Cineplexus

No matter what else, Avatar is a game changer.

Avatar ★★★★½

Full disclosure: one of my favorite people on Earth worked on Avatar for months. 80-hour work-weeks. Breakfast, lunch, and dinner on set. I really, really wanted this to be a decent movie. Still, I had my doubts. Big blue aliens? CGI? 3D for Christ's sake? It seemed unlikely that this one would pass muster. So, when I read Roger Ebert's review I was ecstatic. 4 of 4 stars! He compared it to seeing Star Wars for the first time. I send out elated texts to several other hopeful friends.

Then the haters started in. The movie was cheesy. It was overly didactic. It gave me a headache. And okay, no, those aren't complaints I actually read in negative reviews; they are my own impressions of the film's possible weak points. Therein lies the Avatar debate, one that will likely continue for decades. Do this movie's groundbreaking strides in the very fabric of the medium outweigh any foibles in its basic storyline and dialogue?

I have a feeling the decades will err on the side of Avatar's greatness. Take Star Wars as a forerunning example: its hero is whiny, its villain utterly uncomplex (we're talking JUST THE FIRST FILM here, people). But who cares? The movie remains one of the most widely celebrated ever, as much by the general public as by film geeks like me. Or take Jaws, which (film school taught me) was the first true summer blockbuster. It's about a freaking shark! A killer shark! But do we watch it and think, "What's up with that weird grizzled guy?" No. We think "Wow, this is an astonishingly created film. And to think it was made in 1975!" 

Right? Isn't that what you think? Or is that just me?

The fact of the matter is that Avatar has people thinking about entertainment in a whole new way. The story, classically, has clear cut good guys and textbook baddies. It is pretty fantastical, and one must suspend disbelief for nearly three hours to believe that these tribes of giants and their magic tree can fend off the firepower of huge military manned battledroids. There is way too much voiceover, including a few passages so redundant that even the blind could do without their narrative aid. But it takes a lot of energy to even notice these tiny blips on the astonishing and astonishingly real world that unfolds again and again before your bespectacled eyes. The 3D is immersive, not invasive, so each of us in the audience is having our own experience on Pandora. It's a feat that Star Wars Episodes IV-VI can't even boast. Hell, no movie can.

That's why we call it "groundbreaking." No one's built there before.

Cinemaphile 101: Planet of the Apes (1968)

What do you get when you combine all acts of 2001: A Space Odyssey with Inherit the Wind and some over-the top Halloween costumes? A laughably bad movie.  When I reflect on my recent viewing of Planet of the Apes, I am struck with a shocking thought: why did anyone think it would be a good idea to remake this movie? Sequels (this film had 4, plus several TV specials) I can understand - any moneymaker can get multiple sequels.

To put it another way: I thought about making this entry similar in spirit to my post "What's wrong with Revenge of the Nerds? A pointless list." For example, in 2000 years, why is the Grand Canyon on the East Coast? What kind of throat injury leaves you mute until it's totally healed? Why don't the apes' mouths moves? But then I realized there just aren't enough hours in a day. 

 The movie's main flaw may be how seriously it takes itself. This is particularly evident in its more didactic moments. Much effort is spent building an ironic case for evolution, as the ape society Charlton Heston's character, Taylor, discovers is so devoted to its religious teachings that it ignores evidence that the Apes had Human ancestry. Powerful leaders like Dr. Zaius (why are all the elder apes blonde in this movie? Just a thought.) go as far as to try the archeologists that have discovered ancient remains for heresey. In the end, however, the film totally changes gears when it suggests that discovering our true nature is the path to Armageddon. That's what leads to the (admittedly awesome) iconic shot of the top of the Statue of Liberty laying in ruins on the beach. Taylor discovers what spoilers have long since taught us about The Planet of the Apes: it was earth all along.

I lived in a small town from the age of 8 until 18, and my friends and I often visited the local "Antique Mall," which sold a lot of odd pop culture collectibles. As a gorilla enthusiast and a movie lover, I once purchased trading cards featuring the faces and stats (?) of this film's characters (or those of the TV show spinoff, like Urko, Gorilla General).  But the real movie's bitter, inflexible Dr. Zaius is nothing like the hilarious, cute Dr. Zaius I imagined when I gazed at his likeness on my Planet of the Apes trading card! Yet another way this film has disappointed me. 

Maybe the problem isn't with the film at all. Maybe the problem is me. Why ya always gotta be insisting that a movie's philosophical message is inherently consistent, Marissa?! Geez. I guess it's my own damn, dirty human nature rearing its ugly head.

Some thoughts on District 9, ★ ★ ★ ★ ½

Movie Buzz is not always a good sign. While online or word-of-mouth excitement for a film is enough to get many people to the theater, all that build up can lead to pretty big disappointments (Indiana Jones 4, anyone?). Promotions driven by a movie studio's marketing teams can be even more foreboding; cross-promotions with McDonalds and Hasbro can read as desperation moves to the jaded filmlovers among us, wary of anything so forcefully sold.

 I only bring this up because late-summer's sci-fi blockbuster District 9 was one of the most visibily promoted films of the summer, with banners everywhere from shopping malls to subway cars to popcorn bags. They all had the same, cutesy conceit: "For Humans Only," as in "No Aliens Allowed." The popcorn bags suggested that popcorn should not be fed to aliens, while the mall banners suggested that aliens were not to shop there. In retrospect, the whole campaign seems alarmingly tongue-in-cheek for a movie that means such serious business. 

And boy, did this movie mean business. It quietly sneaks its way from mockumentary to horror-action narrative without drawing attention to the change. It drips with political provocation while grossing you out with its biological precision and shock-and-awing you with explosions. I had been warned that the film was gory, but I still went into the theater expecting something campy.

Congratulations, Hollywood Promotional Machine. Looks like you've still got some tricks up your sleeve.

 

Inglourious Basterds ★★★★½

Quentin Tarantino. A devisive figure to be sure. Is he the great modern filmmaker of his generation, or is he some sort of sick psychopath with a thing for old movies and squirm-inducing violence?

He may, of course, be both. But Tarantino-haters may have to stifle themselves a bit in the wake of the director's most recent film, Inglourious Basterds. Along with a whole bunch of shooting, stabbing, cutting, and bleeding, Tarantino has included a fascInating plot, captivating characters (villain Col. Landa, played by Christoph Waltz, and heroine Shoshanna, played by Mélanie Laurent, are two for the ages), and suspense that proves positively nailbiting. Literally. As in, this particular moviegoer is admitting that her teeth met her fingernails during this film. Oh, and much of it is in French and German with subtitles. How mature and appropriate!

Tarantino reportedly labored for ages writing the film, which he's characterized in interviews as his "spaghetti western." God bless him for that. While the director's cinephilia is very evident throughout Basterds, to describe it as the "Tarantino version" of anything we've seen before is selling it short. Here we have an astonishing melting pot of genres–drama, action, comedy, war, arthouse, and, sure, some westernia–that pays homage to the cinematic arts of the decade it portrays even as it creates something entirely new. And though the film's violent scenes are horrific, they are always brief or balanced with a fair amount of plot development and dialogue. Most of the film's duration–and it's very long, though I didn't mind–is devoted to another kInd of pain: the soul-twisting suspense of not knowing who's going to win each of the film's many battles of wits.

Bravo, Mr. Tarantino, you crazy basterd. I was expecting to enjoy this film, but I ended up loving it.

Public Enemies ★★★½

There's always a sheepish excitement in the air when a movie is filming in town. For those of us that live outside of Hollywood or Toronto, it's kind of a rare thrill that reminds us of the glitz and allure that cinema has had since it's early days. There's that goofy feeling that only a brush with fame can provide. In Chicago, the experience is surprisingly rare; any major films shooting in the city are typically heard about more than seen, as they do their business on the outskirts of town, late in the evening, or otherwise out-of-sight.

Not so with Public Enemies. Shot in several different locations, the film used the Windy City as it's home base, and appropriately so, as John Dillinger did live and die here. When the film was shooting, it did so on largely his real home turf, meaning that tons of Northsiders had to avoid walking onto the set for several weeks last year as they went about their business. A nuisance for some, I know that many were willing to overlook it because of the sheer cool-factor of having Johnny Depp hanging out on your street corner, not to mention Christian Bale's exodus from the dark depths of Lower Wacker to the relative sunniness of Lincoln Park.

Grim and dangerous, there's little sunny about Public Enemies, but it certainly has a cool-factor of its own, thanks to the great performances we've come to expect from actors like Depp, Bale, and Marion Cotillard (see La Vie en Rose, please). The costumes, makeup, and music are all spot on, and the added effect of the sets make one wonder how the producers were able to afford a time machine to send the cast and crew back to the 1930s. This is even true for scenes set in Chicago, where somehow the most familiar streets have lost their modernity. It is truly something to behold.

Perhaps it is this high standard the film has set for itself visually, and for its nuanced characters, that left me wanting more overall from the script and editing. We're told the story of a stretch of John Dillinger's life that's interesting, but so long that it must be recounted through often disconnected anecdotes. He's in prison, he's out of prison, he's in Indiana, he's in Chicago, he's in Florida, he's back in prison again, he's…well, it's not hard to find oneself wondering how he managed to get from one scene to the next. Characters are often introduced with an abundance (J. Edgar Hoover) or dearth (Baby Face Nelson) of fanfare that's inconsistent with their importance to the script. Entire scenes exist simply so we get to hear a single "classic" Dillinger quote.

All of this creates a notion that John Dillinger was a complex and interesting – even likeable – man, that Melvin Purvis (Bale) was trying to compensate for having a ridiculous name, and that the '30s were a hell of a time for anybody fortuneate enough to have a little of what money there was to go around. But Public Enemies fails, as so many biopics do, to hold together as a great film in and of itself, absent of its subject's (in)famous greatness. That said, it's hard to imagine any film living up to the grandeur of this particular character, and many of the moments recreateed here are truly spectacular. How perfect, for example, is the parallel tthe film offers us between the film Dillinger sees in the Biograph before he's shot (Manhattan Melodrama) and Dillinger's real life as a criminal? Leave it to Hollywood, I guess, to create that kind of magic. Hollywood…or Chicago.

Transformers ★★★

Yeah, I know. You already decided. Either Transformers 2 sucks hard-core (the general critical consensus) or it kicks ass no matter what those cocky jerk critics say. So why am I even bothering to write a review of a movie that everyone already seems to have an opinion about, regardless of whether or not they've seen it?

Well, the news is good, if surprising: Transformers 2 is not that bad. While there are a handful of scenes that Michael Bay seems to have exploded all over, particularly during the film's marathon parade of endings, and some seriously annoying, Jar-Jar Binks-y Transformers who won't shut up, it also has genuinely exciting action sequences, really gorgeous visual and audio effects, and some pretty funny moments (as in, moments that are funny on purpose). 

The lesson here seems to be all about expectations. Perhaps the first critics to see the film were able to approach it from a neutral perspective; it's possible that some were excited about the much-hyped film. More likely, they expected it to be awful, and were on their guard for anything reprehensible about the film, thus making all the jokes that fall flat, the ultra-short climactic fight, the annoying (but not, in my  opinion, racist) robot twins, that much more heinous. Whether because of high hopes dashed or low hopes self-fulfilled, the storm of harsh reviews led me and my cohort in cinematic guilty-pleasure seeking, Mikey, to expect a truly awful movie.

What we got, however, was an okay movie, with some very thrilling highs in action, technology, and humor, and some chuckle-inducing lows in robot dialogue, slow-running to dramatic music, and…humor. And what more, honestly, should be expected of a film that states clearly at its outset that it's presented by Paramount and Hasbro?

For all the critical abuse the film's been taking, moviegoers don't seem to be too concerned about how potentially bad the film might be after all – in its first week, it's broken several records, including highest-grossing Wednesday opening, highest-grossing non-opening Thursday and Friday, and the second highest all-time 7-day gross.

So there you go. "Not that bad." And a box office smash at that. All movies should be so maligned.

Side note: I can't end this review without mentioning how truly floored I am, once again, by the sound design of this Transformers film. The score may be schmaltzy, but the sounds these robots make, especially while transforming, are mesmerizing and beautiful here, as they were in the first film. If you don't care about these things, I willingly accept your scorn. But you're missing out.

Terminator Salvation ★★★½

Confession time: I have a problem. I am essentially unable to visit a movie theater without buying popcorn. I can't explain why, but regardless of what I've had to eat that day or what type of movie I'm seeing, I just can't break the link between Movie Outing and Popcorn Eating.

So, standing in an absurdly long line a the local AMC, I found myself in a pickle. If I stayed in the line, complete with apparently just-hired cashier slowly moving about at the helm, and a family of five buying virtually everything on the menu, I might miss the beginning of the movie. If I left the line, I'd have no popcorn to eat during Terminator Salvation.

I stayed in line. Popcorn would be necessary.

It was the right choice. Not only did I not miss the beginning of the film, but it wouldn't have mattered if I had. Despite the fact that a lot of crazy stuff is going down, Salvation devotes little energy to trying to explain it to the audience. There is one exception right off the bat: the film's opening minutes are devoted to explaining that Marcus Wright, the man who would later be abused by SkyNet's efforts to make human-looking Terminators (no spoilers here; that part was in the trailer) was a condemned murderer in his "first" life. I'm sure the writer or director indtended this to be a motivational device for the character, one that would add a touching, bittersweet humanity to his future-machiney self, but the effort was unnecessary. This was not a movie about motivation and nuance. This was a movie about blowing up giant, scary robots.

If someone buying a ticket for Terminator Salvation is expecting anything more than scary robots and big explosions, well, shame on him. We shouldn't let any film's mega-hype – least of all a sequel's – keep us from considering what its intended goal is. And what is Terminator Salvation trying to be if not the final chapter (okay, no proof if it's actually the final one) in a series of decidedly summer blockbusters? It seems logical to expect more of what people love from the Terminator movies, updated to match modern expectations and for what it's worth, Terminator Salvation does that very well. The film, like its predecessors. Tons of action, a bit of schlock, but with enough excitement and tension to balance things out.

As for the modern expections bit, I think it's safe to say that digital animation and motion graphics has come a VERY long way since 1984 or 1991…hell, even since 2003, when T3 was released! The art in this film reflects that in spades, and masterfully combines a gritty, deserted post-apocolypse with impossibly modern machinery, every item as perfectly rendered as if it had really been captured with the camera.

Of course, action, suspense, and motion graphics alone do not a great movie make. They make a fine movie, as in "just fine," and in this case, a fun one. Call me a pushover, but I'm not looking for more from this Terminator or any other.

2 Movies About…Making Bank: The "Summer's" First 2 Blockbusters

X-Men Origins: Wolverine ★★½

Star Trek ★★★★½

In the movie industry, as in so much of retail-based society, seasons start a little early. Christmas season starts at Halloween, Oscar season starts in the Fall, and Summer, the season of the Blockbuster, starts in early May. Summer season 2009 is off to a rollicking start with two hugely anticipated films, each with a very long franchise history to back it up and bring it fans. Wolverine and Star Trek are both examples of mega-budget, sci-fi epics that movie fans love, even those who don't care much about the source material, and they both have already made major bank, thanks in large part to months and months of hype. The films have this in common, and little else. 

Actually, for me, there were some other similarities. I saw both films on the day they opened, at the same theater, where in both cases I had to show the ticket I just paid $10.50 for to a diffident but unyielding usher before entering the theater itself, despite the fact that tickets were already torn on an entirely different floor. Oh, summer blockbusters. We get so excited for you, only to be put through hell for the opportunity to be disappointed by you. At least, this was the case with Wolverine. 

The X-Men franchise has been quite successful at the box office over the years, but scripts and plot development have seen their ups and downs. Wolverine has all the flash and careful art design of previous films, but in terms of editing and storyline, we can mark it in the "downs" column. Ladies and gentlemen, for the first time in the history of Cineplexus, I'd like to issue a SPOILER ALERT.

Now, perhaps you already know that Wolverine (Hugh Jackman, of course) and his ilk (i.e., mutants) are practically immortal. This is made crystal clear to us in an opening montage that finds James Logan (Wolverine-to-be) and his half-brother (the future Sabertooth, played by Liev Schreiber) fight in pretty much every American War ever (nevermind that they're Canadian). But after some funny business in Vietnam, some fun with other mutants (a hit-or-miss bunch that includes some characters that will be familiar to comic book fans, but not to anyone else), and starting a new life as a lumberjack, a man named Stryker offers to make Logan "indestructible."  X2 already introduced Stryker to us as a military madman, and as Wolverine's creator. 

Indestructible. It's not an equicovating kind of word. What's more, the man who uttered it, Stryker, has devoted his life to the study of mutants (and how to take advantage of them). So why, Gavin Hood, why, David Benioff and Skip Woods, why, Nicolas DeToth and Megan Gill, is the entire second half of the movie about Stryker trying to destroy Wolverine? Moments after the newly-minted adamantium-infused Wolverine esapes from the laboratory of his creation, Stryker utters the following words to his #2 man: "Blow his brains out." You JUST coated his skull in unbreakable metal, jackass! Sure, a military higher-up points this out a bit later in the film, but it's too little, too late at that point. No matter how many cool fights, awesome mutants, or fabulous special effects can make up for such a mind-boggling backwards plot "twist." 

I'm not saying I didn't enjoy the film. I'm just saying that I spent several minutues of it yelling at the screen from the audience. Literally. No one heard me. It was loud in there. In a way, I have to thank X-Men Origins: Wolverine for giving me some perspective with which to critique the following week's big blockbuster, Star Trek.

Now, I'm no Star Trek lover; in fact, in my younger years I was one of those Star Wars nerds who's so devoted a fan that she actually stands against the very idea of Star Trek. In college, however, I became close friends with Mary, who I credit with getting me excited about things like comic books and superheroes…and with bestowing upon me a working knowledge of Star Trek: The Next Generation. That said, one hardly needs more than a tenuous grasp on 20th century pop-culture to follow along with this film. After all, it's an origins story – OMG, another similarity to Wolverine! How did I miss that one? – and we're carefully, if quickly, introduced to all the heroes from the original Star Trek throughout the film. While they aren't all fresh out of Starfleet, they are all new to the Enterprise, rocketed into key roles by happenstance and quick thinking, and there's something truly exciting about that.

Come to think of it, what's not exciting about the new Star Trek? I expected some thrilling fight scenes and fast-paced chases. I expected crazy effects and fancy explosions. Check, check, check. super-check. For many, that kind of flash will be enough to brand Star Trek a successful endeavor. But how was I to imagine, based on the fast-paced, hype-tastic trailer pumped through the Web and on to television for the past year, that this film would actually have a carefully developed, extremely complex story? The folks behind Star Trek might have devoted as much care to character development as they did to their Enterprise sets and interstellar motion graphics. Furthermore, they managed to totally rewrite the future of the Star Trek universe; one friend of mine was appalled by this fact, but only one. Personally, I think it's a move of pure brilliance, one that could help this film become a sci-fi classic. And who could forget how super-hot all the main characters are? I, for one, can't stop thinking about it.

Both films obviously spent tons of time and money on development and details, but one of them just gave up when it came time for the script and the editing.  Not so fast, Hollywood; therein lies the difference between a frustrating Pre-Summer Blockbuster and an excellent one. Giving a crap about making your movie good, instead of just about your movie making money.

AS SEEN ON DVD: 2 Movies about loser duos ★★★

Role Models and Pineapple Express, both from 2008, both 3 Stars, both available in "Unrated" DVD editions. 

In the life of a film critic, there occasionally arises a kind of inner conflict between the entertainment lover and the film snob within. Sometimes a film is so entertaining that the snob approves; sometimes a film is so unpleasant that both sides disagree. But occasionally, for healthy, well-rounded critics LIKE MYSELF, a movie comes around that is really enjoyable without actually reaching the filmic level of "good."

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you two such movies.

These pictures, Role Models and Pineapple Express bear nothing in common other than the trait just mentioned and the one I brought up in the title of this post. They're both about pairs of total douchebags who are sort of friends as the films start and best friends when they end. How two movies with such a core value in common could be so vastly different is, I suppose, a testament to the power of human storytelling.

One difference between the two is what they appeared to be aiming for. The former was your traditional, hard-cracking buddy comedy, gunning for laughs and sometimes winning them. The latter film aimed for nothing higher than the designation of "stoner comedy," and, á la Cheech and Chong, threw in some raucous action, blood, and gunfights. It aimed low, and it hit the mark. But where Role Models seemed to be trying too hard to make us laugh with old antics like crude sex jokes, naked body parts, and kids saying "boobies," Pineapple Express suffered a bit from its own laziness. Perhaps that could be considered a virtue for a movie about potheads, but I couldn't help but imagine entire sections of the script reading "The two run around screaming. Continue until everyone has forgotten why they are doing so, which is, in fact, for no reason at all." 

Then we have the characters. I waxed poetic in a recent post about how lovable Paul Rudd makes every character, but even I had trouble liking Danny, the total jerk he plays for the first half of Role Models. Down on his luck and fed up with the world, this guy actually had me wishing that Seann William Scott had more lines. And that's saying something. Luckily, things picked up when the kids were introduced. The true stars of the film, Christopher Mintz-Plasse (the infamous "McLovin" from Superbad) and Bobb'e J. Thompson (see him slay as Tracy, Jr. on 30 Rock) make their characters so fantastically comical that it only emphasizes what jerks their older counterparts are playing.

On the flip side of character issues, we have team Rogan-Franco smoking their way through Pineapple Express. While Seth Rogan's character, Dale, is definitely a loser, it's at least possible to relate to him – he's not a total asshole, he just lacks ambition. Then there's James Franco, who conjures up one of the most amazing stoner-pot dealers cinema has ever seen in Seth, who spends the entire movie in his pajamas. Here is a character that couldn't be more of a loser, and yet he's all the more likable for his occasionally-enlightened confusion. These aren't just any two stoners; they're made unique by their quirks and some spirited acting. Yet again, Pineapple Express manages to meet and exceed its clearly low goals.

So, if one film aimed high and faltered, while the other aimed low and succeeded, doesn't it follow that the two should even out? And so we have two enjoyably average comedies. God Bless America.

Three Weeks Later…Watchmen. ★★★★.

I shouldn't be writing this. Or, to be more specific, after seeing Watchmen three weeks ago, I decided I wasn't going to write a review of the film. Having bought my ticket in a frenzy of haste and anticipation, I watched the Watchmen with my heart in my hands, nervously checking in minute-by-minute to see if the film was a complete disaster yet – not the ideal mental state for criticism. One of the perks of writing a film review blog as opposed to, say, a film review newspaper column is the freedom to censor oneself. I paid for my ticket, and I reserve the right to keep my opinions a secret.

It wasn't that I didn't like the movie. Quite the opposite, in fact; I was afraid that I liked it more that I should. If that sounds completely ridiculous – who can say how much one should like a movie? – well, point taken. I decided to scrap that theory and return to the theater, this time with full knowledge of what to expect, and the mental facility to analyze what was being presented. 

The verdict is in: Yes, Marissa. This movie is pretty friggin awesome.

Watchmen is absolutely an epic. It is complex and dark, vertiginous and long, and demands that the viewer bring some kind of interest and investment in the storyline with them to the theater. At least a passing interest in comic books, superheroes, or the Apocalypse is a pre-requisite for entrance, or should be. 

The major victory of Watchmen the Movie is its dutiful exultation of Watchmen the Book. With the regrettable exception of Adrian Veidt's thin stature and weird accent, the filmmakers have painted a live-action version of the graphic novel's famous frames up on the screen. A pivotal chapter from the book, in which major character Dr. Manhattan relives the story of his frightening transformation into demi-god, is held intact for the film, and the resulting montage may be the most riveting few minutes of cinema we've seen in years. On the flip side, some book dialogue that probably should have been cut from the script (Laurie, arriving on Mars: "Whoa. I'm on Mars.") remains, but one can't fault the overall attention to detail. Little from the primary storylines has been omitted, and the result is a fascinating homage to the classic book. 

All of this, in truth, is a mixed blessing for the viewer who has not read the book, as many of the characters and events might come off as confusing or overly grandiose. Someone arriving at the theater expecting a fun romp through the city on the wings of masked avengers might be more than disappointed. Children could be scarred for life. But that total upheaval of the superhero mythology is exactly what makes Alan Moore's novel such a revelation. While the cinephile side of me wishes the film were a bit more transparent, my love for culture and literature wins out here: I am very, very glad that this movie begs the viewer to compare it to the book. What better way to get the world to read a graphic novel from the late Seventies?

Tropic Thunder ★★★★

Ben Stiller, that great enigma of cinema…how will history judge his oeuvre? It's not a question I've heard asked too often, but it's one that's been one my mind ever since I saw Tropic Thunder a couple of weeks ago. It was a question I couldn't quite answer. Then I saw Tropic Thunder again. In a moment of clarity the answer finally came to me, terrific and frightening.

Ben Stiller is the 21st century's Mel Brooks.

Please don't be mad. I know such a bold statement is difficult to read. But before you surf away from my apparently-deranged ramblings in an offended huff, give me a chance to explain myself.

How many Mel Brooks movies have you seen? Sure, you've seen Blazing Saddles, you've seen Young Frankenstein, but what about High Anxiety? History of the World, Part I? Spaceballs? Put these films together, and they reveal Brooks to be a director/producer/writer (oh, and actor) whose body of work is almost completely based on two principles: (1) Make fun of everything that deserves it and (2) Make every joke that's funny, and a handful that aren't.  This simple formula spawned a legend and a legendary set of films.

If Mr. Stiller were responsible for just one silly, ridiculous, hysterical film, the comparison to Brooks might not have occurred to me. But Tropic Thunder – which spits right in the face of some truly laughable people and things on earth – merely represents the (current) apex of a career that's been trending toward silly, ridiculous, and hysterical subjects for some time now. Much like Zoolander lampoons models and the fashion industry, or Dodgeball goofs on gym culture and sports mania, Tropic Thunder offers a biting-but-goofy send up of Hollywood. And much like Brooks, Stiller has chosen time and again to cast himself as the most awful and pitiable characters in a cast of varyingly awful, pitiable characters

There is, of course, a major difference between Tropic Thunder and Stiller's previous satires (Zoolander, Starsky & Hutch, Dodgeball) : this is a much, much better film. Tropic Thunder pushes the envelope right to the brink, it takes just enough advantage of joke opportunities to keep you laughing continuously, but avids inducing eye-rolls, and it celebrates all of the sad-but-true Hollywood clichés it burns. There's no question about it. This is more that a great comedy, it's a good movie.

For every Producers in a Hollywood career, there's bound to be one or two Robin Hood: Men In Tights debacles. With that in mind, I suppose only time will tell if Ben Stiller's works, both great and small, will be remembered as classics in the annals of movie history. But if he keeps this up, I have a feeling that 30 years from now, some know-it-all blogger might be comparing some young director/producer/writer to the great Ben Stiller, much to the outrage of readers everywhere.

Get Smart ★★★

I wasn't born until 1983, but thanks to the good people at Nickelodeon and their tireless efforts to syndicate old TV (see: Nick at Nite, TVLand), I have very fond childhood memories of Get Smart, a groovy spy show that originally went off the air in 1970. For me, there were 3 things to love about Get Smart: the fabulously goofy Maxwell Smart (played to perfection by the late Don Adams), the constant stream of kitschy gadgets, and the ever-present aura of the late 1960s.

I'm not totally sure why someone at Warner Bros. decided that 2008 should be the year that CONTROL and KAOS return to the big screen, but it's probably to the film' advantage that a good chunk of its audience will have little to no knowledge of the classic series that it is re-imagining. The film version, you see, has only 1 of those 3 things that made the TV show great. 

Well…1.5.

Gadgets this film has in spades, and some of its most sidesplitting scenes revolve around them. The ".5" is for Maxwell Smart. Steve Carrell is well cast as Smart, and at moments he seems to be directly channelling Don Adams, even vocally. Ultimately, though, the script makes the new Maxwell Smart a little too, well…smart. Sure he pulls a lot of bonehead moves, and the film shines through most of them. But in the version the writers also make a huge fuss about how Smart is their best information analyst, ho he's fluent in Russian (which never once backfires for him!) and has some mysterious martial arts prowess. Carrell is tailor-made to play he bumbling, accident-prone version of Smart, the one who gets into scrapes but triumphs time and again because of good luck and a good attitude. The other, newer facets of the character seem clunky and out of place.

 

So what about that third facet that I loved so much about the Get Smart TV series? The late 1960s are nowhere to be found on the set of the Get Smart movie. Perhaps the story was modernized so that we could see new-fangled weaponry or better relate to the actors' hairstyles. Maybe the producers were trying to avoid Austin Powers comparisons. But the most obvious advantage of setting the story in the present era is the opportunity o transform KAOS into a terrorist organization and speak, if comedically, to what is generally considered to be a genuine global threat. Somehow, though, despite hints at the idea of terrorism, the villains still manage to be Russian. Russian! As if the Cold War were still raging on in 2008! Maybe I should feel relieve that KAOS wasn't relocated to Iran or North Korea, but the Russian threat seems beyond stale, injecting an unfortunate note of unintended anachronism and kitsch.

All things considered, Get Smart is an enjoyable movie. That said, it uffers (and more intensely) from the same problem I discussed in my recent review of Baby Mama: it's funny, but not as funny as I'd expected. In this case, for every laug-out-loud moment, there was also some cringe-inducing cliché cheese, like the paper-thin bad guy or the oft-mentioned but never fully fleshed-out main-character romance. It was all fun stuff, but my first desire after leaving the theater wasn't to go back and watch the film again. It was to head home and watch the TV show on DVD. Which I happen to have. How convenient.

In Bruges ★★★1/2

With the trailer alone, In Bruges conveys upon one the idea that the Belgian city is a bizarre and dreary one, peppered with some shocks of unexpected color. I have no idea if this is true of Bruges, but it is most certainly true of the film itself.

For me, writer/director Martin McDonagh's latest effort plays out as a so-so film with a handful of very high points. It boldly clashes together the genres of drama, action, and comedy, for which it deserves a lot of credit. In a similar stroke of daring, it seems to care very little about the typical conventions of film narrative. Case and point: the film essentially has no beginning and no ending, at least not in the traditional sense. But rather than launching us right into the action, the film merely skips the formality of introductions. We just have to sit back and wait for something to happen.

Enter my biggest problem with In Bruges. A major plot point of the film is the fact that main character Ray (Collin Farrell) hates being in Bruges from the moment he arrives there. His complaining playfully annoys his partner in crime, fellow and more senior hitman Ken (Brendan Gleeson). Guess who else it annoys? Me. I'd essentially had enough of Ray's bitching by minute 5 or 6. I've been on quite enough trips to foreign countries with companions who were determined to make the least of it, thank you. While the film eventually offers some insight as to why Ray's in such a bad mood, I couldn't help but feel irked that I had to listen to 30 minutes of complaining before things got rolling.

Things do get rolling, to be sure, and they're frequently bloody and often surprising. But were they worth waiting for? For me, the brilliant moments of comedy, action, and poignancy in the film's latter half never quite washed away the bad taste the first 30 minutes left me with. I can't say if it will be the same for you. In this case, I'd say its worth finding out for yourself.

Jumper ★★

When you go to a movie primarily to see Mace Windu and Anakin Skywalker duke it out, chances are you're not looking for cinematic gold. But let's face it, there are good sci-fi action films, and there are mediocre ones. Jumper, despite its abundance of slick effects and former citizens of Coruscant, falls decidedly into the latter category. Now, before you have time to consider what a huge nerd that last sentence makes me, let's try and figure out just what bugged me about this odd little film.

Essentially, the concept presented to us is a very simple, very cool one. There are people, "jumpers," who have the ability to teleport to any place they've ever seen, even in pictures. The price jumpers pay for this ability is that they are forever hunted by a crew of people who will stop at nothing to catch and kill them. These people are called "paladins," and they are especially fond of the injuring-friends-and-family-members-until-you-reveal-yourself method of hunting.

This sounds to me like a setup for a rather interesting super-hero/sci-fi film. All it needs is a plot. And this is where Jumper falls flat. Rather than coming up with a real story line, the film attempts to turn a simple setup into a whole film. Occasionally a new character or the slightest of twists is introduced, but for the most part we are beaten over the head with this initial premise as these awful people chase each other around for 90 minutes. I was pretty excited that the film spent several of those minutes in Rome, as I lived there for 3 months and was able recognize all the shooting locations, but I cannot even begin to name all of the other places that we are "jumped" to during this cat-and-mouse game. The gimmick loses its immense cool potential as we begin to realize that "gimmick" is all the movie's got.

After describing my take on this film to a co-worker, he disappointedly told me that he'd thought the movie looked "kinda cool." I cannot deny it: Jumper is definitely kinda cool. Hell, it's about the power of immediate and unlimited teleportation for God's sake! So if you're a sci-fi superfan who doesn't mind shallow characters and trite dialogue, by all means, head to the theater! Otherwise, I think you'll be safe waiting for that distant night when this one jumps its way onto HDNet.

Beowulf 3D ★★★

Smokin' Aces ★★1/2

(Saw this one recently on DVD)
d. Joe Carnahan.

You probably already know that contract killers and mob men are a ruthless bunch. But did you know there are all kinds of contract killers? That's right! There are small-time bail bonsdmen, exotic Latin men who kill for the romance of it all, crazy inbred hillbillies who think life is one big video game, and, of course, there are sexy lady contract-killing duos, one of whom is a slightly less sexy, and also a lesbian.

Sometimes, all of these crazy characters aren't enough for one movie, so as a writer, you decide to remind everyone about one other kind of hit man, the Mission Impossible 2 kind of hitman who ruthlessly kills whoever he wants so that he can make an indistinguishably perfect mask of their faces and trick friends and passersby into thinking he's not really a nasty hitman.

You know. That kind.

If you're thinking, "Wow, I had no ideas there were so many types of contract killers!" and, "I'd really like to see what happens when you get all those wacky folks together!" for God's sake, go rent Smokin' Aces IMMEDIATELY. Or, on second thought, just go ahead and buy a copy. You'll have tons of fun watching and rewatching the film's chainsaw-Gatlin gun-sniper rifle-laser pointer-nunchuck fight scenes and its cavalcade of questionable facial hair.

If, on the other hand, you're the type of viewer who is totally dependent on even pacing, strong character motivation, and a degree of restraint when it comes to sex, language, and violence, I'm going to go ahead and steer you in another direction. Have you seen Howard's End?

Should you fall somewhere in between these two extremes, take comfort: your skepticism is warranted. Smokin' Aces doesn't make tons of sense, it's not particularly plausible, and it takes itself a little too seriously. But if you posess even a passing interest in violence, action, or contract killing, you should probably let this movie kick you in the face for 3 hours or so. I can guarantee you'll come out of it looking better than the other guy.