Star Trek

Star Trek (2009)


It's been two days since I saw this film with a group of friends, and I'm still surprised that a Star Trek film can be this good. Truly, it's better than it should be (given that it's a sequel/reboot of a moribund franchise whose last entry 7 years ago grossed only about $46 million and is in competition with Wolverine of all movies), and as exciting a summer film as it could be. It's not without its flaws (including gaping plot holes and a script that reads as if it was halfway through a rewrite before the writer's strike hit)...but even then I can't not like the film. There's so much more going for it and working that it's impossible for me to hate it, and that's a credit to everyone involved. I mean, really: a packed theatre for Star Trek? Applause at the end of it? Teenagers and middle-agers sitting together to watch a fucking Star Trek movie? (Although I could have done without the couple sitting behind me and making out every five fucking minutes). It's a credit to everyone involved.
Mostly, it's a credit to director J.J. Abrams, who takes many elements that really shouldn't work (including what I can only describe as an eclectic cast, and the aforementioned script) and somehow makes them work. Adn he doesn't just make them work, he makes them WORK. Like, perfectly and nearly flawlessly. His Mission: Impossble 3 from three years ago marked his first foray into feature filmmaking, but even then he directed as if confined by a small television screen: rewatch that movie and note his directorial choice in scenes that should have been explansive and bombastic, such as the bridge heist, or the raid in Tokyo, or (especially) the climatic fight between Ethan Hunt and Owen Davian. It's all so small for a theatre screen.
Well, he fixes that problem with his second film. This is a Star Trek that feels like it belongs on a theatre screen: the sets are expansive, the sound design booming and rich, the battles epic (on a scale that rival Wrath of Khan), some real emotional heft, planets caving in or exploding, and even a space monster or two thrown in for good measure.



<>>



The true scope of the film reveals itself in the open sequence, where we are introduced to Nero, the Romulan villain from the future (or, in actuality, the late 24th century, which is where the last film took place, thus confirming its place as a "presequelboot"), and his ridiculously massive mining vessel. The U.S.S. Kelvin is sent in to investigate the time time distortion that Nero's time travelling causes, and we learn that Nero is searching for Spock. The Kelvin is attacked and its captain killed, and the second-in-command ---George Kirk--- orders the ship evacuated (along with his wife, who is onboard and going into labor as the attack is carried out). They escape and he flies the Kelvin right into the horrendously more heavily armed Romulan ship.
And right off the bat the film makes its own mark, seperate from everything Trek that went before. It's different in almost every respect. The Federation ships are both dirty and ultra-modern (the engineering sections are dripping with condensation, and cramped, with pipes and tubes shooting all over the place; whereas the bridge is like an Apple Store 20 years from now), and extremely streamlined (and feature odd numbers of nacelles...something Roddenberry always opposed). The battle is less calculated than the one shown in Wrath Of Khan, with each commander trying to outwit the other, but is instead desperate and haphazard, both ships seemingly firing at random. Abrams minutely details the damage: in one instance, the impact of one of Nero's torpedoes is shown from the inside, a corridor suddenly explodes and a crewmember is sucked out, screaming, as the soundtrack suddenly becomes silent and what we hear is Michael Giacchino's beautiful score (seriously, with every film he reaffirms himself as my favorite contemporary film composer. His work on The Incredibles and Speed Racer especially go underappreciated). The opening battle, again, is on a scale unlike anything seen in Star Trek since 1982 (even the battle between half of Starfleet and the Borg in First Contact lasted only a few seconds) and sets the tone of the film.
And that tone? Fun. Fun with a capital "F". While the film has its flaws (which I will get to), every actor is giving their absolute all and enjoying being in the film so much that I can't helped but be charmed by everything that occurs onscreen. Chris Pine, as Jim Kirk, plays the role as the cocky, chauvinistic, self-assured cowboy that he usually is in the best of the original episodes. Gone are the dramatic pauses, the melodramatic gesturing, and the grandiose speeches (not that those are bad; in fact, that's what makes Shatner's interpretation great and fun! But it's 2009, and it's time for a different take on the role). Zachary Quinto's Spock is more emotionally open (to the point of engaging in a relationship with Zoe Saldana's Uhura...a relationship that I not only don't agree with, but which abandons ---nerd alert--- the Vulcan mating ritual of pon farr...unless Spock is 28 in this film...whatever), but, at the same time and quite paradoxically, plays Spock with an almost sociopathic apathy. Spock has always been about repressed emotions, not lack of any at all.
The rest of the cast play their roles better than expected (Karl Urban's McCoy was ABSOLUTELY perfect. If the movie were all about him, I would be fine with that. Seriously, it was as if someone had cryogenically frozen the DeForrest Kelley of the 1950's and placed him in the film. Unending kudos to Urban!) John Cho expands Sulu from a bridge instrument to actually being involved in a major setpiece; Anton Yelchin goes a little overboard with Chekov's accent (although him trying to get the computer to understand him was funny) and leaves me to wonder why a 17 year old Chekov would be in uniform so soon...not only should he not be on the Enterprise at that point, but he would have to be 12 at the time he was accepted to the Starfleet Academy; Uhura gets more lines and action in this film than she did in the entire run of the series; and finally, Simon Pegg's Scotty was perhaps the most fun character (and does manage to save the day at the end), but was played a bit too much for laughs...although, even then, he never loses his dignity. In fact, each character gets their moment to save the day, and each actor expands on the characteristics that made the characters individual to begin with, not merely paying lip service to the original actors.
The other actors fare well with their roles also: Winona Ryder as Spock's mother, Amanda, was barely recognizable (a credit to the old-age makeup), and Bruce Greenwood as Captain Pike made the role his own, and his fate shows that already the established universe is drastically different from what went on before.
However, Eric Bana's Nero, while a fun nemesis...doesn't really have an interesting MO. He's a Romulan space miner. His wife died when Romulus exploded. He's mad at Leonard Nimoy's Spock Prime (which, in reality, is the Spock from the established universe). He accidentally gets sent back in time to 2225 and blows up the Kelvin, which sets off the chain of events that change history. And then, for 25 years...he just...kinda...waits. He doesn't do anything. A friend said, "Well, he's waiting for Spock to show up so he could use the red matter to blow up Vulcan." True. Except he witnessed everything happen from his ship and probably wouldn't know that there was red matter in Spock's vessel. So...what was he doing?
Spock Prime has never been this emotional before. Ever. At least not without the aid of some spores, or Vulcan ritual, or mind control. But this is Leonard Nimoy showing an aged and emotionally conflicted Spock...but a Spock who also just accidentally went back in time. And I'm used to the Star Trek movies dealing with time travel, but in each of the films it was an active move: the characters didn't just go back in time accidentally. That's what occurs here, and that weakens the villain and, therefore, the story.
And the story is what should matter most in a Star Trek film (or any film, for that matter). Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman's script is full of massive plot holes (if Spock went back in time by accident, why does Kirk comment that his "going back and changing history, isn't that cheating?"; is it really plausible that Kirk would be marooned on the same planet and hide in the exact cave where Spock Prime is hiding, and on that same planet Scotty is stationed? And, again, what the hell is Nero doing for 25 years?) Little explanation is given as to how exactly Nero's appearance alters the state of Starfleet technology, why Pike and his crew were hanging out in Iowa, why the destruction of the Kelvin is worthy of the history books (maybe that'd explain the advanced state of Starfleet technology), nor as to why Nero, at the climax, is suddenly so adamant on killing Kirk (for all intents and purposes, Nero shouldn't give a damn). It is as if prior to the destruction of Vulcan Abrams was working on the script's latest draft, and after that scene was forced to use an earlier draft (due to the writer's strike, which occurred midway into shooting).
But, even then, Abrams makes it fucking work! He proves wrong the adage that a film is only as good as its script. Because, well, the script is pretty bad (Scotty's lines, while funny, are wildly out-of-character, especially that "nacelle" line). But what he utilizes in the bad script he makes up for with charm. Even when Scotty gets beamed into a coolant tank in a pointless scene that adds nothing to the story or the character, I still cared about what happened and wanted him to get out okay. Pointless scenes that add nothing of merit at all are still so charming as to not be offensive.

The production design is at once both gorgeous and gritty. The designs of the Federation starships adheres to the desgins of the previous films (saucer sections, nacelles), and the bridge looks like an Apple Store expanded on government scale. He retains the sound design while updating them slightly (the communicator sound; the red alert sound; the transporter energizing effect, the late Majel Barrett Rodeenberry as the computer voice), and they all work flawlessly. The Enterprise looks absolutely gorgeous, almost like what the design would have been in the aborted Star Trek: Phase Two television series from the 1970s. Cool color palettes on the exteriors, and bright lighting for interiors...except for the engineering section, which is dank, foggy, musty, damp, dimly lit, and expansive. I find it wierd that every part of the ship except for engineering would be so absolutely pristine and state-of-the-art.
Abrams did what producer Ronald Moore couldn't do: he made Star Trek fun and popular again. And he did it without alienating the original fans. Gone is the baggage of the original actors; gone is the melodrama and the 40+ years of labyrinthine continuity; gone are the dreary sets (just go back and look at the lighting and color scheme of the Enterprise-E) and costumes; hell, gone is all the metaphysical musings by the characters...this is the Star Trek from 1966: bright colors, bright lighting, lots of sex, comedy, adventure and Fun. The stakes have never been higher (characters are killed that you wouldn't expect; Vulcan is destroyed; Spock Prime is forced to live in the past in order to perpetuate his own species), but that doesn't mean we have to be all dark and gloomy and Dark Knight about it. There's nothing to stop a fun film from having real emotional weight and consequences, and Abrams proves it here.
This is a new Star Trek. Just like Batman is new again. Just as James Bond is new again. But this is a new vision of the future, without the cynicism and gloom. Without the darkness that'll come in tow with next week's release, Terminator Salvation (a film I have absolutely no interest in). Star Trek's ---and Roddenberry's--- vision of a future where people work together to overcome their problems is resonant again.
Goddamn it, Star Trek is back, and I'm here for the ride.

For more on how this new film works despite itself: http://chud.com/articles/articles/19369/1/THE-DEVIN039S-ADVOCATE-WHY-STAR-TREK-WORKS-DESPITE-ITSELF/Page1.html

And how the new film is going to affect prior canon: http://popculturezoo.com/archives/2529

Porn Fu

Porn Fu: The Single Greatest Movie Ever Made (Now in SUPER-VIBRO-VISION!!!)

I've seriously been considering whether I should talk about Porn Fu, the feature film I've been writing for two years and am thisclose to finishing the final draft. Not that I don't think people want to see the film (far from it: from what I can gather, everyone I mention this film to want to see it), nor do I think it's a good idea (I wouldn't have devoted two years of my life to writing something I didn't think was a good idea). But I've been seriously worried about sharing the idea simply because, well, I don't know if I'm good enough to write it.
The movie concerns the aptly named Long Wang, a master in ancient art of porn fu, a martial art that is derived from pent up sexual energy. Every time Long Wang uses his skills, he must have sex in order to regain his energy, but he cannot climax, or he loses all that energy and must start over. His mother, a prostitute, was murdered by a member of the Yakuza when Wang was very young, and in the film he travels to the place of her murder in order to avenge her. But...along the way, he gets stuck in a gang-run town and must help an old man, Temura, rid the town of both gangs before he can be let out, as well as recover his mother's necklace, her last physical possession and his only reminder of her. Yep. Think of the plot as Yojimbo meets Kung Fu Hustle with a whole bunch of Johnny Wadd thrown in. Did I mention there is a Goth chick with a broadsword, cat ears, a cat tail, and is a badass motherfucker? Or her assisstant, a kung fu schoolgirl in possession of a teacup terrier with a taste for blood? Or Goatse...the character with the single most insane character trait I think I've ever created?
There is lots of blood, lots of sex, and lots of comedy. Trust me when I say that I am putting everything I love about action movies into this film. You want a fight scene while the main character is getting a blowjob? Check. You want a fight scene in a narrow hallway between the main character and 30 bad guys? Check. You want a fight scene where a villain is exploded by the sheer force of the protagonist's crotch? Checkity check check.
So here I am, tightening up lot points, cleaning up the dialogue, and going through the script for a sixth time and I've been thinking about sharing this idea without whoever it is that reads this. The budget would be exorbitant (at least $1 million...and that's a low estimate), shotting would be difficult, but I will settle for the end result being nothing less than amazing. Director Wai Choy, with whom I've worked before in the past (and is a very gifted director), is eager to get started on this project, and has a crew assembled (I myself have assembled a preliminary second-unit crew, and have been searching for performers for the more...um...well, not to mince words, for the sex scenes.) Casting the main roles of Long Wang and Goatse will the most pivotal components, but if done correctly, we would see this film expand in the sequel, which would conceivably be shot in New York's Chinatown (and involve an S&M dominatrix, a free-running sequence on the rooftops, and a fight between Wang and about 20 bad guys in the middle of rush-hour traffic with cars racing about...simply kick-ass). Again, everything I would want to see in a film.
Is this a film you would want to see, that you would want your friends to see? It's the simplest concept: combine action with sex and set it free. Would you be willing to see witness the journey of Long Wang over the course of Porn Fu, and Porn Fu 2: Year Of The Cock? Because I sure as hell know I would.
Whoever wants to see this film, let me know. Let me know what you want to see, what ideas you might have for action or sex scenes (and fear not: the crazier the idea, the funnier it will be and the more likely it will be in the film). I want to know what you think, as I'm trying to write this film for you to enjoy. Enough of the pretentious art films and stupid film school student projects (mine included in that description). Let's have some fucking fun already!



A future review of the film, as featured in a future issue of The New York Times:

“Porn Fu: A Review” by A.O. Scott

I still don't know whether to jump up and down for cinematic joy, or be horribly depressed and offended after watching Porn Fu. A parody of vintage adult films from the Seventies, and the chop-socky imports from the East during that same era (some scenes feel cribbed right out of Fists Of Fury, The Chinese Connection, and Five Fingers Of Death, as well as Sonny Chiba's Street Fighter series), Porn Fu is a film that also pushes the limits of what the MPAA will allow...and what audiences can stomach. The title suggests a lot...and the film delivers so much more. Much more. Much much more than you'd ever care to even imagine about knowing.
The plot (if it matters) concerns Long Wang (yep, this is that sort of film), a young master of porn fu who, as a child, witnessed the rape and murder of his mother. Now that he has matured and is a formidable fighter, he ventures to the City (an anonymous place) to find her killer and avenge her. It's as simple as that...except that he spends the entire film at a small, walled town called Fukiyaka in order to defeat two competing gangs, one led by Lady Ichi and the other by Lady Kiochi. Why? Well, they stole his dead mother's necklace, and, after a particularly amazing battle (which we are told about, but never see...one of the film's many non-sex-related jokes) befriends an old man. If this all sounds familiar, it should, as the plot bears striking resemblance to The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly, which itself is a remake of Yojimbo. The structure is identical, but in this interpretation, the main character is capable of fighting dozens of bad guys at a time, make love like Peter North, and explode a human being with a pelvic thrust. Again, this is that kind of movie.
It's hard to tell whether this film is insensitive to racial stereotypes, or whether it is sexist, or whether it is simply a throwback to the relative political incorrectness of the 1970's, a time when there was major social change, yet men still thought they were on top of everything. Despite the fact that the women play the most important roles (one is the villain, and the other changes sides after sleeping with Wang, and they each use Wang more ofte nthan he uses them), the men are duplicitous and naïve (especially Wang, who is the most naïve until the end of the second act; and the duplicitous Kyo, the jealous boyfriend to Lady Kiochi), and the violence has real weight to it. And the sex scenes, while seemingly superfluous, is anything but. Wang's skills are derived from pent-up sexual energy: every time he makes love, he must fight, and vice versa. On the surface, the film is nothing but penis jokes, double-entendres, and suggestive character names (some of which I can't even print). But, in light of all this, the title of the film is Porn Fu; if you honestly think the film is a treatise of current social situations you should relax and sit back and just enjoy the show.
Enjoyable this show is. Throughout the course of the film Long Wang beds about seven beautiful women (including one who seemed ripped right out of a Japanese manga), kills about a hundred bad guys, explodes about ten others, saves an old man, and fights one of the most outright original characters I've seen in some time: a fedora-topped assassin named Goatse who has a skill so crazy you won't know how to react. The plot is solid enough, although the first half of the second act has Wang meander for a bit before getting down to business, but once he fights off about thirty bad guys in a single-shot fight set in the narrowest hallway in the world, you'll realize that this is a film that is doing more than just showing people have sex. It is pushing the boundaries of what action movies can do and get away with.
While the film is considerably better than the so-called “parodies” that have flooded our theatres twice a year, it still suffers from an incomplete story: one gets the feeling that this is all just a set-up for a sequel. Not that I would mind that: Long Wang still has to find his mother's killer and enact bloody, sex-fueled revenge. If that were all to it, though, then maybe we should have gotten to it this time around. All in all a mindless diversion to the halcyon days of 1970's action and sex films, a combination that perhaps more people should have done. As it is, I'm looking forward to Porn Fu 2: Year Of The Cock.

Below is a scene from the opening of the film:

EXT HILLSIDE – MORNING

A beautiful, clear day; sun shining; green, thick grass; mountains. Wang climbs to top of a small hill, and as we follow him, we see A GREAT CITY in the distance. He sits down and takes out some food.

We HEAR A WOMAN SCREAM a short distance away. Wang turns, and at the bottom of the hill we see…

EXT WANG POV --- SAME

…A WOMAN (mid-20’s) being assaulted by a group of A DOZEN THUGS. The thugs stand in a circle with the girl in the center, pushing her from one side to the other, laughing all the while.

EXT HILLSIDE --- SAME

Wang watches.

EXT BOTTOM OF HILL --- SAME

One of the thugs holds onto the WOMAN, while another takes off her shirt: the woman is now topless, she has an unbelievable body. Two other thugs begin fondling her, his friends laughing and goading him on. They go a bit further with the girl as one after another joins in…

Wang walks towards them.

LEADER
(To Wang)
You want some of this?

WANG
Let her go.

LEADER
This is none of your business.

WANG
Let her go.

WOMAN
(To Wang)
Help me! Please!

LEADER
(to Wang)
Stay out of this.

The Leader PUSHES Long Wang, who stands his ground. Another of the thugs, THUG #1, rushes up, standing next to his Leader. Wang steps forward. THUG #1 SLAPS LONG WANG in the face, hard. SLAP!

Wang remains calm. Another thug, THUG #2 rushes over, laughing, and taunts LONG WANG.

THUG #1
(To THUG #2)
Take his necklace!

THUG #2 RIPS OFF Wang’s necklace, and stares at it. Wang closes his eyes, and breathes in deeply.

LEADER
(Turning to face the rape)
Kill him. He’s nobody.

Thug #2 pulls out a KNIFE and approaches Long Wang. The knife comes CLOSER, almost DIRECTLY INTO THE CAMERA, filling the entire screen, its blade SHARP…

The woman SCREAMS as the LEADER removes his CLOTHES and stands over her…

The knife SLASHES ACROSS THE SCREEN, we hear only the woman SCREAMING…

WIDE SHOT as Long Wang CATCHES THE BLADE between two fingers and SNAPS IT in half all in one move. THUG #2 stares in disbelief. All are quiet, including the woman.

THUG #2
(To his partners in crime)
Uh, guys…?
Long Wang flings the SNAPPED BLADE, which cuts a thug in the NECK, bleeding him to death.

Long Wang KICKS Thug #2 so hard in his crotch that Wang’s foot gets stuck in Thug #2’s pelvis. As the other thugs run towards him, Wang kicks THUG #2 into them, sending them sprawling.

The thugs attack Long Wang, who dispatches them efficiently and coldly, with the minimal of theatrics.

Lots of kicks and throws, Wang barely loses his ground or gives up any space; no flashy or wasted moves. The Leader faces off briefly with Wang, who throws him against a tree effortlessly.

LEADER
(To Thug #1)
What's he doing?

THUG #1
He is doing kung fu!

LEADER
Can he do any more?

THUG #1
Of course he can! He has plenty of kung fu!

The Leader and Thug #1 return to the fight.

Meanwhile, the WOMAN the Leader and his men were raping gathers her clothes and runs off, hiding in some bushes some distance off, watching Long Wang as she gets dressed…

We return to the action to see Long Wang standing over TWO UNCONSCIOUS THUGS, in including Thug #2, as the others run off down the road and into the woods bordering the road.

Wang takes a step forward and then COLLAPSES: he is spent, his energy depleted. The WOMAN tentatively walks to Wang, checks to see if he is alive.

FADE TO BLACK

EXT. RIVERBANK --- AFTERNOON

We open on LONG WANG’S EYES as they open slowly, painfully.

He is lying on a riverbank. His bag is placed under his head as a pillow, and the Woman’s shirt is underneath him as a makeshift sheet. There is a flask of WATER at his side, and he drinks.

Woods surround the area. The Woman he saved emerges, carrying some SMALL LOGS.

WOMAN
Oh. You're awake.

WANG
What happened?

WOMAN
You collapsed after they ran off

WANG
I feel weak…too weak. Drained…

WOMAN
Thank you for helping me. My name is Tushi.

WANG
How long have I been out?

TUSHI
Two hours.

Wang tries to sit up: he can’t.

TUSHI
(She gives him water)
How did you fight like that?

WANG
I know Porn Fu, an ancient, forgotten martial art.

TUSHI
“Porn fu”?

WANG
My skill is derived from the pent-up life-giving energy created in the art of love-making. Lovemaking and fighting go hand-in-hand. Both can be animalistic, but both contain a beauty unfound anywhere else in human existence.

TUSHI
You use up your energy in fighting?
(Touches his hand)
And how do you regain that energy?

Wang leans in close to her face. Cue highly-synthesized, cheesy PORN MUSIC.

WANG
By doing the opposite of fighting.

TUSHI
Is there anything I can do to help?.

WANG
Yes. You might be able to give me a hand.

They kiss, not passionately, but expectantly. From kissing they move into a bit of foreplay, and end with Tushi giving Long Wang a HANDJOB.

TUSHI
(Giving him a handjob)
Oh my, what power!

Taken

Taken

After a trailer like that, how could you not want to see it?
When I first saw the preview for Taken attached to Punisher: War Zone, I was stoked. Luc Besson (of Leon the Professional and La Femme Nikita fame) produced this thriller which has little on logic, less on plausibility, and loads of ass-kicking. Director Pierre Morel previously worked as either camera operator or cinematographer on several of Besson's work, and his previous directorial effort is the parkour-centered thriller District B13. His latest effort is less fantastic than that film, but no less implausible...and no less fun.
The plot concerns Liam Neeson's Bryan Mills' (a retired special ops agent) growing concern over his daughter, Kim (Maggie Grace). Bryan and his wife Lenore (an underused Famke Janssen) are divroced, and she married to a rich businessman who spoils Kim and is undeinably charismatic (much to Bryan's chgrin). Kim takes a trip with her friend Amanda to Europe, intending to backpack throughout the continent while tracing thetour of U2, all while an unsuspecting yet anally worried Bryan worries about his daughter.
However, his worries prove to be founded as Amanda and Kim are kidnapped by white slavers. Using a recorded telephone call from Kim as a clue, Bryan has 72 hours to find his daughter before she is sold and he never finds her again. In order to find her he fights, chases, tortures, and drives cars into boats and Schindler kills hundreds of bad guys. And I loved it.
Neeson carries the film alot better than I'd expected, and that's saying a lot. The leading man in an action film is a new role for him, and the release date of the film gave me reservations (the first month or two of the year are usually dumping grounds for bad movies that can't get higher-profile releases). Neeson propels the film with an unerring energy, and his persona helps give Mills' world-weariness a visible reality. Neeson looks dogged and tired, having seen too much unspeakable horror...and that helps greatly with this film.
Unfortunately, I couldn't remember many of the secondary characters' names (and a lot of them looked too similar...blame that on ethnocentrism if you must), which is a shame because there were many standouts and none seemed to milk their scenes or ham it up (something that could have easily happened). And despite Famke Janssen's underused Lenore (why cast her and then not use her so much? I guess she's got to eat too...), and a few improbable situations (Mills at one point gets hit with a car and then shot...and just limps away), none of these gripes kept me from enjoying the film. (Oh, and I couldn't help but find Bryan exceedingly protective of his daughter. Sure, he was right about the world being a dangerous place...but he was WAAAAYYYY too protective and anal towards her even before the plot started rolling; and what was it with ALL the villains being Middle Eastern?)
Michel Abramowicz's cinematography provides a very cool palatte for much of the film once the action starts, with very saturated colors and vibrant lighting in the opening scenes and coda (a distinction which accentuates the dangerous foreign territories with the relative security of civilian life stateside). Abramowicz's fine cinematography also provides a picturesque view of the settings, showcasing the beautiful vistas and the grungy underworlds with equal attention to detail. The production design by Hugues Tissandier allows for a very grungy, dirty, gritty feel to the world in which these characters live, which, again, helps the story.
However, it is Morel who is to be applauded here. He shapes the script (written by Besson and Robert Mark Kamen) into a sparse, action-oriented thriller. Morel knows how to shoot a chase scene, how to shoot a fight scene, and how to pace the film expertly (finally! An action movie that knwos to put the camera far enough back, and to cut slow enough, for me to know what the hell is going on!). It is apparent that his prior work with Besson allowed him to hone his directorial skills.
I suppose the praise I heap upon this film is earned not only on the part of the filmmakers (obviously), but also on the audience with whom I saw this film. I saw this in Puerto Rico during my spring break earlier this year, and my girlfriend was with me (of the selections playing, this was the best). The theatre was moderately full (there were a few rows of empty seats), and we were relieved when the film had subtitles and wasn't dubbed (I could understand Spanish...but not that well). And, well, the audience loved the movie; their reactions really ramped up the experience for me and made me enjoy it that much more. Normally theatre audiences (at least most of the theatres I go to) tend to ruin the movie with their cell phones and texting and babies and blah blah blah...but these people, like us, were there just to see a kick-ass movie. And, well, again, it helped me enjoy the film that much more. If every movie-going experience were like this, I'd go every weekend (and if I had to money to do so, of course...)
As soon as this film comes out on DVD I'm picking it up (although it presumably already is, it was released in Europe over a year ago...), and I suggest you do the same if you love action movies and watching historical figures blow up bad guys.

Once again, leave it to Besson to show us how action movies should be made.

Watchmen

Watchmen

Zack Snyder almost did what directors and producers such as Joel Silver, Terry Gilliam, and Paul Greengrass (amongst others) stalled: he almost made a Watchmen movie. Almost. He came close. The characters are all there (or at least 90% there), the plot is the same (except for a change in the the villain's MO, one which I actually didn't mind), and some of the themes are mentioned.
But Snyder is not one for subtlety. At all. And that is this film's largest problem: it's a film with so many ideas and themes and characters commanded by a director whose previous films are a decent zombie film remake and a bombastic, nihilistic adaptation of a graphic novel by an author who has lost sense of subtlety. To give him reign over a complex story such as Watchmen wasn't the worst crime in the world, but it wasn't the smartest move either. It's like a man with developing cataracts was asked to drive a schoolbus of open cans of paint. Sure, he'll get them to where they need to go, but in the process he'll take some detours, wrong turns, and dead ends and every individual color and shade will get mixed into a warped blur. But it's a pretty blur...or something (wow, what a bizarre metaphor I'd concocted right there).
But while I didn't hate the film, there are reservations I have (the old-age make-up, the Nixon make-up, Malin Ackerman's stiff performance, a complete lack of nuance and subtlety from some of the actors and themes), and there are some things Snyder did that added to the story.
First off, the ending HAD to change. There was no way the batshit-insane-climax from the graphic novel would translate well on screen, and the way Snyder worked aroudn that worked...although the aftermath of the villain's destruction is merely hinted at: an act of destruction in each of the world's major cities that kills millions, and what we witness are a wide shot, and a few moments of Dr. Manhattan and Laurie walking around a crater where 42nd Street should be. The scope of destruction, and the toll it takes on both the villain and the heroes, are muted significantly from the graphic novel, and, as a movie, become a spectacle without depth. The audience doesn't understand the scope of the villain's plot because the aftermath isn't shown the way it should have been. (Not only that...but the villain himself is barely featured in the film AT ALL).
Then again, the lack of violence in that scene is more than made up for within the rest of the film, but not always the way it should have been done (in my opinion). For a film attempting to deal with mature themes and situations (rape, separated parents, abusive childhood, failing to live up to your parent's ideals, etc. etc.), I thought the violence was goofy. The opening fight scene, set to Nat King Cole's "Unforgettable" was well staged, and the slow-motion shot of the Comedian falling out of the window worked...but later in the iflm the violence becomes too stylized, too slick, and too blatantly bloody. Snyder is no doubt an adept action director...but Watchmen is not at all an action movie. While the graphic novel certainly had moments that could translate well on screen (Dr. Manhattan's self-imposed exile to Mars; the prison breakout; Laurie and Dan's attempted mugging), in Snyder's hands those scenes (aside from the Mars sequence, which was pitch-perfect) become spectacle, yet another superhero scene, and the violence (along with the CGI-added blood) become at once both more intense and wholly unbelievable. Had Snyder shot the action without the aid of slow-mo effects (which he used less extensively than in 300, yet still often enough to to notice and thus take me out of the movie).
And although I'm trying to differentiate between the graphic novel and the film and to view the film on its own terms, the film owes so much to the source material as to make it impossible to separate. In fact, if the graphic novel hadn't existed, a film like this might not have been considered at all: a big budget, two-and-a-half-hour superhero film with little action, psychotic characters, a convoluted plot set in an alternate 1985 and featuring no-name actors (face it: Carla Gugino, Billy Crudup and former child-star Jackie Earle Haley are the biggest names this film has)? No one would consider a film like that without it being based on a previous medium.
Snyder does pull a lot of things together nicely, however. The aforementioned opening credits were perfect, and summed up nearly five-decades' worth of backstory without slowing down the film and was itself shot beautifully; the Mars sequence (my favorite in the graphic novel and in the film) was perfect; and Jackie Earle Haley and Billy Crudup were absolutely perfect as Dr. Manhattan and Rorschach respectively (it was the Mickey Rourke-as-Marv-in-Sin City sort of perfection).
When Snyder put aside the theatrics and actually allowed emotion (REAL emotion) to enter into the scene, the film clicks. He understood the distance Manhattan felt towards the rest of mankind, a being so beyond any of us that his detatchment is evident in his voice and every nuance of mannerism. He understood the alienation of Rorschach, coming form a broken "home" and forced to work the streets...but still just barely missed explaining why exactly he became a vigilante. The subtlties of Dan's impotence were hinted at...but never explanded upon. Half the time I felt as if Snyder had done it, he'd adapted the unadapatable. But the other half...it felt like he as winging it ("You guys want Big Figure? Here's a midget overacting." "You guys want the rape scene to be intense? Here's the whole thing with exaggerrated sound effects and oddly overacting on Jefferey Dean Morgan's part." "You guys want a prison riot? Here it is in SUPER SLOW MOTION".)
At the end of the day I felt like what small moments of greatness and many moments of decentness combined with the terrible decisions, the ill-advised decisions, and the miscasting to provide a barely decent adaptation of the most dense graphic novel (and arguably the greatest) ever written. Alan Moore was right: Watchmen can't be adapted successfully as a film. This is as close as we've gotten. This isn't so much a review of the film as it is a comparison between the film and the movie, and I think that's fine since the film is too devoted to the source material to truly transcend it and become its own thing.

I was really hoping he'd nailed it too.

Oh, and when I saw the movie there was an 8-year-old (or thereabouts) in the audience, and my favorite moment came when Rorschach hacks a rapist to death, and the kid screams, "I saw the blood hit his mask!"

And you know what's immature? People giggling like little children every time they saw Dr. Manhattan's giant blue space dick. (In fact, his nudity is one of the prime reasons why the film is a commercial failure. Go figure. Welcome to 2009)

Coraline

Coraline (3D)

Henry Selick is a genius and one of the best animation directors working today. I wasn't able to see the Nightmare Before Christmas in 3D when it was rereleased a few years ago but it remains one of my favorite animated films (but I'm not a fan of his James And The Giant Peach). Based on the book by Neil Gaiman and released by Focus Features (my favorite domestic art-house production company), Coraline is about a girl who lives with her uninvolved parents, and how, after moving into a new house, discovers a doorway to antoher reality where she is center of all attention and everything she wants is for the taking...but for a price.

Dakota Fanning voices the purple-haired heroine who is constantly searching for adventure, for something interesting to do, for distraction from...her boring parents and humdrum world. Well, to be fair, her parents aren't "boring", just mired in their repetitious lives and tedious work, providing little entertainment for their daughter, and even little attention. Attention is something she does obtain, at first from a pernicious black cat that wanders around her house, and also from Wybie Lovat, a boy from a few houses down who is a bit eccentric and seems overly needy to be her friend (or anyone's friend, for that matter). Her neighbors, Miss Spink and Miss Forcible, are retired burlesque dancers who collect their stuffed terriers and decades-old candy; and Mr. Babinsky (voiced with zest by Ian McShane) a Russian acrobat who longs wo perfect his mouse circus. All three, as you can imagine, are eccentric and do nothing to ease Coraline's life.Coraline discovers a hidden doorway in her house one day, and discovers a brighter, more vibrant world on the other side where she is the center of attention, and everything she ever wanted is hers for the taking. Or so it seems.

I had never read the short story upon which this is based, but from those who have read it I am told that the tone was perfect, and the additions (particularly of Wybie, who doesn't appear in the story) actually improve upon the source material. Selick's slick direction does what few stop-motion animated movies do: keep the camera moving, and allowing the characters each small moments and gestures that make them seem alive and real. Despite the fantasy elements, Coraline is perhaps Selick's most real-feeling animated film. The employment of 3D effects also adds an new element to the story, but he doesn't ham it up: not every scene requires 3D, so not every scene employs it. His use of the technology is subtle enough to go unnoticed (even when the point of a pin strikes staright at the audience) and actually made me a fan of the technique (I still consider it a gimmick, but if done right it can elevate a film).

Nearly every element of the film clicked, from the direction, to the character and set designs, to the voicework (Dakota Fanning wasn't as annoying as she was in War Of The Worlds, and Teri Hatcher really surprised me with her different inflections for the two Moms, even Keith David as the Cat worked). However, the music was solid, beautiful, and haunting (especially that first theme). Composer Bruno Coulais's opening theme created the perfect melancholic melody that the film needed, composing a dirge-like choral piece sung by a children's choir...as soon as I heard the music I knew the film was going to be good, and I wasn't wrong. The score added heaps of emotion in a film that was already deeply seeped in emotion (loneliness; helplessness; fear; these are common themes) an instances that anyone, including kids, could relate (weird neighbors; inattentive parents; a boring home/life; the temptation of a perfect life; the price one must pay for happiness). It's not every day a kid's movie is this experimental (not just with style, but with substance), but every so often kid's movies need to be this classic.

However, the second act moved too quickly for me (Coraline needs to find three eyes of three other children who got trapped in the dreamworld before she can be set free), and while her finding of the first two were rather difficult, her loss and reaquitsition of the third one just seemed like a throwaway move; some time needed to pass between her losing the third eye and finding it again. But that's pretty much the only issue I noticed with the entire film. Everything else worked perfectly.

I had seen this film immediately after seeing The Curious case Of Benjamin Button, and despite my being exhausted after that meandering movie (see my review below) this one picked me right up again and was definitely the better of the two. Mr. Selick is 2 out of 3 with me, and those are good odds in my book. Here's to hoping his next film doesn't take eight years to make.

If you didn't get to see this in 3D when it was in theatres, I hoep you are somehow able to do so when the DVD and Blu-Ray are released.

The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button

The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button

Being a fan of David Fincher's work, and knowing how often his collaborations with Brad Pitt result in amazing films (such as Se7en and Fight Club), I couldn't help but be excited by his newest film, The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button. I'd read the F. Scott Fitzgerald short story some time prior to seeing the film, and was expecting something that would be ultimately heartbreaking. Instead, I was extremely unfulfilled with the entire 2-and-a-half hour ordeal.
Granted, the film did have moments of sublime beauty, which I shall relate a bit later. Fincher's eye for detail resulted in some amazingly accurate period set-ups (Apparently Levi's jeans supplied the vintage apparel for the characters in many of the pre-WW2 scenes), and his visual composition was often amazing (Daisy's dance routine in a fog-drenched gazebo was beautiful, as was Benjamin's walkin Moscow with Tilda Swinton's Elizabeth Abbott; the entire U-Boat attack), but the emotional cues were off for me.
Taraji P. Henson's Queenie was the doting mother-figure was the one constant emotional lynchpin to the film, never straying from her adoptive son, but rarely allowing more depth other than to lay words of wisdom on Benjamin, words that sound vaguely similar to writer Eric Roth's former Forrest Gump. Jason Flemyng, as Benjamin's father, Thomas, upon seeing his elderly newborn son, immediately rushes off to get rid of the boy, at first contemplating drowning him befroe dropping him off at the nursing home run by Queenie and her beau. In a film this long and lovingly detailed, Benjamin's origin feels unneccessarily rushed (and no one at all questions the fact that he ages backwards...I know that it's a matter of suspension of disbelief...but no one questions it). Eric Roth wrote a meandering script, one which offered situations without motivation, characters without context, conceits without meaning, and during one sequence, he wrote a five-minute monologue featuring about five characters who never reappear in the story but who exist solely so he could write a meandering description of how a major character was hit by a car. Why not just explain it? Get to the point.
The romantic story between Benjamin and Daisy worked well enough...but for some reason it just didn't click for me. These were two people who, for lack of a better context, met in media res in terms of their lives: Benjamin ages backwards and meets Daisy when she is a small girl and he is (physically) about 85 or so. By the time they're in their mid 30's, its logical for them to finally get together and live out their romantic lives.
But what of it? Sure, stories about people waiting years to be with whom they wish occur to millions of people every single day (hell, I know that feeling from experience), but in a movie the connections should mean something. When Benjamin meets Elizabeth and begins an affair with her in Moscow, he learns about loving. And then...they keep meeting up and having an affair. And she talks about almost swimming across the English Channel. And then...she just kinda leaves the movie. And she doesn't come back until the very very end when we see her, as an elderly lady, having just swum the English Channel. Did she do it because Benjamin inspired her? We don't really seem to know, and by the time she actually did swim across, his story was already over. The emotion wasn't there for me: a character is told for the first time that Benjamin is her father, and we receive about 2 minutes of her coping with that shocking revelation...and then it is never brought up again.
The scenes that held the most emotional weight for me were any featuring Queenie, and every single one featuring Captin Mike, the tattooed tugboat captain who becomes Banjamin's surrogate mentor. His was a presence that stuck with me primarily because it felt real. Capt. Mike is the cynic, the realist, seeing life as it is.When his fate unfolds, it's the only truly poignant moment in the film for me, but even then it's ruined by a CGI hummingbird that appears with little context.
And at the end of the film that's what I felt was missing: context. A point. What's the point in making a character age backwards if little to nothing is done with the conceit, and if none of the characters even really acknowledges the phenomena? Sure, watching Benjamin grow younger and more sharp as he watches those around him grow old and pass on is emotional stuff, but it could be just as emotional if he were to age normally as well.
Normally, Fincher is adept at manipulating emotions without making it ever feel like he is, and even his most heady and meticulous works offer insight to contemporary issues (even his period piece prior to this one, Zodiac). But Benjamin Button just didn't supply the weight I was hoping for after reading the story (not to say the short story was untouchably perfect...far from it. The themes therein are slightly dated, and even Fitzgerald ignores the conceit of a man ageing backwards in the middle section; as a reader of the story but not a disciple of it, I was fine with updating the timeframe and adding to the story). The short story ended with such a heartbreaking conclusion: a man lived a life, fought a war, and loved a woman whom he watched die of old age, and then, as he gets younger and younger, couldn't get the respect from others he'd earned, nor could he even remember his real age, nor his entire life for that matter).
Claudio Miranda's cinemaography, though, was lush and gorgeous; he employed a wide range of earthen tones to create an overly warm enviornment for the story, and the production design for 1920's New Orleans was meticulously detailed. Fincher's flawless design of Benjamin integrated Brad Pitt's likeness seamlessly onto the actors who portrayed the character at various points in history, pushing the visual effects in that regard to its limits (until James Cameron's Avatar premieres), but the special effects during other scenes (most notably the U-boat attack) seemed typical by comparison. In fact, there was a point in the film where Benjamin appears and Brad Pitt is actually younger than he was in Thelma and Louise, his first film. Watching a movie star age in real time over the past twenty years or so becomes so much more complex when you see him as he was and how he is currently within the same film.
This isn't one of Fincher's best films (Panic Room is still my least favorite of his), but it is ambitious. I can give it that much. With a meandering script, a cold-molasses-slow pacing, and an emotional center that doesn't even appear until the third act, it is a chore to sit through. It's not every day a director pushes the limits of his own technical abilities (especially a director as meticulous as Mr. Fincher), but even then the film should have a strong, interesting story. Perhaps it is telling that a film without an interesting story could still be nominated for 12 Oscars.
The concept of the film was interesting enough to get me to the theatre (as well as the inclusion of Mr. Fincher as director), but I still feel it could have been so much more than what the sum of its part gave me. Come for the production design and Brad Pitt face-deageing, but don't expect to be sucked in by the story.

No more hummingbirds. Please.

Joker

Joker written by Brian Azzarello, art by Lee Bermejo



I'd almost forgotten that this one-shot graphic novel was written, though I'd read about it on Batman-On-Film a few months back (the interview is interesting in that it predates the production of The Dark Knight, but Bermejo's design ideas for both the Joker and Two-Face are clearly reflected in the design of both those characters in that film). I read a few pages while waiting for class earlier this week and immediately picked it up to finish later.
Bermejo's work never fails to captivate me. Azzarello is hit-or-miss for me: I loved Lex Luthor, but thought the Superman: For Tomorrow storylines were too overtly symbolic, although Jim Lee's art in that series really complemented Azzarello's writing. that said, if Bermejo and Azzarello were to do nothing more but collaborate for the rest of their careers, I'd be quite happy with that. The art is beautiful. I'd read the previous Azzarello/Bermejo collaboration, Lex Luthor: Man Of Steel, and Bermejo's art was absolutely beautiful. He utilizes lots of sharp edges, where nothing looks fluid or organic, but looks as if it were pieced together from straight edges. At other moments, usually of emotionally moments or turning points in a story or a scene, Bermejo paints those frames, making them beautifully dynamic.
The story is told from the perspective of Jonny Frost, a low-level criminal who dreams of making it big, of being as recognized and feared and respected as The Joker. He is charged with picking up the Joker at Arkham Asylum, where he is being released (the reason is never explained, nor does it matter. His response to Croc when asked how he got released is almost exactly as Heath Ledger would have played it). While driving the Joker around, he comes to admire the Clown Prince of Crime, getting himself closer and closer to the villain, and finally realizing just how detached the Joker truly is from reality, sanity, and anything resembling humanity. By that time however, there's really no way out for him.
By telling the story from the point of view of someone closer to the Joker, but not neccessarily as twisted as some of the other rogues, we're able to really understand the Joker as a force more than as a person; Jonny is one of us, a "normal" person on the outside who slowly gets sucked in. Not once is it truly explained how he got out of the Asylum, what his intentions are, or why he kills certain people (and he certianly does kill some people in this: a bunch of slashings, numerous shootings, a broken bottle in the face, shooting a jaw off, and even flaying a henchman in a strip bar). His relationship to other rogues is explored (his interaction with Two-Face is pretty well played and works well in explaining why Two-Face never "just" kills Joker), and his ultimate relationship to Batman, which is summed up in three words and about five pages at the end, is the perfect epilogue.
The story is an exploration of the Joker's relationships: to his henchmen, to Harley Quinn (who is very much the Bonnie to his Clyde), to his fellow rogues, to Batman, and, more importantly, to Gotham City itself. The Joker and Gotham City form a bond that is stronger and more permanent than the bond between Joker and Batman. As Frost says in the last few pages, Joker is a disease, a disease that existed long before Gotham, the city infected. Joker represents not the evil inherent in man, but the insanity that dwells in the world. An urban madness made manifest in white, and red, and green, and purple.
This is a Joker more twisted, dark, and depraved than any previous incanation that I've read. Few times are his actual killings shown, merely the aftermath: but it's the aftermath that is shocking. His treatment of everyone (including Jonny, and especially Jonny's wife) show just how gone Joker is as a person. This is one of the seminal Joker stories, just as "The Joker's Five-Way Revenge", The Killing Joke, A Death In The Family, Arkham Asylum, or his first two appearances are. Hell, even "The Clown At Midnight" merely comes close to how dark the character can be when put in the hands of a capable writer.
And Azzarello is an incredibly capable writer (aside from, once again, what I feel is the clunky, overtly-symbolic Superman: For Tomorrow). There are instances of inspired subtlety in the narration: Joker's advice given to Jonny throughout; his recollection of a fellow inmate who believed he could drive around the world in a single day; his confrontation with the Batman; all of it is beautifully handled. Jonny, as a character, is given a cursory backstory: his wife has divorced him, he has a son, and he just recently got released from jail. A brief mentioning of a camping trip and a toad he had as a pet round out his backstory. The past, in this case, doesn't matter. What matters is the moment, and what the Joker does with it is the story. Azzarello manages to say much, much more in four words than I can manage to write here.
And what Azzarello does so perfectly is mold the Joker into both clown and psycho, thus completing a transition from the character's first appearance as a murderous thief, through his harmless phase as a jester during the 1950's, and leading right into the persona we now recognize: pitch-black humor, insane tendencies, and murderous rampages. Only now he appears much more real, much more potent. Much more like the evil incarnate as he is usually described.
As stated earlier, Bermejo's work and designs are beautiful and inspired. The Joker wears his Glascow smile and wrinkled, cobbled-together attire like a uniform (the only purple in his suit is his pants), and his red lips are now the result of his constantly chewing and sucking on his mouth. Other characters are presented in a more realistic light as well, especially the otherwise-fantastic-looking Killer Croc, who here looks exactly like a large man with a skin condition rather than and actual reptilian creature. The Penguin, already a realistic character, is expanded upon not on his look, but in his demeanor: much more of a power player, businesslike, and utterly afraid of the Joker. The Riddler's appearance is the most surprising: the character is visibly based on Johnny Depp, but his physical traits (which I won't describe here) were a surprise. And the less I say about Harley Quinn, the better (trust me, you won't forget her).
Bermejo's art is at once crisp and clean, and grittily real. The colors meld together in a barrage of greys, browns, and reds, and his rendering of faces is something I wish I were able to reproduce on my own. And I will tell you this, never before has an artist drawn so perfectly the point-of-view of a drunk character.
And that first image of the Joker walking out of Arkham...man I wish I could frame that.

Anyway, I suppose that's all I can mention. The book is an interesting read, but extremely dark, once again reminding me how dark a character Batman can be, how violent his universe is (seriously, who in God's Name would live in Gotham City?), and just how pefect a villain the Joker is.
You might want to wait until this gets into paperback before picking it up, though, but it is worth a purchase if you ever get around to it.
And when you do get around to it, you just might need a shower afterwards...