parentage (his mother was a Native American); this ties into the fact that his horse is a Mustang, an "impure" breed, while all his opponents are purebred Arabians.

In addition, the fact that the film is set in the Middle East with the majority of characters being Arab Muslims is, of course, significant. The hero finds himself in conflict with some while winning the respect and friendship of others. Perhaps there's some American wishful thinking going on here, but the fact that ANY Arab Muslim is portrayed in a positive light in a Hollywood film is something worthy of praise. And they don't smack you over the head with it, which is good, because this isn't a "message" movie, it's entertainment.

My biggest complaint about the film is the interlude where it delves into Indiana Jones-style adventure involving Hopkins (and his horse) rescuing an Arab princess. This is where the film goes completely Hollywood for several minutes, and it has nothing to do with the race. It's evidence that the film-makers--or more likely the suits financing it--didn't trust their material enough, and that's too bad, if all-too typical.

Nonetheless, even that misplaced sequence is entertaining to watch, as is the whole film. Mortensen doesn't really stretch himself here--aside from the hair and the accent, Hopkins is a lot like Aragorn--but he's does a typically excellent job with the role and delivers his many down-home, plain-spoken one-liners with cowboy aplomb. It's also a film you can watch with the whole family, and that's something these days.

8/10

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)

Jim Carrey ticks me off yet again...

I really hate Jim Carrey.

Not the man himself, I've never met him and don't claim to know the first thing about him.

No, I hate several of the roles he's had and the public persona he's created for himself--the rubber-faced "wild and crazy guy", who's asinine, juvenile, derivative, and, worst of all, unfunny. I also hate the achingly pretentious, I'll-get-an-Oscar-somehow-Robin-Williams-did! Jim Carrey too.

But I really hate him, most of all, for making me admire him so much in this movie. Damn him for having so much talent after all!

He did something I've never seen him do before: he made me forget he was Jim Carrey. Like Robin Williams before him, he suddenly graduated from a comic who does movies to an actual actor, and a damn fine one at that.

It doesn't hurt that he's surrounded by so much talent, especially Kate Winslet, showing off just how chameleon-like the best British actors can be; Elijah Wood effectively distancing himself from Frodo; Kirsten Dunst playing shallow to start but somehow breaking your heart by the end; Tom Wilkinson playing the banal, brilliant, and benevolent doctor who turns out to be all-too-human; and of course, a brilliant, typically-original script from Charlie Kaufman (and director Michel Gondry and Pierre Bismuth).

I liked how the story limited itself to just the one science fiction element, and kept everything else realistic. Too often Hollywood forgets the idea of introducing one fantastic element ONLY in a story, and we end up with flying cars whizzing by. Removing the memory of an ex is, like all great SF/horror elements, just a metaphor; haven't we all, after a painful breakup, burned, thrown out, or destroyed all the precious little mementos of the affair in a desperate attempt to purge the whole thing from our brains? The story's not about the SF element, after all. It's about memory, the power of will, and of course, it's about relationships and love.

That's probably its greatest strength. This film has one of the most realistic depictions of a relationship that I've ever seen outside of real life. All the ugly arguments and ill-considered outbursts are there. But--and it's brilliant how these are only gradually revealed, and at least halfway through the film--so are the unexpected moments of connection, the sheer, unabashed delight in actually seeing inside the soul of another and having them see into you. And, ultimately, the necessary acceptance of the loved one's imperfections--and their acceptance of yours.

This is a great movie.

But I still hate Jim Carrey. Because he made me like him. Jerk.

Hellboy (2004)

Disappointing

Okay, I'll start with something nice: Hellboy has great special effects, and fine performances from Perlman, Hurt, Tambor, and Pierce/Jones.

Okay, I ran out of nice things to say.

I'm a fan of comics and comic book movies, though the Hellboy comic has pretty much been off my radar. So I was looking forward to this movie. But I wound up disappointed for a lot of reasons. Let me list them...

• Villains: action movies need strong villains. This one gives us three (four if you count the monster)--and we don't really get to know any of them, though one does some nifty knife tricks. But what's their motivation? Hurt's character says they want to destroy the world. Why? Don't they get destroyed along with it? Sorry, but I could NOT understand WHY the bad guys are trying to do what they're trying to do.

• Heroes: all the good guys seemed to be plucked straight out of the stock character catalog. We have the world-weary lone wolf cop (Hellboy) to kick @$$ and crack wise, the intellectual (Abe) to explain the plot devices, the sage old man (Hurt) to explain the backstory, and the cranky boss (Tabmor) to be a pain in the butt. They're dressed up differently, but we've seen these characters a hundred times before, and in much better versions.

• Lovers: if the casting director was trying to find two extremely bland actors to match the bloodless characters of John Myers and Liz Sherman in the screenplay, he/she succeeded wildly. Hurt says he picked Myers specifically; why? Hellboy asks him what he's good at. We're never told or shown satisfactory answers. And what HB or Myers see in the morose, wan, and seemingly eternally-sedated Liz is beyond me. Not only is Blair not a good actress, she isn't even attractive.

• Dialogue: Hellboy has a few good lines, yes, but when you're able to fit them all in the trailer, you know you're in trouble. And the lack of interesting dialogue only highlights the lacklustre...

• Plot: Like many current action movies, Hellboy's creators make the mistake of assuming that action and effects are plot. They're not. The story shuffles along aimlessly; even the characters seem clueless about how to proceed. If Rasputin and his sidekicks are such a threat, why are they wasting time with the big hellhound-thingy? This isn't a plot, it's an excuse for a series of action set-pieces.

When a movie can't come up with decent basic elements like the ones I just listed, all the special effects and whiz-bang action won't keep it afloat. It's too bad, because del Toro et al managed to show you can put together an effects-laden action flick at a much lower price than anyone would have thought.

The Birth of a Nation (1915)

First half: brilliant. Second half: ugh...

The first half of The Birth of a Nation, which focuses on the Civil War, is probably not only one of the greatest silent films, but one of the greatest films of all time. It's all the more remarkable that it was the first film of its type--feature length--and that so few silent films in the years that followed came anywhere near equaling its achievements. My own favorite moment is at the very end of the first half, when a weary Ben Cameron comes home at the end of the war and is slowly coaxed inside by the outstretched arms of his family.

If only Griffiths had stopped there. The second half of the film devolves into lurid melodrama, and as if that wasn't bad enough, displays a sickening racism and disregard for historical fact. Don't try to excuse it as being a product of its time; the NAACP protested when it was released, and President Woodrow Wilson had to backpedal on his initial praise of the film.

Nonetheless, the film is worth seeing for its enormous significance to the history of film, and for its technical brilliance (which is evident even in the repugnant second half of the film).

Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003)

Entertaining, dazzling...but over-rated (typical Tarantino)

Quentin Tarantino makes good movies. No question about it; he's a remarkably consistent (if far from prolific) film-maker. His movies are always entertaining, visually dazzling, and usually feature very sharp dialogue. Tarantino also deserves credit for not underestimating his audience's intelligence. In an era when most films are dumbed-down to the lowest common denominator, Tarantino bravely employs non-linear narratives, confident that the audience can keep up.

This, evidently, is enough to garner him a devoted--even fanatical--following amongst film buffs, if the position of his films on the IMDB top 250 list is any indication. But perhaps that's a sad commentary on just how bad most Hollywood dreck is. Because I've always found that while good, Tarantino's movies are never great.

Kill Bill Vol. 1 showcases all the Tarantino qualities I mentioned above, but also displays all of his usual shortcomings. His failures come down to two things for me: a lack of heart and a lack of originality.

The lack of heart shows itself in the consistently unlikeable characters. It isn't just the foul language and lack of redeeming qualities. In the case of the bride, we're never given a chance to really warm up to the character. All we know is she was pregnant and wanted to get married and then got beat within an inch of her life. Why? Why did all those assasins try to kill her? Maybe she deserved it! She was and is a pretty formidable assasin herself. Who knows? We sure don't.

Granted, this is probably deliberate on Tarantino's part. He likes complicated characters, especially anti-heroes, and leaving out some backstory elements is part of his respect for the audience's intelligence and imagination. But he often errs too much on the side of restraint with his character development. The only reason I care if the Bride succeeds in her mission is so that the really cool cartoon-style carnage can keep going. I don't really care about the character; Tarantino hasn't given me a chance to--evidently on purpose. That emotional distance keeps me from making an emotional investment in the film.

Tarantino also loses marks when it comes to originality. It's not that he's wholly unoriginal, far from it; Pulp Fiction was pretty strong in that regard. It's just that the guy is SUCH a film buff that his movies are pretty much pastiches of other flicks. When I watch a Tarantino flick, I get the uncanny feeling that I've seen this film before--in a more linear format, perhaps, and with less foul language, but it's a retread. It makes his movies predictible, and Kill Bill Vol. 1 is especially guilty of this. I know the Bride will meet up with each of her enemies and, after a visually stunning kick-ass spectacle, ultimately get her revenge. No surprises there.

Tarantino is obviously devoted to duplicating the martial arts/spaghetti westerns he's ripping off...OOPS, sorry, he's PAYING HOMAGE to them, silly me. But that costs him in Kill Bill Vol. 1 as well; unlike his previous movies, his devotion to duplicating their stilted speech means there's none of the crackling dialogue that made Pulp Fiction such a joy to listen to, despite the (often needlessly excessive) profanity.

I'm not saying "Tarantino sucks!" Far from it; I like watching his movies. I just think they, and he, are vastly over-rated. Good, but not great.

Anyway, I'm not going to rush out and see Kill Bill Vol. 2. I can wait until it's on DVD. I do want to see it, but my patience is the strongest evidence of how Tarantino intrigues me, but ultimately leaves me cold. 7/10.

Forrest Gump (1994)

Sugar-coating around a poison pill

I didn't mind this movie too much the first time I saw it, though I thought it was very over-rated and wondered what the fuss was all about.

I caught it again recently and got more irritated with it the longer it went.

I'll admit that the shots integrating Tom Hanks into historical footage are impressive, technically. I'll admit that Hanks, Penn, and Sinise give very impressive performances. But I'm really starting to hate this movie.

I know, I know...of COURSE it won Best Picture--it's cynically designed from top to bottom to do that. It's supposed to teach an important lesson about life while tugging at the heartstrings as big historical events unfold in the background. And what is that lesson? It pays to be stupid.

Well, gang, sorry to burst your precious little bubble, but it doesn't. You won't find guys like Forest running corporations; you'll find them in trailer parks, beating their kids. Them clever folk, with all that book learnin' you so despise, are running the big corporations, and they're laughing their way to the bank over the real morons, who watch crap like this and think it's great and then vote in Forest-like mental midgets to run the country.

The worship of the "wise fool", the disdain for education, and the myth of the self-made man are a few things Western, and especially American culture would be better off without. Anything like this cynical and manipulative film, which perpetuates them, should be despised, not lauded.

Rocky (1976)

A great film sullied by its sequels

I really think this is a great movie, and belongs in the IMDB top 250. But I believe its lustre has been badly stained by a number of formulaic, mediocre sequels. Sylvester Stallone seems like an intelligent guy, but if he had any sense, he would have let this film stand on its own.

Regardless, Rocky is an amazing movie because it's only a sports movie superficially. It's actually a character study--really, it's about two characters, Rocky and Adrian, and how this extraordinary event will change the lives of these two extremely ordinary people. Compare who they are at the beginning of the movie--a "bum" and a "retard"--versus who they are at the end.

I still think the ending of the movie is extremely bold. A typical sports movie has the underdog win the big game. Not here--but Rocky does win. He recognizes his own limitations--something that we almost NEVER see characters doing in Hollywood movies. He knows he can't win, but sets a goal he CAN achieve that will prove--to everyone, especially himself--that he's more than they thought.

Looking back, I find the timing of the movie to be interesting: 1976. America had just come out of some of the worst experiences in its history: Vietnam, Watergate, inflation, the oil crisis. And in its bicentennial year, America makes a hit out of this film about a rough-around-the-edges guy making good, even though he gets battered and bruised and doesn't really win in the end. Rocky as a metaphor for America? Why not?

Too bad about those crummy sequels. There could be a metaphor about American in there, too, somewhere...