Sucker Punch (2011)

I like to think of Sucker Punch as a frame story for a bunch of action movies that I wish were full length movies on their own. The frame itself is very much like a picture frame; it is the functional, stylish, yet utterly mundane thing that surrounds the beautiful picture.

**/5

Hanna (2011)

Okay, not SF. Maybe fantasy if you take that word at its base meaning.

Whatever, I'm going to review Hanna anyway.

This could have been a good movie. At times it actually is a great movie. However, bad pacing and plot holes bring this one down.

Unfortunately for a 'thriller', this one starts out slow, without a hook, and continues in this rut for far too long. On its own, the opener wouldn't be such a bad movie. One I might not watch, but not bad. Does it fit where it is? Not so much.

Then the narrative finally switches and it seems that we get the movie that was advertised.

But the action is short lived. We then get a fish out of water story not unlike the movie Nell. Oh, there's also a bit of a lesbian romance.

Eventually the bad guys catch up with Hanna and there is a brief flash of excitement. Hanna totally outclasses these thugs, yet she opts to jump in the river rather than finish the bad guys off and rescue the family that has been helping her. The movie dishonestly leaves the fate of the family off camera. However, everyone else that encounters the bad guys meet gruesome ends and it is unlikely that the family would have escaped a similar end.

From here it's all downhill. The only gun seen (and used) belongs to the main antagonist which works quite well for her until Hanna remembers how to use it.

Ultimately this movie revels in a bleak, masochistic view of the world and offers little entertainment in return. I recommend last year's Kick-Ass over this movie.

Rating: **/5

Movie Round-up

It's time for a round up! Here's what I've been watching these past few months:

Gulliver's Travels (2010)

Not bad. And I don't mean that in a bland way. It could have been so much better if the editor had handled the 'passage of time' gaps more fluently.

A shout out to Roy (Chris O'Dowd) from The IT Crowd! Great job! Too bad they gave you so many crap lines.

***/5

Gamer (2009)

Jittery, intentionally glitchy camera work leads to hard to follow action. But, surprisingly, this movie is smarter than expected. I felt that the premise was similar to Joss Whedon's Dollhouse, only done better.

I should warn you at this point that Gamer has more nudity, gore, and perversion than any R rated movie should have.

Somehow the casting director managed to round up a very eclectic cast, including some strange cameos. You've got Dexter (Michael C. Hall) in a very prominent role. There's also Kevin Bacon's wife, the Closer (Kyra Sedgwick). And then there's the perpetual teenager (Alison Lohman). Of course, no movie would be complete without John Leguizamo, no matter how brief the appearance. Peter Petrelli (Milo Ventimiglia) even shows up doing his best to convince us that he really is a psychopathic rapist. It's Ludacris, they even have Chris Bridges!

The most surreal moment for me was when Sean (James Roday) and Juliet (Maggie Lawson) from Psych popped up as hosts on some news show.

**/5

The Warrior's Way (2010)

Stylistic BS. Give it a pass.

*/5

Skyline (2010)

Vapid L.A. partiers during an alien invasion. Pure fantasy, no science. It's not intellectually engaging.

0/5

Scott Pilgrim Vs. The (Real) World

Warning, Spoilers below!

A short story, if you will:

"I told you already, my name is Scott Pilgrim"

The haggard looking homicide detective glanced back up at the stringy young man with the shaggy hair who smelled vaguely of cheese and dirty socks. Then, shaking his head he looked back down at the file in front of him that clearly listed the perp's name as Scott Peabody.

"Okay Mr. Pilgrim, once again, what were you doing carrying a bag of human body parts down the street."

"Body parts? No, no, no. It was a bag a coins. I got them when I defeated Gideon."

"Got them?"

"Yeah, he turned to coins when I kicked him in the head. They always do that."

"Wait, you're saying that when you kick people in the head they turn into coins?"

"Well, not just their heads. I only had to touch one girl on the back of her knee. That was. . . it was embarrassing actually. I don't want to talk about it."

"Let's just take a step back here. You're saying you kicked a guy in the head until he turned into a bunch of coins?"

"He stole the girl that I met in a dream. Well actually she said it was a hyperspace bypass in my head that cuts a three and a half mile trip down to fifteen seconds."

"Rrrrrright." The detective flipped the folder shut mentally closing the case as well. The kid was obviously going for the insanity defense. He was going to get it.

Seriously though, I love this movie! Or maybe not seriously. I mean one really can not be serious while watching this movie or the above interpretation might cloud the enjoyment factor.

****/5

Tron: Legacy in IMAX 3D

So, a couple of weeks back I went to watch Tron: Legacy. I admit that I entered the theatre with trepidation. Not only was this the first movie that I would be seeing in Imax 3D, but the movie itself represented a new chapter in one of my favourite childhood stories and sequels are rarely any good, let alone one that comes out 28 years after the original.

But I loved it!

Sure it messes with many of the conventions of the original (upgrades perhaps?) and it raises more questions than it answers, but it is quite lush both visually and sonically. And it's just great fun.

The soundtrack/score by Daft Punk is absolutely perfect for this movie. It is electric, moody, and atmospheric without ever being intrusive.

My one wish would have been that they not do the de-aging entirely through CG. It looked so fake to me, although my sister couldn't tell. NCIS did the de-aging much better through practical effects, although admittedly they did not have to take as many years off of Rocky Carroll's face.

On IMAX

I was quite impressed with the 3D IMAX. It was clearer than the 3D on a regular screen. The only negative was the glasses. They re-use these glasses so they will be scratched to some extent. Also, my nose and ears hurt when I took the glasses off.

Surprisingly, only part of the movie is in 3D. It's an interesting choice.

Now I know that the Imax screen is physically 4:3, but they letter-boxed the projection of Tron: Legacy to it's native widescreen . . . mostly. I thought it was strange that it would switch back and forth between aspect ratios until I read this.

Rating:

***/5

Avatar in Three Dimensions

Following swiftly on the heels of my viewing of Disney's A Christmas Carol in 3D, I went to see James Cameron's new, record smashing, hit movie Avatar. I'm not sure what I expected going into the theatre. Certainly the previews showed a visually stunning movie, but one that I suspected would have a fairly straightforward, and thinly veiled, story about military exploitation.

One feature that I was really looking forward to was the supposed innovation in 3D technology. I guess I fell for all the hype. It really wasn't all that impressive. Sure, there are a few sparks and other floaty things that stick out, and some sort of weird holographic computer interface that has prominent screen time for about a second. Other than that I really felt let down. I suspect that the real difference between Avatar and Disney's Christmas Carol in regards to the 3d projection is the forced focus in the former. By that I mean that far too often in Avatar the only thing in focus is the main character. I suppose this is more a limitation of real world camera technology vs. computer animation, but I found it very annoying, especially when the story's pacing flagged and my eyes tended to wander around the frame.

I'm not going to go into a plot breakdown, I'm sure most people have seen the movie already. I will say that the movie is not really anti-war, as some have claimed.

Instead I want to focus on three other areas where I felt the movie failed. They really are nothing more than nits that I'd like to pick, at least when one considers the sheer number of movie and T.V. shows have the same problems or worse.

The first problem is the rubber-faced aliens. While I realize that rubber has been exchanged for CGI, the Na'vi are still just humans done up just to look wierd - and stereotypically tribal, for whatever reason.

My second gripe is the use of the word 'unobtainium'. Even to those viewers who have lives more interesting than a nerdy blogger who knows about many types of literary tropes and memes, the name unobtainium should be ridiculously transparent; the writers of this movie have no imagination, and so they have snarkily decided to co-opt the language of their critics.

And finally, the voice-overs. . .

I once read that a sure sign that you are watching a bad movie is when the voice-over starts - and I cannot say that I disagree. However, I think James Cameron really missed an opportunity with his use of the voice-over. Obviously, the choice to use voice-overs in Avatar was made, just as in the case of the theatrical release of Blade Runner, bcause the producers felt that the audience would be comprised of utter morons who couldn't understand what they were seeing without being told. Once again, I cannot say that I disagree - at least not completely. It baffles me how such a mediocre movie can generate so much box-office revenue while great movies like Serenity barely make back their budget.

That being said, I think there can be a place for character driven voice-over narration. For instance, the video journals are a great time saving device and were vital to protraying a story that takes place over a long period of time in a movie that is only (or should be) two hours long. Used properly, the effect is tasteful and unobtrusive.

The problem is that there are voice overs that clearly are not part of Jake Sully's video journals. In fact, they can only be explained as an omnicient expository device, and as such I found them to be disruptive to my state of suspended disbelief. I feel the extraneous voice-overs could have easily been lumped into the video journal conceit, or omitted alltogether. Actually, I'm not completely convinced that James Cameron wasn't attempting a much subtler effect but had his efforts co-opted by some marketing team.

Rating ***/5

Edit (01/10/11): I've just finished watching the 'Collector's Extended Cut' version of Avatar (2D). I now see that Cameron intended all the voice overs to be part of Jake's video journal. There is, however, still no explanation as to why the normally taciturn and private ex-marine is so verbose when making such an easily accessible recording. Why would he even include his back story if he's just supposed to be documenting his experiences with the Na'vi? I can only assume that the intro and some of the other voice overs are meant to be part of his final message before shedding his human body. The whole movie, including the other video journal entries, is then simply a flashback. Without clear distinction between the two sets of voice overs, things become a little confusing.

A Christmas Carol - Part 2

Last year I started reading A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens. This year I went and saw the new 3D movie starring Jim Carrey!

I highly recommend it, just not for children as it is quite spooky. The 3D is excellent, the computer animation even better than The Polar Express (made by the same people as the Disney's A Christmas Carol, and Beowulf [2007]), and the acting, MoCap or not, is very well done. My one main complaint is that it didn't have as many plot threads as the classic Alastair Sims version had (although I think those were made-up for the 1951 movie anyway). Instead, it had a rather long and nonsensical action sequence for the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come. Oh well, it could have been worse: It could have been a series of senseless action sequences with about three minutes of actual plot like Polar Express.

If I had to rank my favorite versions of A Christmas Carol, I would still place the Alastair Sims version at the top. Second place, though, is a toss-up between A Muppet's Christmas Carol and the Jim Carrey version, with the muppets generally coming out ahead. However, if they ever make a home theatre system capable of displaying the 3D movie as well as the cinema can, then I may have to re-evaluate my list.

Oh, and I still haven't gotten around to reading the last bit of A Christmas Carol, but I know someone who's getting a hard copy for Christmas. . .

Abrams' Trek

I won't go into any length with this review as a.) it would be a waste of both space and time - perhaps in some sort of continuous way - and b.) it is already covered very well over at Ex Astris Scientia.

However, I will say two things before handing down my judgment. First off, they've extended the engineering section of the Enterprise in order to give the ship an unsightly crotch bulge. Why, I don't know. Perhaps JJ is a fan of Slash fiction?

And my second comment: Red matter?

'Nough said.


My conclusions:

Don't watch JJ Abrams' Star Trek if:
- you liked Star trek in any of it's previous incarnations
- you like movies that make sense
- you like fresh plots

However, go ahead and watch it if:
- you like things that move and/or are shiny
- you like poorly done (and overused) time travel plots
- you need a reminder why you should never work for Mr. Abrams

Rating */5 because I liked Simon Pegg.