In Home Viewings - "Blitz"

Detective Tom Brant (Jason Statham) isn’t exactly what you’d call a “by the book” cop. A no nonsense type of guy, Brant is an alcoholic whose consumption is only bested by his affection for violence and propensity for thrashing criminals who don’t have the good sense to cow down in his presence. While under investigation for assaulting a gang of petty thieves, Brant takes on a case involving a serial cop killer known as The Blitz (Aidan Gillen). He teams with Detective Nash (Paddy Considine), an outcast copper who isn’t quite as brazen about crossing the line but shares Brant’s willingness to use any means necessary to take down bad guys. Together, Brant and Nash must find a way to catch up to The Blitz and put an end to his killing spree.

Every time a new Jason Statham movie opens (usually three or four times a year), I find myself going through what I call “The Statham Cycle”:

Step 1: The trailer debuts and I tell myself, “Good gracious, that looks awful.”

Step 2: Said trailer rolls for approximately the 37^thtime and I catch myself smiling reluctantly and immediately chastise myself.

Step 3: I forget about the movie until it shows up on this week’s DVD Roundup in which I type, “There’s no way this is any good.”

Step 4: Each time I walk past the movie in my local video store or bypass it on Netflix Instant, my resolve weakens just a bit.

Step 5: With more than a little self-loathing, I rent the movie and watch it on a night when there’s nothing happening in the world of sports and I’m too tired to watch, you know, a good movie.

Step 6: I kind-of-sort-of enjoy myself while watching the movie.

Step 7: Overwhelmed by a sense of shame, I vow never to watch a Statham epic again and feel better about myself. And then the cycle repeats itself.

In these situations when my inner Neanderthal gets the best of me, I feel like I almost always write something to the effect of, “You could do a lot worse.” Blitz is no exception. A smaller film that was released straight to DVD on these shores, I came across it during one of my many trips to Family Video and after forcing myself to ignore it for weeks on end, it finally popped up on Netflix giving me an excuse to watch it without directly paying for it. And you know what? It’s not that bad. It is ripe with plot holes and an overly convoluted storyline that tries to cover way too much ground. And, of course, you don’t go to Statham for a Clooney-like performance. But beyond these facts, Blitz provides solid entertainment and allows Statham to do what he does best: beat the crap out of bad guys and say cool things that you know you shouldn’t think are cool but nevertheless cause you to smirk and nod in agreement. Seriously, how far away are we from an action movie in which Statham actually acknowledges the camera and talks directly to the audience? Tell me that wouldn’t sell some tickets. (If this has already happened and I somehow missed it, I’m going to need you to tell me about it NOW.) Considine is a quality compliment to Statham and sets him up with plenty of opportunities to show off his array of skills. He’s like the straight man to Statham’s over-the-top man child and their dynamic works well. The action sequences within Blitz are acceptable as well and overall, the film creates an easy if unoriginal environment that is hard to dislike. And after all, that’s about as good as it gets for The Statham Cycle.

Grade: B-

Review: "The Descendants"

I’m not entirely sure where George Clooney ends up if you ranked all living and active actors in the industry today but I know he’d be high up the list. I’m of the opinion that, from a performance standpoint, there is nothing the man cannot do. Comedy, drama, voice work, or sheer power, Clooney delivers no matter what his assignment might be. One thing we haven’t seen from him, however, is vulnerability. He’s had a few sobering moments to be sure, like the gut wrenching moment of truth in Up in the Air, but never a wholly open performance. I would guess that’s by design and that Clooney’s roles take a cue from his real life wherein he is usually extremely smooth and enviably cool while remaining private and somewhat mysterious. With The Descendants, however, Clooney shows off another side of his abilities and further establishes his dominating presence in the pantheon of great American actors.

Matt King (George Clooney) is by his own admission, “the back-up parent.” As the heir to a massive tract of Hawaiian land, he spends most of his time working on a huge deal that will make him and his cousins all filthy rich while simultaneously juggling the needs of his law firm. His life is put into perspective, however, when his wife is involved in a boating accident that results in a deep coma which doctors fear she will not come out of. When dealing with the antics of his youngest daughter, Scottie (Amara Miller), proves more than he is capable of handling, Matt brings his oldest daughter, Alexandra (Shailene Woodley), home from boarding school. Alexandra, though, has her own set of issues and soon informs Matt that his wife was cheating on him, leading to the conflict between mother and daughter. Frantic and torn between his ever-increasing responsibilities, Matt takes his daughters, along with Alexandra’s friend Sid (Nick Krause), on a short vacation that conveniently serves as an opportunity to track down and confront his wife’s lover.

Written and directed by Alexander Payne (Sideways), The Descendants serves as a master class in storytelling. The opening scene pulls you in and engrosses you in a supremely compelling narrative that refuses to let go until the closing credits roll. Matt’s relationships are often complicated and far from perfect but Payne paints a picture in which you are able to see the heart of the man beyond his flaws, which is for me a key to this film’s success. Nothing about The Descendants is especially easy or comfortable (as you can probably tell from the summary) but the story is crafted so well that you can’t help but play along through the many awkward situations Matt finds himself in. Moreover, Payne manages to find real and genuine humor within what should be tragic circumstances and his actors bring that to life tremendously. At the same time, the humor never becomes disrespectful or foolish but rather sensitive and mature. The drama-comedy blend is near seamless, making the truly funny moments laugh-out-loud worthy and the more serious scenes all the more impactful.

All of this brilliant behind-the-camera work would be for naught, however, without an outstanding cast which thankfully The Descendants has. As he always does, Clooney nails his part, bringing a sense of fragility to Matt while still exhibiting that calm and easy manner that makes him so appealing. Multiple times he takes Matt to the brink of breaking down then pulls himself back together in time to save face in front of his daughters. I’m not sure it is his absolute best portrayal (I think his work in Up in the Air is slightly better), but it is a powerhouse performance that will undoubtedly earn some major award nominations. This isn’t all about Clooney, however, which is what I expected. Each actor that comes on screen brings something to the table, leaving their own marks on the film as a whole. Krause and Miller are both better than I could have hoped given their respective lack of experience and Judy Greer gives a turn that I didn’t know she was capable of. Then there’s Woodley who goes toe-to-toe with Clooney on a number of occasions and more than holds her own. This is a girl who starred on The Secret Life of the American Teenager, one of the worst TV shows in recent memory and yet in this setting, she is outstanding. Alexandra is foul-mouthed and harsh but Woodley brings a sense of humanity to the part and makes you feel as if this is exactly how this character should be. The dynamic between Alexandra and Matt is exquisite, at times the driving force behind the film. There is a remarkable chemistry that exists between each member of the cast and I think that’s partly due to Clooney’s easy manner and partly due to Payne’s efforts to have his actors grow together long before the cameras rolled.

To top it all off, the gorgeousness of the Hawaiian backdrop along with a native-themed soundtrack helps set the tone for The Descendants and adds a “trouble in paradise” theme that only deepens the drama-comedy blend. In a sense, Hawaii itself is a supporting actor and just like the rest of the cast, it carries its weight with flair. While it isn’t perfect (there’s a certain lack of connection with the audience despite the film’s excellence), I walked out of The Descendants under the impression that I had just seen the eventual Best Picture winner and its award aspirations should not end there.

Grade: A

In Home Viewings - "Scream 4"

Ten years since her last deadly encounter, Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) returns home to Woodsboro to do a signing for her bestselling book. Having worked hard to put herself back together after the three (count 'em, three) runs of serial killing that ruined her teenage years, Sidney is happy to reunite with her old friends Dewey (David Arquette) and Gale (Courtney Cox). Unfortunately, another old friend, Ghost Face, is back in town, too, and soon Sidney is forced to jump back into the old habit of, you know, trying not to die and all.

The original Scream made my top 10 list of best/favorite scary movies. I wouldn't say it's a classic but it caused me more than a few sleepless nights as a teenager and it gets credit for shifting the genre. I've never seen Scream 2. Scream 3 is one of those films that I know is pretty bad but for some reason I've seen numerous times. I even watched part of it fairly recently and if I'm being honest, I didn't hate my life while watching. Given my disdain for horror films, all of this makes Scream a franchise that I'd be willing to call a "quality" series and there aren't many of those in my book. As such, while I wasn't excited about seeing Scre4m (that's actually the title, not Scream 4) and while I'm never stoked for a sequel that debuts ten years after the last installment, I thought this could very well be a positive endeavor.

I was wrong.

I was really wrong.

I assume you're all familiar with the phrase, "like shooting fish in a barrel." (I also assume that it is, indeed, easy to shoot fish in a barrel because I've clearly never tried it and surely someone knows better than me.) To pinpoint all of the negatives in Scream 4 would be like shooting fish in a barrel...if the gun was a machine gun...and if the fish were the size of sea lions...and if those sea lion-sized fish were retarded. It just wouldn't be fair and frankly, I've got better things to do. Like maybe getting punched in the stomach or something.

Instead, let me simply say this: to date, I have seen 59 movies that were released in the calendar year 2011. It hasn't been a great movie year and I've seen some pretty sub-par stuff. I would re-watch any one of them before I would put myself through Scream 4 again. Priest? Sure. Larry Crowne? No problem. Green Lantern? *Gulp* Done. I will not go so far as to call this movie the worst of the year because I pride myself on my ability to avoid awful films and that title undoubtedly belongs to Bucky Larson. But it's definitely the worst movie I've seen this year. Scream 4 is sickeningly campy, ripe with atrocious dialogue, and laden with more groan-inducing "plot" points than I care to remember. There's also an air of desperation that works its way into every facet of the film which drowns out any cheese-tastic fun there might be had. Arquette in particular seemed to me to be pleading with the audience, "Please...PLEASE...care about me again." (We never did, David. We never did.) Everything that made Scream a trendsetter has become so terribly old, ESPECIALLY the confounded self-awareness that seemed edgy in the original but has been done a thousand times over in the last 15 years. There's not a single positive thing I can say about this movie and I'm amazed at the number of relatively positive reviews this piece of junk received. Vomit.

Grade: D

In Home Viewings: "Arthur"

Arthur (Russell Brand) is your typical man-child. A twenty (or thirty) something, he acts more like an eight year old and everyone treats him accordingly. The only difference between Arthur and the typical Will Ferrell character is that Arthur is filthy rich, the heir to a business conglomerate and the fortune that comes with it. He lives in a New York high rise with his chauffeur/friend, Bitterman (Luis Gonzalez) and his nanny, Hobson (Helen Mirren), and spends his days terrorizing the police in his Batmobile and buying ridiculous things at auction (like the suit Abraham Lincoln died in, which he then wears). His carefree life is put to the test, however, when his mother, Vivienne (Geraldine James) decides she's had it with his embarrassments. She offers Arthur a choice: marry Susan (Jennifer Garner), an ambitious woman who Arthur hates or lose his claim to the family money. Complicating his decision is Naomi (Greta Gerwig), a lower class free spirit that Arthur has become infatuated with. With limited time available, Arthur must grow up quickly and figure out what it is that truly makes him happy.

Arthur had three strikes against it going in:

1. The trailer is horrendous, the type of "advertisement" that sandbags its intended beneficiary before viewers even step into a theater. It's almost as if the studio purposefully picked out the most annoying parts of the movie to include in the trailer. Ouch.

2. I'm not a fan of Brand and I've never understood his charm. To be fair, Get Him to the Greek (and his performance in particular) grows on me every time I happen to catch a part of it on HBO but everything else he's ever done has left me unimpressed.

3. I, like almost everyone else in the world who does not work in Hollywood, am against unnecessary remakes. No one wanted a new Arthur. NO ONE.

But for all the negatives coming in, I confess I quite enjoyed my time with Arthur. The entire movie is one absurdity after another, to be sure, but I had fun regardless. Arthur operates within a vacuum in which it creates its own environment and sets its own rules(a New York in which everyone treats Arthur the way a small town would treat a pre-teen in the 1950s) almost like you'd see in a fantasy or sci-fi film. More importantly, the film holds to that environment and those rules and this sort of total escapism serves it well. From a comedy standpoint, too, you could do a lot worse than Arthur. It's all very juvenile, of course, but when you're in the right mood and the jokes are plentiful, sometimes easy jokes are the best kind. Arthur is filled to the brim with those and I laughed more than I would have ever dreamed coming in.

As far as the performances go, I suppose you couldn't really call what Brand does "acting" since he is basically portraying a cartoon-like version of himself. But what he manages to do with Arthur as opposed to some of his other characters is to make him extremely likeable and sympathetic, much more so than I would have thought possible given that he is a selfish, wealthy, immature man-child. I did not expect to root for Arthur but I did, in large part due to the healthy amount of heart that Brand infuses him with. Arthur is a good person who just doesn't really know how to be a good person and while his redemption isn't the same as what you might get from a drunk (like the original Arthur), it is nonetheless appreciated. Mirren, too, is solid. Now, I have no idea why in the name of The Queen she took this role but since she does bring an element of respectability to Arthur that the film definitely benefits from. She and Brand develop a fun relationship throughout the course of the film and she serves as a quality straight man to Brand's ridiculousness. Their underplayed dynamic is what makes Arthur work and what keeps it from becoming the disaster that I anticipated at the outset.

Grade: B

Review - "Dolphin Tale"

Live-action family movies are a tough sell for me. I’m quick to jump on board for an animated adventure. I’ve willingly seen more cartoon kid’s movies over the last few years than any non-parent really has the right to see and I often quite enjoy them. But I generally draw the line on family films when the characters stop being toy cowboys and flying dragons. I’ve grandfathered in the ones I saw as a kid, from Swiss Family Robinson to The Goonies to Jumangi, but their current counterparts hold nothing for me. I find that this genre is overly cheesy and whereas the escapism of animation allows me to overlook this in the standard Dreamworks or Disney cartoon, I can’t do it when there are real humans on the screen. I confess, however, that the trailers for Dolphin Tale piqued my interest despite my internal protestations. Maybe it was the animal element (I’m a softie for a lost or injured pet), maybe it was the manipulative and uplifting music, or maybe it was just the presence of Morgan Freeman. Whatever the case may be, I sat down for this film with moderate anticipation and came out satisfied and slightly wet-eyed.

Dolphin Tale is the big screen adaptation (and adaptation is key this time around) of real life events that took place a few years ago on the Florida shoreline. Sawyer Nelson (Nathan Gamble) is a pre-teen with bad grades, an absent father, and no friends. His mother (Ashley Judd) worries how he’ll handle the departure of his one confidant, Cousin Kyle (Austin Stowell), when he ships off to his military assignment. Everything changes for Sawyer, however, when he stumbles across a dolphin trapped on a beachside entangled in a fishing net. Sawyer follows the dolphin to an animal hospital where he meets Dr. Clay Haskett (Harry Connick, Jr.) and his daughter, Hazel (Cozi Zuehlsdorff). They name the dolphin Winter and Sawyer becomes more invested in her recovery than he has ever been in any living thing. He despairs when he learns that Winter will lose her tail fin due to the damage but as the dolphin continues to fight for her life, Sawyer comes up with a wild idea: he recruits a prosthetics expert, Dr. Cameron McCarthy (Freeman), who agrees to create a new fin for his first non-human subject. As Winter struggles to adapt to her new way of life, Sawyer and the Haskett’s work tirelessly to preserve the life of their new friend and save the facility in which she lives.

All cards on the table, there are many elements of Dolphin Tale that I could pick on. It has numerous cheesy moments that brought about full-body cringes, the story is as predictable as you might expect, and the child actors are…well…child actors. Gamble and Zuehlsdorff both have a lot of work ahead of them should they wish to extend their respective careers. Despite these obvious obstacles, however, as Dolphin Tale progressed, I found myself less willing to criticize and more willing to simply enjoy the film for what it is: quality family fare with an endearing narrative that is almost impossible to ignore. It is like a Top 40 pop song that you normally wouldn’t enjoy but is so catchy that you find yourself singing along so often that you eventually just bite the bullet and buy the thing on iTunes, hoping that no one looks through your playlist. In essence, Dolphin Tale is to cinema what Lady Antebellum is to my iPod. I couldn’t help but like it.

Where Dolphin Tale excels is in its ability to tell a story with authenticity. I bought into Winter’s will to live and the need for Sawyer and the Hasketts to see her through to recovery (this is aided by the fact that Winter plays herself here rather than relying on a CGI stand-in). The narrative was, for me, very organic, more so than you usually find in this type of “tug-at-your-heartstrings” family film. Don’t get me wrong, director Charles Martin Smith (yes, that Charles Martin Smith, the accountant-turned-gunslinger in The Untouchables) uses music and shot selection just like you might expect to build up the bigger moments of the film, but I didn’t feel manipulated. Whereas most movies of the genre become sluggish and lazy in their attempts to get the audience to connect, I found it very easy to engage the story this time around. Dolphin Talehas a tremendous amount of heart and that shines through genuinely and consistently, making it both emotionally relevant and accessible. There were not many dry eyes in my theater and those that were probably belonged to soulless robots but I’m just guessing on that point. Dolphin Tale is an all-around likeable film that should have a much more wide-ranging appeal than many of its contemporaries.

Grade: B+

Dolphins have got to be a top 10 animal on the scale of awesomeness,

Brian

In Home Viewings - "Tree of Life"

NOTE: I'm about to write what is sure to be one of the shorter (or at least insubstantial) reviews of my professional (read: "not professional at all") career. I have been trying to put my thoughts into words regarding Tree of Life for the better part of three weeks now and both attempts to write have resulted in long-winded, dull, and filled with tangents that really didn't make a lot of sense. As a result, I've gotten to a point where I just need to spit this review out and be done with it because the further I am away from my viewing, the tougher it becomes to put together a cohesive review. Please do not take my limited words to be an indication of the value of this film as a whole.

Ostensibly, Tree of Life is about Jack (Sean Penn and Hunter McCraken), a child of the '50s whose father, Mr. O'Brien (Brad Pitt), was a hard man to live with. I say ostensibly because...well...you'll see. O'Brien isn't a drunk, abusive, or even particularly mean; he's simply hard, the poster boy for the hardworking, blue collar man of his generation. He loves his sons tremendously but has a tough time showing it and Jack takes the brunt of that difficulty. Most of the time Jack is shown in his teenage form and he is used to illustrate the concept of growing up. TOL cuts back and forth between the past and present which finds Jack as a businessman who shows many of the same characteristics of the father who he's always struggled to connect with. In many ways, Tree of Life could really be called Circle of Life and I think (think is a key word here) that's a big part of what director Terrence Malick is going for.

But really that's only about 25 percent of the story. Using a non-linear narrative that is all at once difficult to stick with and wholly engrossing, Malick weaves together a tapestry that appears a bit jumbled when looking at each stitch individually but becomes a near masterpiece when viewed as a whole. TOL stretches out its focus to include the creation of the earth, the reign of dinosaurs (yes, this movie has dinosaurs), and the dawn of man. It then diverts to include nature of God, the role of prayer, and what I believe is Malick's own vision of heaven. If that sounds too wide-ranging, let me say that I'm probably not hitting on a number of other subjects that make their way into this film and yet it all blends together spectacularly. It is an insanely personal film, too, and that comes screaming through in every almost every scene. I have no idea what Malick's beliefs may be but whatever they are, he's clearly wrestling with his spiritual identity (again, no idea if that identity is Christian, Atheist, Buddhist, or whatever else). You can see why it took Malick so long to fine-tune and craft TOL and why the reactions to it have been so extreme between those who would call it the best film ever to those who couldn't make it through the first 15 minutes.

I wouldn't say I fall into either of those camps. TOL is so challenging that I would stop short of calling it perfect or "one of the best ever." Personally I think there has to be a level of accessibility for a film to be included in those categories and that's definitely not a big part of TOL. At the same time, it is a supremely well-made film that is almost completely left up to the interpretation of the viewer and that in and of itself is a stroke of genius. (It's also the most beautiful film I have ever seen; if TOL does not receive some serious attention from the Academy Awards then I may have to consider anarchy.) In truth, my review and any other review you might read couldn't possibly do Tree of Life justice. It's the sort of film you simply have to see for yourself before judging it one way or another.

Grade: A

In Home Viewings - "Rio"

After being illegally smuggled from his native Brazil, Blu (Jesse Eisenberg), a rare species of bird, spends the next 15 years of his life living peacefully (and safely) with his owner, Linda (Leslie Mann). Things change, however, when a bird expert shows up on Linda's door and tells her that Blu is one of only two remaining members of his species and the little bird is needed to repopulate the wild. Blu and Linda travel to Rio de Janeiro where Blu meets Jewel (Anne Hathaway), the last female, and the mating process gets underway...until Jewel breaks out of the holding cell and gets them both captured by more illegal bird smugglers. While Linda searches for her lost pet, Blu and Jewel must work together to both secure their freedom and help Blu face his fear of flying.

If that plot summary made Rio sound in the least exciting then I apologize for misleading you. It isn't. It's quite boring, really. In the entire 96 minute run time, almost nothing of real interest happens save for a handful of musical numbers that quickly become repetitive. It's a colorful, lively-looking film which is a shame given how dull it turns out to be. Blu and Jewel hop from one dangerous encounter to another but much like the music, these detours seem to be somewhat redundant. I get that illegal animal smuggling is an issue but how often can one little bird fall into the wrong hands before we start to wonder if every Brazilian is, in fact, a smuggler? With the vivid landscape Rio had to work with, I expected the plot to pop a little more rather than moving in a continual circle.

In addition, the voice talent, while palpable, is somewhat misused. Perhaps this is a personal issue as I find both Eisenberg and Hathaway to be off-putting but Blu and Jewel came across as too whiny for my liking. It's almost a given that the audience roots for the main characters within a kid's movie; that's just the way these films work. But I found myself struggling to care whether or not Blu got home and the supporting characters (voiced by Will.i.am, Tracy Morgan, and Jamie Foxx, among others) seem uninspired. Like the movie itself, the actors are going through the motions. There's also no real heart in Rio and that pushes it away from being a decent-enough kid's movie into the realm of near uselessness. Beyond the bright colors and the occasional song, I can't imagine there's much within Rio to really keep a kid's attention and that goes double for adults.

Grade: C+

A Scary Movie Hater's Top 10 Scary Movies

In my review for The Thing last week, I made it clear that I have no love for horror movies. I'll never be able to shake the fear I felt watching Something Wicked This Way Comes in my elementary school library despite numerous efforts as a teenager to embrace the all-American tradition of late-night horror movie viewings. For some time now, I've taken the approach that since I know I won't enjoy these films, there's no point in bringing down the excitement of those who do enjoy them. Also, I rather like being able to sleep. There are some films within the genre, however, that appeal to me. I won't go so far as to call them "horror" movies because that word brings to mind the Saw films and Cabin Fever (which I hold up as the worst movie I've ever seen). But "scary" movies seems appropriate. With that in mind and in keeping with the Top 75 Horror Movie Countdown that Rotten Tomatoes posted last week, I have assembled a Scary Movie Hater's Top 10 Scary Movies. Please enjoy.

EDITOR'S NOTE: I chose not to include horror-comedies (Zombieland), thrillers (Silence of the Lambs), or true sci-fi films that happen to come with some scares (Alien) as I don't consider them to be truly "scary." Rest assured that all of these films would find a home on this list if I had expanded it to include them. 

10. The Shining (1980)

I've never felt that The Shining is quite the classic that it is often made out to be. Perhaps it's because I didn't see it in a theater or watched it at midnight during a slumber party but it never really frightened me all that much. That said, the iconic scenes and their accompanying lines ("Here's Johnny!", "Red Rum", etc.) within this film are magnificent. 

9. The Ring (2002)

This is one of only two films on this list that I saw in a theater so perhaps that has something to do with the sheer terror this film caused me. In my adult life, I don't think I've ever been closer to soiling myself than I was near the end of The Ring. That little girl still haunts me from time to time and I'll never, NEVER, be able to remain calm if a TV suddenly goes to the fuzzy screen. Also, if you think my roommate and I didn't go back to our dorm and immediately call the girls we went to see this movie with to creepily say, "SEVEN DAYS!" then you've got another thing coming. 

8. Psycho (1960)

Much like The Shining, I think Psycho suffers in my book from having never seen it in a theater. It's always creeped me out a bit but I wouldn't say it necessarily scared me. On the other hand, from a strictly film standpoint, this could be the best entry on the list. So incredibly well-made. It does lose some points, though, for that horrible Gus Van Sant remake. I just can't shake the memory of Anne Heche sucking the life out of the film. 

7. Scream (1996)

I just watched Scream 4, one of the worst movies I have ever seen, so I'm already doubting where I placed the original film on this list. It's been a long time since I've seen it so maybe it's just as cheesy and horrible as the newest installment was. But regardless, Scream messed with my head in a major way. Up until this point, I had always operated under the assumption that, should I come face to face with a knife-wielding nutcase, I could at least run away. Then Scream came along and introduced me to the concept of serial killing teammates. My world has never been the same.

6. The Sixth Sense (1999)

I struggled with whether or not to include this film because part of me thinks it belongs more in the "thriller" category than "scary." But then I thought about the wave of terror that went through my body the first (and second...and third) times I saw Sixth Sense in the theater when Mischa Barton rips the sheet tent that poor little Haley Joel Osment set up for himself. It's easy to forget how stellar this film is given how M. Night Shyamalan had a mental breakdown and made two of the worst movies ever (The Happening and The Last Airbender) but it completely changed the genre (for better or worse).

5. 28 Days Later (2002)

In my mind, anyone who has profited from this whole Zombie Craze that has swept the world over the last half-decade should have to see a percentage of the proceeds to Danny Boyle. I can't remember anyone in my circle of nerds caring about anything zombie related (and certainly nothing current) until this film. The open of 28 Days Later is outstanding, the type of scene that immediately sucks you into the film's atmosphere and it doesn't let you go until the very end. And the zombies are horrifying.

4. The Thing (1982)

I saw The Thing for the first time only a couple of years ago but I really, really liked it more than I ever thought I would. It's probably due in part to its sci-fi leaning which I dig. I wouldn't say the story within The Thing is all that much better from your standard horror film but it tells it well. Solid special effects (for the time) help it, too, and when the creature starts shape shifting, I find it to be quite scary. 

3. The Exorcist (1973)

This film is the reason for my personal "no demons in movies" rule. The quintessential possession film, nothing could ever top The Exorcist in that realm and honestly, if it could, I'd probably never be able to sleep ever, ever again. I just can't handle this subject matter. I'd like to punch whoever it is that forced me to watch this film but I've blocked out all details of that fateful evening save for the film itself which I can't get out of my head. The second the opening credits begin to roll, you're on the edge of your seat and nothing about The Exorcist disappoints in the scare department. At the same time, it's one of the few films on this list that sees its scariness equaled by the quality of its acting. It truly is an exquisite film though I'll never see it again.

2. 30 Days of Night (2007)

This is admittedly a bit of an odd choice. You won't even find 30 Days of Night on Rotten Tomatoes' Top 75 List and I think that's a real shame. I've never been a fan of vampire movies (even before Twilight made it very easy and trendy to hate vampires) but this one is so appealing and tension-filled. The concept is brilliant and the setting is so incredibly creepy. Even more impressive is the performance of Danny Huston who brings more freakish, terrifying personality (as it were) to the animalistic-type of vampire than I would have ever imagined. When I saw this film, I really thought I might have just seen the best straight horror movie ever. I can't be alone in that, right?

1. Jaws (1975)

If you feel that Jaws does not belong on this list, I understand. I couldn't classify it as a true "horror" movie and I wouldn't expect anyone else to, either. But as far as "scary" movies go...I don't think Jaws can be topped. For one thing, it's an incredible film; acting, direction, shot selection, score...it's all fantastic. Some of the scenes are as iconic as any you'll find in a film from this list. More importantly, its impact is almost incalculable. It didn't simply change a genre; it both created a new genre (summer blockbusters) and changed the way millions of people thought. How many films, period, can say that, let alone scary films? Before Jaws, humans paddled willy-nilly about in the depths of the various oceans with little more caution than they might take when sinking into a bubble bath. Jaws made entire generations afraid to go into the water and really started a national (worldwide?) fascination with sharks. The Discovery Channel basically owes its existence to Steven Spielberg and Jaws. Every time I watch this film I become more hardened in my conviction that the ocean is not the place for me.

Review: "The Thing"

There are a number of reasons for my dislike of horror movies but they can all be summed up in three points:

1.)    I hate bad dialogue and stupid plot points and many (or most) scary movies depend on both of these weaknesses;

2.)    I’m not a fan of gore and superfluous blood and while I can accept it in a war movie or justify it as “real or gritty filmmaking”, I can’t handle it at the hands of Jigsaw or Stephen Dorff in Blade;

3.)    The combination of mild insomnia and ADD makes it hard enough for me to get to sleep at night without wondering if Freddy Krueger or the ghost from Paranormal Activity are waiting for me in my closet, thank you very much.

I’ve seen my fair share of scary movies, though, because that’s what you do when you’re hanging out with your friends on a Saturday night and you’re not cool enough to be invited to the raging party that you didn’t want to go to, anyway, so you’re glad you weren’t included. (No bitterness here in the least.) One of the horror movies that made its way into my viewing history somewhere along the line is John Carpenter’s The Thing which I hold up as one of the best the genre has to offer. The idea of a prequel/remake of that film (which is itself a remake of a 1951 version) appealed to me more than any horror movie has in a very long time and while it certainly doesn’t live up to its predecessor, I must say I don’t understand the heat The Thing has taken critically since its release.

In 1982, a near accident in Antarctica leads to a startling discovery: buried deep beneath the ice lays an alien space craft and the body of one extraterrestrial. Kate Lloyd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), a paleontologist with a friend connected to the discovery, is called in to examine the body and help with the excavation. It is a career-making find and one that brings great joy to all the inhabitants of the Norwegian research station where the thing is brought…until it reawakens from its slumber. As the creature creates havoc throughout the facility, Kate soon discovers that it spawns by eating its prey (human or otherwise) and pushing out a replicate copy, leading her to realize that not everyone within the small group is human. As a strong storm pushes in, Kate and American pilot Sam Carter (Joel Edgerton) must fight to destroy the thing before it can find its way to more populated areas.

 The Thing can’t decide whether it’s a remake or a prequel and that is both the concept that made it interesting to me in the first place and keeps it from reaching its potential once the opening credits roll. It struggles to find its own path while paying homage to a classic and seems stuck within said classic instead of creating new material to work with. As far as scares go, it is lackluster, relying entirely on special effects rather than tension to convey the horror. I think at least some of the blame for this, however, is due to the fact that we’ve become desynthesized. The terror within this version of The Thing is very similar to that within John Carpenter’s version and yet it falls flat at least in part because what scared us in 1982 doesn’t hold the same weight in 2011. I also think that this version is really more of a sci-fi film with a little horror mixed in while I consider the ’82 film to be the exact opposite, a horror movie with a sci-fi undercurrent. If director Mattijs van Heijningen would have delved into the more science fiction-y elements of his film, it could have created its own identity but again, I don’t think he was given the chance to differentiate from the ’82 version.  

That said, these issues don’t make The Thing a bad movie. It is a perfectly reasonable sci-fi-horror flick that creates a sufficiently dark and creepy landscape and some thrilling if unspectacular action sequences. The actors all perform admirably though like most scary movies, they are hamstrung by ho-hum dialogue and plot points that don’t provide many opportunities to really act. I’ve spoken often of my affection for Edgerton and Winstead is, in my mind, a star in the making. Neither will be able to point to this film as a career highlight on their respective resumes but neither will they need to dread the negative impact that more than a handful of talented up-and-comers have felt when appearing in a horror film. All told, this may not be the scare-fest some people had hoped for but I think it is of high enough quality to make it worth my Friday night investment.

Grade: B

Joel Edgerton will win a major film industry award at some point,

Brian

In Home Viewings - "Everything Must Go"

Nick Halsey (Will Ferrell) has had better days. After getting fired from the job he's barely been trying at for months, he comes home to find the locks on his house changed and all of his stuff on the front lawn. His wife won't answer the phone and so Nick does what any reasonable person would do: he gets drunk and passes out in the recliner under his tree. With the help of his cop friend and AA sponsor Frank (Michael Pena), Nick is given a few days to hold a garage sale and clear his eyesore of a yard. He pays a neighbor boy (Christopher Jordan Wallace) to assist in the sale but when it comes to actually closing a deal, he finds that he's unwilling to let go of the life that got away from him and therefore the items he's collected. And as he witnesses his new neighbor (Samantha) going through the same troubles that plagued his relationship with his wife, Nick begins to evaluate his life differently and accept responsibility for where he has ended up.

The thing that people don't always understand about Will Ferrell is that the guy is a very talented actor. Non-Ferrell fans see the "man-child" persona that he owns so incredibly well in his most popular films and they write him off as a buffoon who lacks the ability to do anything more advanced. But the man-child is only half the story and while Ricky Bobby and Buddy the Elf might be his more well-known characters (outside of Ron Burgundy, an entirely different kind of man-child), they don't properly display Ferrell's greatness. If you fixate on those characters, you might miss, for instance, his incredible straight-man performance in the lackluster film The Other Guys or the fact that almost everything he does is unscripted and off-the-cuff. He is quite possibly the most talented player that Saturday Night Live has ever had and what sets him apart is his extreme versatility, his ability to nail the physical side of comedy in one turn and then become a rigidly straight edge in the next. Dramatic (or dramedy) roles don't come Ferrell's way too often but when they do, I always look forward to his work and expect it will bring a few more people over to my side in recognizing his merit.

Everything Must Go is just this side of a one man show. Everyone around Ferrell is there only to push his character in one direction or another, to help him or hurt him or help him by hurting him (which is the most common narrative). Nick is at his heart a good person who simply got lost somewhere along the way, a sentiment many of us can understand. He has become so consumed by his own shortcomings that he can no longer believe that he is anything but a failure, completing a very sad but very common vicious cycle. Essentially, he just can't get out of his own way and he doesn't know who he is anymore. All of this comes across plain as day thanks to the depth of Ferrell's portrayal. I felt while watching that I knew this man despite his being a fictional creation and the fact that I'd only spent a few short minutes of screen time with him. Ferrell gives Nick enough of a sense of humor to keep the film from dragging but unlike many of his past characters, Nick is not inherently funny; neither, however, is he tragic. That's a tough row to hoe in my mind but in doing so, Ferrell makes Nick inherently likable, a character that you root for in a very organic manner. It's the type of performance that I would love to drag out and force Ferrell Haters to watch in order to show the man's range.

Unfortunately, almost everything else about EMG is unequal to the work of the star. As I said, it's a one man show so I am inclined to give the rest of the cast a break because they aren't given much to work with. Hall and Jordan Wallace get the most attention and both do well enough in their limited scenes but each are completely overshadowed by Ferrell at almost every turn. One scene in particular finds the nasty side of Nick, a lashing out of powerful proportions that should be a key moment in the film. Instead, it falls somewhat flat because Samantha simply doesn't seem to be up to the task of properly challenging Nick. EMG falls into some "curmudgeon-changes-his-tune" traps and contains more than a few cliches that really could have been avoided. More importantly, the other characters who knew Nick before his garage sale are all terrible people. From his boss to his wife, his neighbor to his friends, all of them come across as total jerks. I think the film, and Nick himself, would have been better served by supporting characters who appeared to be real humans (like Nick is) rather than miserable caricatures. That's more than a bit frustrating to me, a huge Ferrell fan, because while his performance is strong enough to draw attention to his skill, the film as a whole is somewhat forgettable. Altogether, EMG is worth watching but it isn't the reputation-changing film that it could have been.

Grade: B

In Home Viewings - "Gnomeo and Juliet"

Recipe for gnome-related family fun:
Take William Shakespeare's most famous play, Romeo and Juliet;
Replace "Romeo" with "Gnomeo" (leave Juliet as it is) and turn our star-crossed lovers into garden gnomes;
Replace "Montagues" and "Capulets" with "blues" and "reds";
Add in some quality if unspectacular animation;
Change the disturbing finale to something a little more kid friendly;
Top it off with some killer music;
And voila, you've got a decent enough animated adventure to serve as your child's primer for the most depressing and seriously inappropriate piece of literature that their future high school English teachers are likely to shove down their throats! (Seriously, of all the great works that Shakespeare wrote, why is Romeo and Juliet the one that gets so much pub? Give me MacBeth or Julius Caesar any day.)

I don't have kids of my own but when I watch a kid's movie, one of the qualities I look for is a wide-ranging appeal. Meaning, if my hypothetical child demanded to see a given movie, would it make my soul scream to sit through it or would I be able to find some enjoyment? The best of the best, like everything from Pixar (minus Cars 2 which I think we can all agree should be stricken from the record), How to Train Your Dragon, and the better Disney films, are excellent films on their own accord; it just so happens that their target audience are youngsters. The worst of the worst, like Alpha and Omega and Hoodwinked Too (it hurt me to even type that title), are so bad that even smart toddlers bemoan their failures. Gnomeo and Juliet plants itself firmly in the middle ground and that's good enough in my book.

The people behind Gnomeo assembled quite a brood of voice actors, including James McAvoy, Emily Blunt, Jason Statham, and Michael Caine (though perhaps Caine shouldn't be included in that list as I'm pretty sure he would narrate my home movies if I could come up with a million dollars). Too often a big name cast like this ends up becoming a distraction in an animated film but in this case, each actor does a solid job of meshing with his or her persona. I also rather enjoyed the cameos that popped up throughout the film. Anytime you can cast Hulk Hogan as a monster lawnmower, I say go for it. The story is as lighthearted as a tale about two teenagers who destroy their families in the name of puppy love (I really don't like Romeo and Juliet if you couldn't tell) and the pace is quick enough to keep a kid entertained and an adult (I guess that would be me) from losing the will to live. Plus, a soundtrack that is heavy on Elton John never hurt anything, right?

There is a real lack of comedy in Gnomeo, however, and maybe that's what keeps it from becoming anything better than what it is. Sure, there are humorous moments but nothing that strives for "laugh-out-loud" funny or that would really get either kids or adults rolling in the aisles. Everything about this film is very safe, serving as a paint-by-numbers type of kid's film that isn't special because it never attempts to be special. And hey, there's nothing wrong with that. I'd much prefer a safe, straight-down-the-middle children's movie over one that tries to make the sexual reproduction of two mismatched wolves into a family outing. (Also, Marmaduke. Enough said.) Gnomeo and Juliet is mildly enjoyable and relatively entertaining for kids and adults alike and since that's clearly all it is striving to be, I'm willing to accept that.

Grade: B-

Review: "Blackthorn"

If you're a guy and you haven't at some point had the dream of becoming an outlaw who takes down government banks and rolls with either a wicked car or a massive horse then...well...you're weird. Let's just be honest: being an outlaw is just super cool. Robbing from the rich and corrupt, taking out bad guys (even though you're kind of a bad guy yourself), and living outside of the law are all exciting ideas and make for even more exciting men (and women). We gravitate toward those characters in movies because they are always charismatic, fun, and give off an air of freedom despite (and perhaps because of) always being just one step ahead of certain death at the hands of stodgy law makers and guys who don't have the stones to be outlaws themselves (I'm talking to you, Pinkertons!). Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid is one of my very favorite films, the rare "classic" that plays just as well today as I imagine it did when it opened in 1969. The idea, then, of an alternative history in which Butch and Sundance escape the doom that awaited them at the end of that film (and in real life, I guess) is beyond interesting to me. I saw a blurb about Blackthorn a couple of months ago and immediately knew I would seek it out. I'm awfully glad I did.

20 years after the standoff in which he and the Sundance Kid supposedly died, an aging Butch Cassidy (Sam Shepard) still lives in Bolivia, laying low and breaking wild horses for wealthy riders. He has a good life but one that is a good deal quieter than he experienced in his outlaw days and that lack of action wears on him. So when he comes in contact with Eduardo Apodaca (Eduardo Noriega), a Spanish engineer with a plan to steal thousands from a mining company, he senses an opportunity not only to relive the glory days but to buy his way back home. The heist turns south, however, when it becomes clear that Noriega isn't who he says he is, forcing Cassidy into circumstances he may not be able to overcome.

Blackthorn (which is the name Cassidy goes by) is a slowburn that moves methodically through both the narrative and the Bolivian landscape, providing action in short, contained bursts rather than excessively throughout the run time. Part of the story is told in the form of flashbacks that fill in the blanks between BCSK and while these aren't the best parts of the film, they re-engage the audience with the Cassidy storyline and essentially create an immediate rooting interest in the character. This is a big part of what makes the film work. It progresses exactly the way a Western should when it concerns itself with an aging protagonist and that makes for a rich and intriguing narrative. (And by the way, can we please have more Westerns, Hollywood? They don't have to be big budget entries like Cowboys and Aliens, just simple little films like this and Meek's Cutoff. More of that please.) In addition, the behind-the-camera work on Blackthorn is excellent. The shot selection is simple yet purposeful and the settings are well-chosen. The cinematography is outstanding, highlighting the tremendous and beautiful geographical diversity of South America. The landscape is in many ways the premier supporting character.

But as you might expect, Blackthorn depends almost entirely on the performance of Shepard and the man delivers magnificently. Shepard is one of the greatest actors of his generation and yet he is often overlooked when that conversation comes up and I am one of the guilty who has too often neglected to mention his name. I can't think of a single actor who I would prefer to play the aging Cassidy and he completely lives up to that statement. I think it would have been very easy to play Cassidy as some sort of knock-off of Paul Newman's interpretation of the character. Instead, Shepard makes him wholly his own with just a hint of reminiscence for the iconic original. The years have taken their toll on Cassidy but Shepard never makes him come off as bitter or even overly tired so much as hardened and slightly more crotchety. Cassidy shows the physical rust that would accumulate during a 20 year hibernation but he displays the wits and reflexes that make men like himself so exciting. There are a few moments in which I found myself thinking, "The guy still has it!" the same way I would if I was watching an aging slugger take one monster swing that sends a ball 450 feet up into the stands. It's a powerful yet understated performance that has reminded me of Shepard's true greatness. I won't be forgetting his value again anytime soon and the same should be said for Blackthorn as a whole.

Grade: B+


I will forevermore believe that Butch and Sundance lived,
Brian

Review: "The Ides of March"

To say that I am apathetic towards politics would be somewhat of a misstatement. I hate politics; I hate the political system; I hate what politics do to otherwise intelligent humans; and if I must be honest, I generally hate politicians. But for some reason, political thrillers intrigue me. Maybe it’s because the majority of them are all about pointing out the same holes in the political system that bother me or maybe I just like seeing politicians, even fictitious ones, suffering. Whatever it is, I’m usually on board for a well-paced political thriller and as such, I was quite excited about The Ides of March. In hindsight, I probably could have tempered my enthusiasm a bit.

Governor Mike Morris (George Clooney) is the type of presidential candidate that inspires young voters and scares the snot out of stodgy traditionalists. He is a fresh thinker, filled with the kind of ideas that you can only get away with in the movies, and a man who refuses to participate in the shady backroom dealings that plague the political system. His campaign is run by Paul Zara (Philip Seymour Hoffman), an experienced campaigner who has put numerous candidates in their rightful positions over the years. But Morris draws much of his campaign strength from Stephen Meyers (Ryan Gosling), an idealistic media whiz-kid who serves as second-in-command within the Morris campaign and will undoubtedly go on to an important post within the White House. Just as Stephen begins to think the presidential nomination is in the bag, everything begins to crash around him. A secret meeting with Tom Duffy (Paul Giamatti), who manages Morris’ opponent, reveals that Stephen’s polls are wrong and the race is far from over. He then discovers that Molly (Evan Rachel Wood), an intern with whom he has been cavorting, has a dark secret that threatens not only him but the campaign itself. With all of his hard work so close to coming to fruition, Stephen is forced to make decisions that go against his very nature and the beliefs on which the Morris campaign is built while attempting to stay one step ahead of the media and his political opponents.

The best thing that I can say about March is that it is a good film and a well-made one at that. As the writer and director, Clooney does an outstanding of painting an accurate picture of the political climate. Morris is an appealing candidate, the kind of guy you might truly consider worthy of a vote if he were not, in fact, a fictitious person. There is earnestness and a sense of realness to him which is exactly what he has to show in order to delve into the darker side of politics. The script isn’t great in the dialogue department (I move to make it a law that all political films must be written by Aaron Sorkin. Seconded?) but it succeeds in limiting the scope of the political sphere in which Stephens, Morris, and the rest operate; that is to say, it doesn’t bog the story down in all the detail that made your high school government class so painfully boring and thereby allows the audience to invest without having to remember too much about how this whole mess works. As someone who (as stated before) hates the political system and checks out at the words “delegate” and “lobbyist”, I appreciate this dedication to simplicity while remaining intelligent. All of the leading actors turn in good performances, though it would be a shock if any of them didn’t. March is mostly concerned with Gosling’s Stephen but the best moments belong to PSH and Giamatti, both of whom deliver with impassioned panache in their limited scenes. Shot selection, cinematography, and the dark contrast are all strengths and add to the overall “goodness” of the film.

What March isn’t is a great film. Clooney sets the table for a dramatic, genre changing (or at least defining) film and the trailers had me believing this would be an epic achievement. But in the end, there’s very little punch in Marchand not enough substance to fulfill its promise. The ground covered within the narrative is interesting but old; there’s nothing new or fresh about the twists and turns that take place and the final reveal(s) are simply not the powerful moments that I think they were designed to be. March simply isn’t specialand while there’s certainly nothing wrong with that, I think it’s fair to expect more from a film that has this kind of pedigree. Whether fair or not, if you tell me Clooney will direct and co-star along with Gosling, PSH, and Giamatti, I’m going to immediately start thinking “Oscar” and March doesn’t quite reach that vaunted mark. If, however, you can go in with managed expectations, you will be rewarded with a solid, quality, goodpolitical thriller that will keep you engrossed even if you’ve seen the twists a hundred times before.  

Grade: B+

I’d totally vote Clooney for president,

Brian

In Home Viewings: "Conan O'Brien Can't Stop"

In 2010, Conan O'Brien famously resigned from The Tonight Show after Jay Leno stabbed him in the back and NBC gave him (and the show) the time slot run around. As part of his agreement with the network, Conan was prohibited from appearing on any television or Internet program for six months. While his return to the airwaves was inevitable, the idea of sitting around and doing nothing for a half a year wasn't an option for Conan, a known workaholic. With that in mind, Conan and his team set out on a 40 city comedy tour with his star-studded "Legally Prohibited from Being Funny on TV" showcase. Filmmaker Rodman Flender rolled tape on the entire affair, recording over 140 hours of footage that was whittled down to the contents of Conan O'Brien Can't Stop.

In my mind, there are three types of documentaries:

1.) Informative/investigative documentaries - These are the documentaries that generally get the most attention. The idea is to bring light to the truth of a given situation or event and usually involves background information and often interviews with the subjects. Joan Rivers: Piece of Work would be a recent example. Another would be my favorite documentary of all-time and my pick for best film of 2009, It Might Get Loud.
2.) Faux-umentaries - A documentary that is clearly scripted, at least in part. Think Catfish, I'm Still Here, or even some parts of Waiting For Superman.
3.) "Turn the camera on and see what happens" documentaries - To be clear, this is an element of almost every documentary. Perhaps the best part of It Might Get Loud is when Jimmy Page, Jack White, and The Edge sit around in front of a camera and simply talk about music. But whereas other docs might take it a step further and delve into the details of the subjects past or a given event, this category of films stays at home and lets the subject do the storytelling, so to speak.

Can't Stop falls into that third group of docs. At the outset, a few simple sentences are splashed across the screen describing the events that led to the "Legally Prohibited" tour and from there on out, it's just Conan and his team going through their day-to-day lives on tour. And what very strange lives they live! One minute Conan pitches the idea of a tour, the next the shows are all sold out (the one in Dallas was sold out before I could log into Ticketmaster) and he's taking dancing lessons, fine tuning his guitar chops, and developing new bits with his team of writers. Before long, they're on the road, jumping from place to place taking shots at Jay Leno and working with a litany of celebrity guests from Eddie Vedder to Jim Carrey. It is the behind-the-scenes footage, however, that Flender focuses on the most.

Above all else, Can't Stop is incredibly honest. It does not pull any punches or attempt to paint Conan in a positive light. In fact, there are plenty of moments in which Conan comes off as a jerk and a demanding one at that. Much of Conan's humor is of the self-deprecating variety and his work ethic is legendary and the truth is, those two traits often make one a sarcastic and sometimes harsh employer. It isn't that he's mean-spirited but rather that he's made a living for 20 years making fun of others and pushing himself to be funny all the time. That doesn't happen without making a mark on your life. To their credit, you get the impression that all those around him know this and have accepted it. And as an audience, you must remember that when Can't Stop was being filmed, Conan had only just been booted from the network where he'd worked for almost two decades. There is an undercurrent of depression and anger that runs through the film and while it never boils over or becomes the center of attention, it is a pretty big supporting player that has a little more to do with the man's mood than might seem readily apparent.

At the same time, Conan's affection and understanding for his fans shines through throughout the film's runtime. He takes the time to sign every item that is pushed in front of him and heads out into the masses even when his handlers tell him not to. In his trailer he complains about the toll all the handshaking and storytelling has taken on him but when push comes to shove, he jumps right back into it on each and every leg of the tour. Conan has built a rapid fan base over the years and what sets him apart from Letterman, Leno, and the rest is his endearing understanding and appreciation for those who have made him popular. As a lifelong and loyal Conan fan, it is this quality that keeps me coming back for more, whether he's at NBC, TBS, or BET and a big part of what makes Can't Stop so engrossing.

And while there is certainly some creative editing at work, Can't Stop does a wonderful job of displaying Conan's greatest strength (and maybe his biggest weakness): he cares. He cares what his friends think, what his family thinks, and perhaps most of all, what his fans think. It is this caring that drives him, that pushes him to the edge of sanity at times. It is also what makes him successful and what will probably kill him at some point, hopefully many years in the future. Like so many performers, the stage, whether it be a late night television program or a tent at Bonnaroo, is where he gets affirmation and at least part of his self-worth. While neither he nor anyone involved with Can't Stop comes right out and says this, it becomes clear that in many ways, Conan needs his fans as much if not more than his fans need him. This is why the title of the film is Can't Stop rather than Won't Stop or Doesn't Want to Stop. It is an excellent, well-made film and its subject rivals even the best documentaries in terms of complexity and intrigue.

Grade: A-

Review: "Moneyball"

NOTE: The core concept at the heart of Moneyball is a term that is used more than once in this review: “sabermetrics.” To avoid any confusion later, let it be stated up front that sabermetrics are, simply put, statistics that go beyond the standard statistics that you might see on the back of a baseball card. Sports nerds often call them “deep stats”, another term that may be used in this review, because they are much more complex and sometimes controversial than the traditional stats that have been used in baseball since the Civil War. While even the most apathetic baseball watcher knows the basic concept behind a batter’s average, sabermetrics (and the ideas behind Moneyball) measure things like OPS (on base plus slugging percentage) and various other stats that give a more complete view of what’s actually happening on a baseball diamond. Also, if this paragraph interested you in the least and you haven't read Moneyball, I recommend picking up a copy right now.

Confession: Once upon a time, I hated Brad Pitt. Hated him. I’d like to say there was some hardened reason behind my hatred but alas that was not the case. No, I hated Brad Pitt because every girl, ever, loved Brad Pitt and I felt it was my duty to hate the guy that every girl loved. (I also hated Leonardo DiCaprio if that makes you feel any better, Brad.) In my defense, I wasn’t alone in this hatred; the vast majority of guys in my middle school also hated Brad Pitt and we all gathered together, jocks and nerds alike, to wish ill will upon him while our would-be girlfriends (not really) all carried mini posters for Legends of the Fall in their binders. Somewhere along the line that feeling changed. I found myself begrudgingly admitting that Pitt “wasn’t awful” in various films and slowly coming to the realization (somewhere around Ocean’s Eleven) that this guy was legit. Again, it wasn’t just me. An entire generation of males woke up one day after having hated Brad Pitt for years and suddenly it was acceptable to admit the dude was a baller. These days, Pitt is one of my very favorite actors and someone who I trust implicitly to provide quality films and stellar performances. Moneyball is no exception.

In 2002, the Oakland Athletics rode an unprecedented winning streak (20 games in a row) to propel themselves into the Major League Baseball playoff picture and the national consciousness. A 20 game winning streak would be impressive enough but what made the A’s really special was that their roster was made up of a rag-tag group of has-been veterans and haven-yet-been youngsters. Their cumulative payroll was around $38 million dollars, the second lowest in all of baseball, and leagues away from that of the New York Yankees who spent over $120 million that year (a number that has only gone up, by the way). At the center of their unexpected success was Billy Beane (Pitt), the general manager who had embraced a system that other teams once scoffed at. Moneyball is the story of what it takes to win when the odds are stacked against you.

Authored by Michael Lewis (who also wrote The Blind Side), the book Moneyball made a huge splash when it came out in 2004. Hardened baseball people hated this book in the exact same way I hated Pitt in middle school: they hated it because they didn’t understand it, because they didn’t want to admit that someone had something they didn’t. For me, that something was the bad-boy good looks and sheer charisma that Pitt had and I never would. For baseball people, that something was an advantage that Billy Beane had and they didn’t. The kicker is that while there wasn’t much I could have done about securing Pitt’s looks or his fame, baseball people had access to the tools used in Moneyball but shunned both the statistical evidence that sabermetrics provided and the proprietors of these newfangled ideas. It is important to understand this because these feelings are a big part of the dramatic tension which drives the film. Beane and his aides, particularly Peter Brand (in the film)/Paul DePodesta (in real life) who is played by Jonah Hill, were laughed at by their colleagues, questioned by the media, and cursed by the A’s fans. And that’s exactly why the Moneyball system worked: because no one else was doing it. If every other team bought into the principles of Moneyball, it wouldn’t matter how smart Beane and his team were, they wouldn’t be able to fill out a competent roster. But no one thought this would work. “You can’t win baseball games like this” was the general sentiment around the league and that’s an overriding theme within the film. Director Bennett Miller does an excellent job of bringing the criticism and stress, as well as the satisfaction that came afterward, from the time period into the tone of Moneyball and creates a compelling narrative through it.

Moneyball is a true human interest story wrapped up inside a sports movie. Baseball is only a conduit for the profiling of an interesting man with a radical idea. Beane is more than a little haunted by his past life in which he did not live up to his promise as a highly touted baseball prospect. At the same time, he is keenly aware of the pressure he is under to see his system through to success. Add in the stress of providing for a young daughter and you get the perfect recipe for someone who is willing to take chances. The most interesting thing about Beane (both in real life and as depicted in this film) is that he is not a genius who came up with the Moneyball system; these concepts come from others. But he gets an incredible amount of credit for embracing a philosophy that everyone else rejected. Pitt does a remarkable job of painting the appropriate portrait of the man, of blending the toll of stress with a healthy amount of bravado. It is a much more subtle performance than playing, say, a man who ages in reverse or a muscled-up figment of another man’s imagination, but it might be his best yet. He receives solid support from Hill (a much different role than we’re used to for him), Phillip Seymour Hoffman (who isn’t give just a whole lot to do), and particularly Chris Pratt, who steals every scene he is in. But the cinematic vale of Moneyball rests on the shoulders of Pitt and he comes through with flair.

My complaints about Moneyballare few and pertain solely to the desire to see more of the behind-the-scenes strategy and the building of the Moneyball system. I am borderline obsessed with sabermetrics and their usage and I personally think that what Billy Beane did in Oakland (during his heyday) was nothing short of brilliant. I would have loved to see the development of the system laid out in greater detail but then again, that’s not interesting to 90 percent of the moviegoers on a Friday night. I also thought that the baseball action, while solid, was too drawn out at times. Too much time and melodrama is spent on a single, solitary baseball game that will stretch the A’s win streak to 20 games. It was an important game, sure, but as a viewer, it is much more difficult to get truly invested in the drama of a mid-season game than, say, the last game of the regular season which will decide if our heroes will make the playoffs or not (Major League). I’m all for historical accuracy but I felt it was an odd place to stop down for dramatic emphasis. Still, Moneyball is a good, quality film headlined by one especially strong performance that could very well be the highlight of an outstanding career.

Grade: A-

Sorry for hating on you Brad,

Brian

Review: "Drive"

NOTE: I left a LOT out concerning Drive. To be honest, I probably could have gone on and on about this film for 3,000 words and turned this into a critical essay rather than an "average moviegoer" review which is what I strive for. It's very near to a masterpiece and that's a word I save for only the most special of occasions.

Coming into 2011, I have to admit that Ryan Gosling wasn’t anywhere near the top of my list of actors who could get me to the theater just by being involved with a given film. Oh, he’s an outstanding actor, to be sure, but most of his films (and his performances therein) are purposefully off-putting and difficult to connect with. He has essentially shunned mainstream films, choosing instead to take on the weirdest roles that come his way. Even in his most commercially successful film, The Notebook, he plays a character that is difficult to engage. As such, I’ve treated him much the same way I treat Paul Giamatti: I know his movies are good and his work within them is stellar but they’re not for me. Basically, I’ve admired his ability from afar up to this point. 2011, though, is a turning point for me and I would imagine many other average moviegoers. Crazy, Stupid, Love was a completely different turn for Gosling and one that showed he had a much wider range than you might think (or at least much wider than he’d allowed us to see). Ides of March will debut in a few days and it is a near lock to receive some award attention, at which Gosling may well be the center. But Drive will be the film that I remember, the one that takes the display of his talent to an entirely new level, and the one that puts him on the list of actors whose movies I will see no matter what.

 A man of few words, Driver (Gosling) makes his living fixing cars at Shannon’s (Bryan Cranston) auto-shop and working as a stuntman for big Hollywood productions. On his downtime, however, Driver is a freelance wheel man, a get-away driver with an excellent reputation. He is guarded and has limited human interaction. Just as he begins to develop a relationship with his neighbor, Irene (Carey Mulligan), her husband, Standard (Oscar Isaac), returns from prison and brings with him a problem: he owes some bad dudes a lot of money. Against his better judgment, Driver agrees to drive Standard and help him pull a heist that will erase his debt. When the deal goes south, Driver finds that he’s gotten himself mixed up in a much bigger mess than he could have ever dreamed and sets out to insure the safety of Irene and exact a little revenge in the process.

Drive is very close to a perfect film, a seamless blend of summer blockbuster action and art-house drama. Honestly I have no idea how this got a wide release but I’m sure glad it did. (To me, the success of Drive should signify to Hollywood that there is an audience for lower budget, independent films if they would just give us an opportunity to see them. But I digress.) It is beautifully shot, incredibly well written, and completely secure in its identity. It is a truly intelligent action film like I’ve never seen before. Director Nicolas Winding Refn has made a number of films that were well received critically but unseen by audiences. That should all change now. What Refn has done behind the camera here is impeccable; every element, from casting to the choice of the hypnotic synthesizer beats of the background music, fits the story and more importantly, the main character. It is almost impossible to properly describe how well Drive flows and how everything that happens fits together. From one line to the next, one scene after another, everything works in perfect harmony to create a film that is truly outstanding. The narrative is slow and the film really only features a handful of traditional action sequences and yet it is thrilling and tense even when nothing much seems to be happening. The best action films are able to keep you enthralled when there are no explosions or gun fights taking place on screen. Drive does this so well that I was almost disappointed when the proverbial crap hit the fan and the film moved from a character piece into the action realm; it was that good on the narrative side of the equation. But then again, the quiet and balanced pace of the film outside of the action sequences make Driver’s hyper-violent confrontation more shocking and hard-hitting than they might have been otherwise.

My only complaint about Drive is the excessive “blood and guts” that come along with each “fight” scene. It isn’t that I’m offended by the violence or the gore (as it were); on the contrary, not only did I expect some violent confrontations, what happens to those around Driver dictates such actions. The problem is that the shocking, bloody nature of these scenes actually detracts from the overall realism of Drive. This is an incredibly realistic, gritty film but the horror movie-like blood that comes along with Driver’s physical destruction of an opponent is over-the-top and doesn’t gel properly. Refn’s style is excessively bloody (see: “Valhalla Rising”) but in this case, a muted approach would have served his film better.

The real power of Drive, though, is in its protagonist and Gosling’s portrayal. All of the remarkable work behind the camera would be for naught if the headlining star wasn’t able to carry the load. Driver is an exceptionally complex character masquerading as a simple man. He is extremely well-defined, a no nonsense kind of guy who wears an '80s style satin white jacket all the time and yet somehow makes that cool. He speaks in short sentences and says even less with his facial expressions and mannerisms. But his body language says it all; from cautious hope with Irene to clear disgust for those he works with right down to the rage he feels over being betrayed. What Gosling is able to do without speaking is immensely impressive. When he wants to be, Driver goes beyond intimidating and borders on becoming downright menacing. You do not want to mess with this cat and everyone else around him seems to know it (they just realize this too late). Yet even when he’s on the rampage he is calm and collected, as if his quiet nature feeds his violent side and vice versa. There is a scene in which Driver puts on his driver gloves and delivers a smack to a traitor who is withholding something. It is in this moment that Drive switches gears and instantly transitions from a romantic drama to violent action film and in this moment, I was genuinely afraid not just of Driver but of Gosling himself. If you’d have told me 12 years ago that the scrawny kid from Remember the Titans would be able to send a ripple of fear through my body, I would have laughed in your face (and then punched you, as I’m prone to doing). This is just a microcosm of the brilliant performance Gosling delivers and a sign of all the things to come in his career. This would be a good film if Paul Walker was the lead (I already regret typing that) but Gosling makes it GREAT.

Grade: A+

I retract what I just said about Paul Walker,

Brian

Review: "Contagion"

I feel like “disease” movies used to be plentiful enough to take up a genre all their own. From The Andromeda Strain to Outbreak, disease flicks ran rampant at one time, reflecting a worldwide fear that seems to have died out with the Swine Flu. As a kid I was somewhat concerned about the Ebola virus. Maybe “concerned” is the wrong word but I was definitely aware of the disease and vigilant in my quest to make sure I never contracted the disease. (Seriously, I knew way more about Ebola than any elementary school kid should ever know.) But I wonder now if pre-adolescents even know what Ebola is. Somewhere along the line disease movies turned into the zombie movie resurgence and Hollywood hasn’t looked back since. As a result, I honestly cannot tell you the last time I watched a movie concerning some sort of virus or outbreak that did not result in the victims becoming zombies or another undead creature. It may well be that Outbreak was the last one I saw (and by the way, there’s nothing wrong with Outbreak; totally acceptable action-thriller). Contagion, then, represents a dying genre that probably needs a bigger push than what this film is capable of giving.

On a business trip to China, Beth Emhoff (Gwyneth Paltrow) becomes sick. Upon her return home, what she assumed to be a simple cold begins to ravish her immune system resulting in her husband, Mitch (Matt Damon), taking her to the hospital, where she quickly dies. Simultaneously around the globe, others fall ill and die while those who came in contact with them start showing symptoms. The Center for Disease Control takes note and begins investigating only to discover that the virus is brand new and boasts a remarkably high death rate. Before long a worldwide outbreak is underway and it becomes a race between the rapid spread of the virus and the scientists who are working to produce a vaccine.

Steven Soderbergh is, in my book, one of Hollywood’s very, very best directors. He has an outstanding track record and with the exception of a couple of misfires, he always delivers movies that must be considered good or better. He is not, however, predictable. He has taken on a wide range of films in his career, from big budget flicks to barely seen indie dramas. He basically does whatever project he wants to do and does it his way with very little regard to how it will be received by critics and audiences. For example, The Informant! is an odd film with some bizarre quirks that I personally enjoyed but most people (critics and moviegoers alike) didn’t know what do to with it. Did that bother Soderbergh? No, I don’t think it did; he made the film he wanted to make and at the end of the day, that’s all he really cares about. Contagion is quite similar in that way. It poses as a thriller, maybe even a horror film, but it plays out almost like a documentary. It is an INCREDIBLY well-made film with near perfect shot selections and cinematography. (These behind-the-camera techniques are a big part of what makes Soderbergh so great.) The narrative, though, is very slow paced and almost burdensomely methodical, focusing entirely on the virus itself and the search for a cure and leaving almost no room for character development. It isn’t boring but there’s not a whole lot happening, either. As such, from a cinematic perspective, Contagion is a great film but as an experience for the audience, it is only above average.

The lack of humanity is what really holds Contagion back. Despite an incredible cast that includes Laurence Fishburne, Jude Law, and Marion Cotillard, there’s not a single performance in this film that warrants attention. That’s because the actors are given almost nothing to do, resulting in the feeling that they’re all just going through the motions. This plays into the documentary feeling but it also leaves a real disconnect between the screen and the audience. I honestly can’t decide if this was Soderberg’s intention or if he just failed to find the mark. Throughout the film’s runtime I kept wanting to buy into the characters, to care about their plight, but I was never given a reason, either organic or manufactured, to do so nor scenes that would illicit any attachment. Characters struggle and die but I didn’t find myself grieving their loss. Near the very end, we are given two very powerful, human moments (one in which Damon absolutely nails it) but by this point I had written off this part of the story and the impact was much less than it should have been. There are numerous storylines that don’t provide much of a payoff, resulting in an ineffectual use of the ensemble method. In hindsight, it might have been a better idea to emphasize a few main characters rather than spread the attention across the global landscape.

Contagion gets it right in a number of places and it is easy to see Soderbergh’s hands at work. There are some spectacular elements within the film that are truly inspired. But a film is only as strong as its weakest link which in this case is an utter lack of connection to the viewer. It is good, not great, worthwhile, but not a must-see.

Grade: B

I’m going to go watch Outbreak now,

Brian

In Home Viewings: "The Beaver"

Walter Black (Mel Gibson) is a chronically depressed, miserable man who has been lost in a dark cloud of despair for years. He has driven the toy company his father founded to the brink of bankruptcy and that's nothing compared to the damage he's done to his family. His youngest son (Riley Thomas Stewart) doesn't essentially doesn't have a father, his oldest son (Anton Yelchin) despises him, and his wife (Jodie Foster) has kicked him out of the house. As the voiceover tells us, Walter died inside long ago but his body didn't have the decency to follow suit. On a serious bender, Walter finds a beaver hand puppet in a dumpster and when he comes to after a failed suicide attempt, he begins to speak to himself through the beaver (with a British accent, no less). He develops his own form of therapy, speaking only through the beaver and begins to reintegrate himself into the lives of his family members and his company with great success. Before long, however, Walter can no longer find the line of reality between himself and the beaver and watches as all the progress he had made washes away.

The similarities between Walter and Gibson himself are obvious and significant. Add in some unfortunate voicemail rants and a touch of anti-Semitism and this could play as a Gibson documentary. These similarities are also where "The Beaver" makes its money. Walter's transition seems authentic (to a point) as if Gibson himself is undergoing the therapy along with his character. He exhibits the right character traits of man who has lost his way and is struggling to find a way back and the work he does with facial expressions, body language, etc. is rich. It's quite possible that, as a Gibson fan and someone who wants to see him get back on track, I could be exaggerating the overall quality of his performance but I think a great deal is asked of him in this roll and he delivers. I wouldn't go so far as to call this a superb performance but it is solid and compelling and an example of just how good Gibson can be when he gives himself a chance. 

The other elements within "The Beaver" represent a decisive step down from the work done by Gibson. Foster's character never really finds a foothold to become substantial and her work as director is satisfactory but unspectacular. Kyle Killen's script is uneven, too drawn out in some parts but rushed in others resulting in a film that doesn't develop quite the way I believe it was supposed to. And while I am generally down with a darker narrative, "The Beaver" is almost overwhelmed with it to the point of frustrating bleakness. Yelchin and Jennifer Lawrence (the Valedictorian cheerleader) have some nice moments together but their relationship is poorly developed and is treated at times like a distraction from the storyline involving Walter. A lot could have been done with Yelchin's character and his relationship with Walter but it stagnates early on and just barely reaches for redemption in the end. All totaled, "The Beaver" is a good movie with one great performance that carries the film much further than it could have gone otherwise. It is a worthwhile viewing but not one that I'd look forward to seeing again. 

Grade: B+

Review: "Warrior"

I’m a sports guy. I watch a ton of sports, I talk about sports incessantly even when no one cares what I have to say, and I work in sports. As such, I find that most people assume that I love sports movies. The truth is, though, that because I know a great deal about sports, I’m generally far more critical of this genre than I am of others. Look, I am of relatively average intelligence and I wouldn’t claim to be an expert in many things (including cinema, oddly enough). But I am a leader in the following fields: French fries, making fun of others, and pointless sports knowledge. I’m not bragging; it’s just the facts. When I watch a sports-related film, I see all the mistakes and continually have to fight the urge to say, “That would never happen.” I imagine it’s the same for doctors watching a medical drama, crime scene investigators watching “C.S.I.”, or homeless clowns watching the work of John Travolta (see what I did there?). “Warrior”, however, is the exception to the rule, the rare sports film that combines realistic action and a compelling storyline and creates an outstanding experience for any moviegoer. It truly bums me out that no one is making a big deal about this film and no one is going to see it ($10 million total gross to date).

“Warrior” focuses on the men of the Conlon family. Tommy (Tom Hardy) is a former marine returning home for the first time in 14 years. Brendan (Joel Edgerton) is a high school teacher struggling to make ends meet. Their father Paddy (Nick Nolte) is a recovering alcoholic who drove them both away with his many forms of abuse. The one thing that binds them all together is fighting. Boxing, wrestling, MMA (mixed martial arts for the uninitiated) brawling, or whatever else, the Conlon men know how to fight. When a fight promoter puts together a winner-take-all five million dollar MMA tournament, both Tommy and Brendan enter the field and are set on a collision course with one another. But this battle is nothing compared to the real question at the core of “Warrior”: is there anything that can heal this broken family?

From a sports standpoint, you can’t get much better than “Warrior” even if you’re not a fan of UFC or MMA. (For the record, I am not a UFC guy. I’ve always enjoyed boxing but with UFC I always feel as if I’ve just paid $55 to watch a man die. I’m not prepared for that step in entertainment.) There are a few clichés to be sure and I’d bet that hardcore MMA fans could poke holes in the action but for the most part, director Gavin O’Connor maintains a terrific air of reality when his characters are inside the octagon. The punches, kicks, and strangle holds are graphic but not overly so, just enough to convey the physical beating an MMA fighter takes on a nightly basis. The film also goes to great lengths to portray the dramatic differences in the various fighting style of each competitor, a major part of the MMA world. Tommy is ruthless and wild; you can feel his inner rage with each and every strike. Brendan on the other hand is calm and cautious, almost reluctant, everything built around waiting for his opponent to make a mistake. I’m not entirely sure that these details will matter so much to the average viewer but I found this to be indicative of the attention paid to each facet of the film as a whole.

But the real value of “Warrior” isn’t in the sports action at all but rather in the complex relationships of the Conlon men. In truth, this is really a character study under the façade of a sports movie. All three of these characters are tremendously well-written and intricate and the actors who portray them are worthy of serious award consideration. Their interactions are often heartbreaking and honest but with enough of a loving undercurrent to allow the audience to remain hopeful for a resolution between the characters. Hardy’s Tommy is initially hard to connect with and difficult to embrace but the film leads you on a journey to understand and accept him and delivers an excellent payoff when it’s all said and done. Nolte gives us his first meaningful performance in over a decade, reminding me and every other member of the audience that, yes, when this guy is on, he is an OUTSTANDING actor. Every word that Paddy speaks is racked with grief, the weight of his actions evident in every action. It is Edgerton, though, who makes the film in my book. I’ve long been a fan of Edgerton so I’m far from unbiased but his performance is subtly brilliant, quiet and yet extremely powerful, his face always full of the emotions you would expect a struggling father to have. He epitomizes the underdog perfectly and carries that with him throughout his scenes both in and out of the octagon. Hardy and Nolte are more likely to receive the attention of the various awards committees but it is Edgerton who holds the film together.

The secret to creating a great sports movie is not to get the audience to root for the team or contestant on the field (or in the octagon, as it were). That part is easy and it comes naturally. No, the secret is to get the audience genuinely and actively involved with the off-field narrative, to make the audience root for the characters in their flawed, human forms instead of their superhuman on-field personas. This is where many sports films fail and where “Warrior” succeeds. It is a few steps shy of a perfect film considering the handful of clichés it cannot avoid and a few sub-character scenes that aren’t entirely necessary. But these are small cracks in a solid foundation that makes “Warrior” a film to remember.

Grade: A

Kindly go and see this movie please,

Brian

An Open Letter to George Lucas

Hey George,

It’s me, Brian. You remember me, right? The toddler who walked around the house quoting the first 15 minutes of “A New Hope” word for word and sound for sound? The kid who spent every penny of his allowance trying to put together the complete collection of “Star Wars” action figures? The teenager who skipped school to see the first screening “Phantom Menace” on opening day? The adult who has an entire bookcase filled with Chewbacca memorabilia despite the constant mocking of his wife, family, and friends? No? Well, probably if you saw my face you’d remember.

Anyway, George, whether you know it or not we’ve been pals for 28 years. Your hard work took me to amazing places that I could have never imagined and helped lay the foundation for the nerd I am today (and all the beatings that came along with that). You’re not exactly a father figure so much as a “cool uncle figure”, the guy who takes you to awesome movies and maybe sneaks you a beer or something. Everyone needs an uncle like that, right George? It is because of this relationship which we’ve cultivated over the years that I feel I must write to you today and express my concern. Just know that it comes from a place of love.

I’m concerned about you, George. This is a big week for you and I don’t think it’s going to go as well as you might have hoped. On Friday your “Star Wars” films will be available on Blu-Ray for the first time ever. The greatest trilogy in the history of film (plus the three prequels which, quite frankly, suck) will finally be available in a format compatible with the greatest home viewing technology to date. I’m a simple man, George. I wear t-shirts almost every day, I drive a Ford Explorer that has 100,000 miles on it, and I’d prefer a Whataburger over just about anything a fancy restaurant has to offer. I don’t spend extravagantly and I have few luxuries. But I love HD, George. I’ve completely embraced the HD phenomenon to the point that my friends know not to even suggest I watch a television show if our cable provider doesn’t offer an HD option. I am constantly upgrading my DVDs to Blu-Rays and not just the ones that will look appreciably better in HD than in standard; I just bought “The Blues Brothers” on Blu-Ray. “The Blues Brothers”, George! If any film didn’t need to be upgraded to HD, it’s an early ‘80s comedy with almost no value in the cinematography department. Suffice it to say, upon learning of the “Star Wars” Blu-Ray  release, my initial glee was indescribable. In my joy I skipped around the block, smoked a celebratory cigar, and had the logo of the Rebel Alliance tattooed across my back (one of these things is not true but I’ll never say which). It was a truly glorious day. I half expected Carrie Fisher to knock on my front door in order to present me with a medal of honor.

And then the bottom dropped out.

Within 24 hours of my initial high, disheartening reports concerning this box set began to surface. I refused to believe these erroneous rumors at first; surely you had learned from your mistakes, George! But alas, I realized I had to do the research. I almost wish I hadn’t, George. I almost wish I would have ordered my copy of the box set and blindly ridden the wave of “Star Wars” euphoria the likes of which I hadn’t felt since Jar Jar Binks attempted to drive me to suicide 12 years ago. Instead, I nervously flipped on my computer and ventured over to Amazon where I typed in “Star Wars Blu Ray”, said a quick prayer, hit “enter”, and scrolled down to the comments section to see for myself.

My thoughts are best summed up in the words of Darth Vader: “NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!”

Not only will this box set NOT feature the original versions of the films that multiple generations of “Star Wars” fans have come to love, you’ve also indicated that you NEVER intend for those versions to see the Blu-Ray light of day. Instead, our beloved trilogy will be jam packed with the added scenes and remixed sequences that plagued the “special” editions of the films in the mid-‘90s. To be honest, excluding the infamous “Han Shot First” moment in “A New Hope” and the stupid finale at the end of “Return of the Jedi”, I’m not that bothered by these changes. They’re unnecessary, to be sure, but they don’t fill me with the homicidal rage that other fanboys experience. But you couldn’t just stop there, could you George? You had to take it a step further. Over the last few months, more and more details of this set have surfaced and despite Lucasfilms’ best attempts to gloss them over, the negative aspects of these features have inevitably come screaming forward. You’ve added more changes, changes that on the surface may seem small but that further alter the original vision of the film.

Currently adorns the wall of my office. Yes, I am 28.

More importantly, George, you’ve spit in the face of your fans; you know, the people that made you the multibillionaire that you are today. I love everything about the original version of the original “Star Wars” trilogy. EVERYTHING. I love “Star Wars” more than any other piece of pop culture EVER and I love it just the way it was in 1977, 1980, and 1983. Allow me to speak for the billions of “Star Wars” fans worldwide when I say we don’t want your changes! We don’t want Ewoks that blink. We don’t want Hayden Christensen added into the final scene of “Jedi” in place of whoever the old guy was that played Jedi Ghost Anakin in the original version. (In fact, we don’t want Hayden Christensen AT ALL. If you’re going to make changes, can’t you edit him out entirely and replace him with Chris Pine, Ben Foster, or literally ANY OTHER ACTOR in the world?) We don’t want Ben Kenobi screaming like a drunken hobo to scare off the Tusken Raiders. And while we’re at it, dadgumit George, we don’t want Greedo shooting first!!! Han Solo knew the crap was about to hit the fan and he blew that little green freak away with the calmness that a normal man might show when swatting a fly. That’s part of what makes him so awesome! You took that part of him away, George; you robbed an entire generation of “Star Wars” fans of that knowledge.

There’s been a lot of internet noise about your Blu-Ray set, George, and a number of people who have simply said, “Well, they’re his films so he can do with them as he wishes.” But that’s not entirely the case. Sure, you made these films, God bless you. You changed the world with your revolutionary special effects and your rejuvenation of the sci-fi genre as a whole. You put together a set of films that have accepted more love across the globe than any other film franchise and that’s really not an overstatement. As such, they are your films and you can mess them up if you want to. But this sentiment fails to take into account the fact that without us, the fans, without ME, you’d be living in a three bedroom townhome on the outskirts of Malibu producing mediocre films that receive mediocre reviews and wondering about what would have happened if people would have just embraced your vision. We did embrace your vision, George. We flocked to theaters in a way that had never been seen before. With just the returns on “A New Hope” we set you up for life and that’s not even taking into account the sequels and prequels, the numerous theatrical and home viewing re-releases, the parodies and the merchandising. You made the films but we made you.

The thing you have to realize is that this is a partnership, George. You make films and we go to see them. You create merchandise and we snatch it up like it’s coated in gold. You put together a freaking Disney World thrill ride and we stand in line for hours to ride it. Without you we have a “Star Wars” sized hole in our lives but without us, your work following “A New Hope” doesn’t exist. Simply put, if no one buys into your product it doesn’t matter!  And if you don’t believe me just ask Joss Whedon and the cast of “Firefly.”

I’ve stood beside you, George. I’ve handled the ups and the downs and I’ve done my best to deal with the changes that you seem hell bent on shoving into my life because at the end of the day, my life is better with “Star Wars” than without (Jar Jar Binks aside). I have owned no less than five versions of this franchise on VHS and DVD and I would like nothing more than to walk into Best Buy on Friday and pick up my pre-ordered copy of the Blu-Ray set. In all honesty you have jammed this set with INCREDIBLE bonus features and it will kill me to not delve into those extras with the voraciousness of a Wookiee attacking an opponent following a loss (I stretched it a bit too far there, didn’t I?). But I can’t do it, George; I can’t continue to support the glee you seem to take in destroying my childhood memories. I can’t trust you, George, and that is perhaps the greatest tragedy of them all. As someone who paved the way for understanding and drawing upon the power of the fans, your inability to comprehend our ownership of your films is STUNNING. All of this animosity could have been avoided simply by providing the original version of these films in addition to the altered version you claim to like better. Would that have been so hard, George? Wouldn’t that have been worth the extra cost to avoid all the hate, anger, and frustration? The effort you made to put these films together so long ago has been repaid a trillion times over and now it’s time you repaid us in kind. I want my cool uncle back, George; I want the guy who showed me a wide world of awesomeness, not the guy who shows me dorky YouTube videos and treats me like an eight year old. Make this right, George. Make it right.

With love and concern,

Brian