John Carter

You've probably heard about John Carter's box office performance, even if you didn't care to see the film itself.  It was a bomb.  A dud.  A disaster.  Disney announced that, between the production budget and advertising costs, it lost $200 million by making John Carter.  I'm not exactly sure how that math works, since every source I have found pegs the budget at $250-300 million and theatrical and DVD sales combining for nearly $300 million, but I suppose that advertising could account for the significant difference.  Even accepting John Carter as a financial failure doesn't mean it's actually a bad movie, though.

An alien with a prosthetic leg on her back doesn't help, though

I don't normally focus much on the advertising campaigns for movies, but check out these trailers for John Carter:

This is the teaser trailer from July 2011, which was shown before some that Summer's biggest blockbusters.  An interesting choice of music (Peter Gabriel covering the Arcade Fire's "My Body is a Cage") gives this a moody, romantic feel.  Opening with the title character apparently dead and a direct reference to author and Carter-creator Edgar Rice Burroughs, it continues with some scenes reminiscent of Star Wars ("Help me Obi-Wan Kenobi, you're my only hope" and destroyed settlements on Tatooine) and flashes of battles, Victorian dress, and an homage to movie Westerns.  And then Taylor Kitsch jumps very high, which is enough to impress the disembodied voice of Willem Dafoe.

And his disembodied voice is hard to please!  Remember Spider-Man 2?

This trailer feels like an idea salad, where a bunch of stuff was thrown in together and presented by a very serious French waiter.  Well, at least the weird tattoo design for the logo is kind of cool.  If I had to guess, based only on this trailer, I would assume that John Carter was a science fiction romance with swashbuckling overtones.  Not the most bankable idea, but an early March release date means several weeks without any serious competition in theaters.  It might not "wow," but it didn't look stupid, at least.

Okay.  Let's see what we have in January 2012.  Some sort of arena battle, some large-scale battles with aliens, and a rousing ripoff Braveheart-style speech.  With the added gravitas from a symphonic version of "Kashmir," this looks like an epic sci-fi action movie.  Well, except for the exasperated look on Taylor Kitsch's face when he's fighting the bantha white bear-thing.  I wonder what happened to those romantic overtones?

Huh.  Attempt #3, aired less than two weeks before the premiere, appears to be dropping the epic pretensions for an all-out science-fiction war movie.  John Carter uses chains, swords, rocks and guns to fight a variety of evil.  The last set of scenes didn't make a whole lot of sense, though, as it was obviously spliced from different parts of the movie.  Why would they do that?  Why would they keep changing their focus with this ad campaign?  How bad can John Carter be?!?

John Carter is the tale of (surprise!) John Carter.

Because 13 seasons were not enough

The movie opens with the announcement of Carter's death to his nephew, Edgar Rice Burroughs (Daryl Sabara); after the funeral, Burroughs is given his uncle's journal, from which the rest of the tale is told.  In the post-Civil War Wild West, John Carter (Taylor Kitsch) hints at his tortured past while a military muckety-muck (Bryan Cranston) lists some of the reasons the audience should think Carter is a bad-ass (great solider, awards, etc.).  While Cranston is doing this, John Carter is undermining his legendary value by getting the crap kicked out of himself, over and over again.  And then (more or less), he wakes up on Mars, where the lower gravity gives him incredible leaping powers and super-strength.  He is quickly taken in by the barbaric Thark tribe (or race, or species...it's not too clear), a large, four-armed and green-skinned group, led by Tars Tarkas (voiced by Willem Dafoe).  Soon after, John Carter notices a battle between spaceships; it is between the humanoid cities of Helium and Zodanga (obviously), so the Tharks don't really have a dog in the fight and are willing to ignore it.  Not John Carter.  Not when he can save a chick in a Princess Leia metal bikini and have her turn out to be Princess Dejah (Lynn Collins) of the great city of Helium. 

Metal bikinis: the most exploitative protection available

At this point, all John Carter wants is to go home and continue getting hit over the head by Bryan Cranston's men, but Dejah's plight gradually grabs his attention.  It turns out the the leader of Zodanga, Sab Than (Dominic West), has somehow gotten his mitts on a superweapon and could destroy the mighty city of Helium.  He will pardon the city if he can build a truce between the two eternally-warring nations by marrying Dejah.  She refuses and runs, because the freedom of the individual is paramount over the livelihood of millions.  But it's not that simple!  There is a secretive group of beings, the Thern, who are pulling the strings of Martian history from behind the scenes, and they are the ones planning the wedding of Dejah and Sab Than.  Why is a clandestine Martian race with powers above and beyond everyone else putting so much effort into a royal wedding?  I blame residual William and Kate fever.  Whatever the reason, the wedding must happen.  But can the Heliumiites trust the Zodangarians?  What about the Tharks?  And what's up with the Therns?  And how does a former Confederate solider with mad hops fit into all this?  Most importantly, when did "jumping high and far" become an invaluable weapon of war?

You'll need to look harder than that to figure it out

The acting in John Carter isn't bad.  It's not great, but it is certainly on par with other epic sci-fi tales.  Taylor Kitsch doesn't exude charm or charisma, but he makes up for it by doing his best Batman Bale Voice impression.  There are moments, though, where Kitsch shows a bit of promise --- usually when he's not doing epically serious things --- and is fairly likable.  Unfortunately, those bits are too far between, and his overall performance is pretty bland.  Honestly, my favorite scenes for him were when he kept trying to escape Bryan Cranston in the beginning.  Lynn Collins' role was pretty stereotypical --- a tough princess with a soft heart --- and she didn't add much to the role.

Plunging necklines don't count?

Dominic West continues to play only awful villains on film, and his work here is along the lines of everything else he's done in the big screen.  Think slimy and sleazy, and you've got the picture; it's too bad, really, because he's fantastic on The Wire.  Mark Strong also plays a role typical for him; he's a bad, bad man with little regard for life.

"It's only acting if I'm faking it"

The rest of the live-action cast doesn't do much.  Bryan Cranston's talents are wasted with his bit part.  Daryl Sabara is barely in the film.  Ciarán Hinds could have been replaced with a frowny-faced emoticon.  James Purefoy had a few lines and Art Malik was onscreen barely long enough to make me think "Oh hey, True Lies guy...!"  And then there are the Tharks.

Still prettier than Dafoe

Willem Dafoe, Samantha Morton, Thomas Hayden Church, Jon Favreau, and David Schwimmer are some of the recognizable names in the voice cast.  Granted, Schwimmer and Favreau are just cameos, but that's still more talent that you might expect from CGI-based roles.  I have no problem with any of the voice actors.  I always like Dafoe's voice, so he stuck out the most for me, but it was decent work, all around.

While the acting wasn't great, I've enjoyed movies with worse acting.  The direction in John Carter is one of the weak points for the film.  Co-writer/director Andrew Stanton didn't really know where he wanted to go with this film.  It certainly has epic aspirations.  It certainly wants to shows some romance.  It also wants to have huge CGI battle sequences.  And yet, at its core, this is ultimately a family-friendly adventure movie, along the lines of an Indiana Jones.  There are a few scenes with slapstick comedy (Carter learning to walk on Mars), there is a cute pet (the super-fast dog-thing), and the hero takes more than a few humorous lumps (especially in the beginning).  These pieces don't meld together, like ingredients in a soup.  They are like jigsaw pieces that were re-cut and assembled by a stubborn child, regardless of where they actually fit or if they make sense.

Example: epic rescue scene or mowing a space lawn?

Stanton's failure is not complete, but kind of like the Star Wars prequels; yeah, it sucked, but there were a couple of cool ideas.  The aliens and the world of Mars were well-developed enough so that I was not constantly reminded of the many films that have borrowed from this material in the last 40 years.  It just wasn't very interesting.

Even the actors can't stand this script

The plot is over-dramatic.  The acting is not very compelling.  The script is mediocre at best, with an unhealthy dose of unneeded complexity and unintentional hilarity.  My favorite line in the whole film is "Beans.  The first item ***dramatic pause*** is beans."  That wouldn't have been a deal-breaker, but the action scenes were pretty tame, giving this movie absolutely nothing exceptional to stand on.

Except the costume choices

The ultimate sin of John Carter is that it is pretty boring.  Is that the fault of the source material, as some have claimed?  I don't think so.  There's enough in this movie that almost works to make me think that it could have been the flagship title that Andrew Stanton obviously hoped for.  Had it played up the adventure angle more and the dramatic epic-ness less, this could have been a fun sci-fi pulp romp.  But it is presented as an epic, and it just doesn't work.  This is one of those films where you watch it and are constantly reminded how much it cost to produce.  I don't think I've seen a movie since The Adventures of Baron Munchausen where I was so frequently surprised by the ratio of the film's scope to the size of it's inevitably tiny audience.  It's a failure, but it's not all that bad.  Which actually makes it less fun to watch, unfortunately.  It's not cool enough to legitimately enjoy, but it's not bad enough to enjoy while drunk.  It's just...John Carter.  And that is a stupid name for a movie.

On a closing note, I never realized how many things I like have been influenced by Burroughs' work.  Never mind all the film influences (Star Wars, Star Trek, Avatar, etc.) --- one of my favorite comic book issues growing up was a direct homage, and I never even realized it!  Here's the cover to Excalibur (Vol. 1) #16:

Metal bikinis?  Check.  The title "Kurt Wagner - Warlord of ?"  Check.  And the story involves four-armed aliens, a beautiful princess, and a strange hero destined to rule them all.  It's not exactly Alan Moore or anything, but it was a fun issue that still holds up.  It's one of the few times where comic book Nightcrawler was as cool as X2: X-Men United Nightcrawler was, and it's cute seeing a character (Kitty Pryde) who is uncomfortable in a metal bikini.  Good work, Chris Claremont.  Now take a look at one of the many covers made for The Warlord of Mars:

Man, Frank Frazetta could paint.  It's not a big deal by any means, but stumbling across this image and the nostalgia it sparked in me almost made me care about this intellectual property.  Almost.

Antichrist

I start to think of Christmas movies right after Thanksgiving is over.  I don't always watch them right away, but I make a flexible list of movies that I'd like to watch as I prepare to buy useless trinkets for others.  I had had Antichrist in my Netflix queue for several months now --- mostly because the idea of Willem Dafoe in a Criterion Collection movie that I was oblivious to intrigued me --- and I figured that it might balance the saccharine-sweet movies I knew I would be watching just before the holiday.

Note to self: being right is not the same thing as being happy.

Antichrist begins in black and white, with a close-up of sexual penetration.  So, if you are the sort of person who doesn't like seeing testicles (prosthetic or otherwise) in their movies, this might be a good time to turn the movie off, because it will get worse.  While He (Willem Dafoe) and She (Charlotte Gainsbourg) are enjoying themselves, their toddler-aged son, Nic, is wandering about their home.  Ultimately, Nic falls out an open window to his death.

Meanwhile, his parents sing "Tears in Heaven" softly in the shower

That was just the prologue, and the film doesn't get any more cheerful than that.  The film switches to color, and we learn that this is a film with chapters, which doesn't make it seem pretentious at all.  Chapter One is Grief, Two is Chaos Reigns, Three is Despair (Gynocide), and Four is The Three Beggars.  Obviously, the couple is devastated by the loss of their son.  She is hit harder than He is, and she winds up in a hospital numb from grief and medication.  He happens to be a therapist, so he makes the entirely wise decision to take her home and treat her himself.  Not surprisingly, that doesn't work so well.  He adjusts his methods and decides that the best treatment for Her is exposure therapy; in other words, he will discover what makes her afraid and will help her confront it in a safe way.  Why the film veered from grief to fear, I'm not entirely sure, but the two can be connected, so I won't nitpick.  The couple hikes to a remote cabin, called Eden (this film is absolutely not heavy-handed), where they spent time last summer as She tried to write a thesis paper on Gynocide.  Here, He will try to help Her overcome her grief and fear by making her face them.  Of course, that doesn't always lead to peaceful interactions...

The Green Goblin loves "girl talk" time

Antichrist is a bizarre experience.  Those familiar with Lars von Trier's other movies might not be surprised by that fact, but if you put this on with the assumption that you are going to be entertained, you will be grossly disappointed.  This is my first von Trier film, so I won't make any generalizations about his work, but Antichrist is definitely meant to be harrowing and artsy.  If that sounds like your brand of whiskey, you might find something redeeming here.  The cinematography is, for the most part, effective.  I didn't care for the amount of hand-held photography or how frequently the camera went out of focus in the first third of the film, but von Trier definitely succeeded in capturing the most uncomfortable moments in the story on film.  There are tons of camera shots that are filled with Meaning, but much of the symbolism was lost on me, since I was busy being horrified.

The "bullet time" shot seemed unnecessary, though

Von Trier did a great job with the actors; aside from some basic stupidity on His character, Willem Dafoe was very good and Charlotte Gainsbourg managed to grieve convincingly on camera, even as her character went bat-shit crazy.  It is difficult for two characters to carry an entire film, but these two did it well.  They weren't fun to watch, but I have to admit that they gave some quality performances.

I wasn't sure I would be able to take that rational of a look at Antichrist.  My immediate reaction to the film was something along the lines of "Wait...what?  AAAA!  Why would you do that?  AIEEEE!  What is that supposed to --- AAAUGH!  $@@#%#^&!!!  &#$%#$*@%*$!!!"  And I went on speaking in symbols for the rest of the day.

"Chaos Reigns"

I went into this movie expecting it to be kind of weird.  When Dafoe does independent films, they are rarely typical and I was aware of von Trier's reputation.  But this...wow.  What an uncomfortable experience.  I could handle the weird crow, the deer with the dead fawn sticking out of it, and the fox or weasel or whatever the hell it was that was shredding itself.  Those are all bizarre and unsettling things, but that is within the range of things I will accept on film.  I was not expecting frequent nudity from the two stars, but I can handle that, too, even if the scenes are not intended to be erotic.  On a side note, why do non-porn movies featuring masturbation scenes usually involve crying?  Is that the only way directors can indicate that a scene is not meant to be porn-y?  The genital mutilation pushed Antichrist over the edge for me.  Once that started happening, I checked out.  I managed to finish the movie, but more to prevent any temptation to ever watch the film again (to combat any argument that I "missed" something) than out of any affection for the story or characters.

Not pictured: THE HORROR

I assume that my reaction was something close to what von Trier was going for.  Antichrist is a film steeped in directorial intent, and it was obviously not mangled in post-production to make the film more palatable for the masses.  I get that the characters are handling the grief process absolutely incorrectly; instead of accepting, there is treatment and punishment.  I also understand that these two were probably already a little off before the death of their son; she had come to believe that women are evil and he was a controlling man that apparently ignored his infant child and (probably) his wife.  I am sure that there is a lot more here that I do not understand, because I don't want to have to go back and revisit the film and its symbolism.  As much as I appreciate the acting in the film and the unusual story, I cannot overcome my revulsion to the film.  Some might see Antichrist as a triumph of artistic will and another example of a provocative filmmaker shocking his audience.  I see this as a miserable way to waste 100 minutes, observing self-satisfied direction, on-screen torture, and delusions of artistic grandeur.  I would give this a lower rating, but it is not incompetent.  It is just intentionally painful.

Yes, cuddle with His torso.  How tender.

Roadhouse 66

The first thing I thought of when I saw this movie's title was "Sweet!  They made sixty-five sequels to Road House!  And this one has Willem Dafoe!  Who says that sequels suck?"  Sadly, this movie has no connection to Patrick Swayze's touching tribute to the dive bar business.  In fact, this was made five years before Swayze's film, so unless they pull some sort of Terminator time-travel crap, this movie is destined to be less than awesome.  What the hell, that hasn't stopped me from watching bad movies before.

While driving cross-country across Route 66 to scout out some future locations for his father's (and eventually his) fast food pork franchise, Beckman Hallsgood, Jr. (Judge Reinhold) encounters a problem.  He can't fit his luggage and his name in his car.  Actually, some inbred-looking hicks pull up alongside him and start to heckle him.  And then one of them pulls out a gun and shoot a hole in his radiator.  So, let that be a lesson to you; if someone pulls up to give you any crap, you might as well shoot first because you know for a fact that they're about to go after your radiator.  Side note: Don't shoot other drivers, at least until your vehicles have come to a complete stop.  Beckman Hallsood, Jr. manages to make it to the next town, but his car needs repairs, and his name is Beckman Hallsgood Jr. --- he is obviously not a grease monkey.  Luckily, Johnny Harte (Willem Dafoe) happens to be there, and looking for a ride.  And man, that Johnny Harte is cool; imagine Willem Dafoe as a peripheral character in Grease, but with the line delivery he had in Spider-Man, and you get the picture.  The dude is creepy.  He patches the car up enough to get to the next town, which has a mechanic and, unfortunately, the hicks that shot the car in the first place.  And in case you were wondering, the bad guys are named Dink (Kevyn Major Howard), Moss, and the leader is Hoot.  So, essentially, this movie boils down to Beckman Hallsgood, Jr. against Hoot?  Sounds thrilling.  Anyway, Johnny and Beckman manage to fix up the car, but instead of leaving opt to enter into a race as a way to stick it to Hoot and the boys (Hoot always wins) and to prove their love for the two townie chicks that they suddenly are deeply in love with.  It's that kind of movie.

Well...what can I say?  The acting's not too terribly bad.  I mean, if you want Judge Reinhold to play an uptight nerd, then naming him Beckman Hallsgood, Jr. is a good start.  Willem Dafoe is creepy as ever, but I don't know how well he pulled off the I'm-secretly-a-rockabilly-legend aspect of his role.  He did sing a song on stage, and it was clearly Willem singing, so that's...something.  I always enjoy Dafoe, so even when he's slumming, he's better than most actors.  The supporting cast is universally terrible, with Kate Vernon doing an acceptable job as the townie love interest and Kevyn Major Howard managing to be just as awesomely bad as he was in Death Wish 2.  This was the directorial debut for John Mark Robinson, and it's no surprise that his next movie was made six years later.  I haven't seen his other movies, but I'm guessing six years may have been a little too soon for a follow up. 

Let's talk about what the movie does right.  Well, the characters have names that give you a decent idea of how the characters should act.  That's got to be worth something, right?  Actually, this movie's bad but it's not painfully bad.  It's just stupid.  Hmm...are these two heroes going to start a fight in a road house?  Is pride and stupidity going to be the only reason this movie is longer than twenty minutes long?  Are there only two moderately attractive girls in town, and the main characters have scooped them both up?  To all of those questions, I can only answer "mmmmmaybe."

Being a stupid movie, there are a lot of really dumb things in it.  Probably the first mistake this film makes is having Willem Dafoe as a supplementary character.  He basically is playing a mysterious Fonzie role here, where everyone keeps pointing out how cool he is.  Nobody ever mentions what a creepy knowing grin he has; it's a knowing smile, like he's letting you know that he knows what your sweat tastes like because he licked your face as you slept last night.  That might be reading into things a bit much, but I think it's justified.  But with Willem as a supporting role, we are supposed to root for J.D. Nerdington VI?  I didn't sign up for that!  If I wanted to see Judge Reinhold carry a movie, I would have watched...um...hmm...slim pickings, these...Vice Versa, I guess.  That's just a problem I have with the script, though.  I don't want to waste my time listing all the dumb stuff that happens in the movie, but I will leave you with this gem.  So, Uptight Fancypants III is about to start the big race when Hoot comes over to wish him luck.  They talk a little bit and Hoot very subtly drops a scorpion on the car seat next to Fancypants.  I would like to point out a few things with that scene.  First, when I say "subtly," I mean "totally obviously."  Hoot couldn't have looked more like he was up to no good if he had been singing "I'm just being a nice guy, fa-la, and not sabotaging you for the race at all, sha-na-na-na."  Second, I'm pretty sure that I would notice the sound of something dropping onto the car seat next to me.  Not that putting the scorpion there would be a fool-proof plan; it's an arachnid, not a killer shark with a taste for human blood.  It probably would have scurried under the seat.

I didn't like this movie very much, but I didn't hate it.  It's definitely a decent B-movie and it's awfulness is not offensive enough to generate any real hatred from me.  I just wish Willem Dafoe hadn't wasted the time to film this.

Daybreakers

Let's assume that the inevitable vampire apocalypse happens in a few years.  What would that world look like?  According to Daybreakers, surprisingly similar to today.  In the year 2019, the world has become overwhelmingly populated with vampires; vampirism has spread like a pandemic, infecting almost the entire human population.  Aside from the streets being empty during the day, though, things appear much as they do now.  There's still TV, vampires drive cars, drink coffee (with sugar and blood), and eat normal stuff.  They just happen to catch fire and explode in the sun.  With vampires being so much like their human selves, it is not surprising that they are running through their most precious natural resource: human blood.  Yes, it is a subtle allegory.  The number of "wild" humans is almost nonexistent and, even with human farms (a term that is not used in the movie, but totally should have been), the supply of human blood will run out in a matter of days.

So, what's the big deal?  There are lots of animals that bleed.  Unfortunately, human blood is the only blood that can keep vampires from turning into monsters.  With extended periods of human blood starvation, normal human-looking vamps begin to change; they become paler, their ears become pointed, they lose the ability to speak, their hands become claws, and they grow wings.  Basically, they end up looking like Nosferatu with wings.

Ethan Hawke's character is a vampire hematologist (Hilarious!  Aren't they all amateur hematologists?) that is trying to create a human blood substitute for the vampire population.  So far, his best result has led to his vampire subject exploding.  And that, apparently, was progress.  Hawke works for Sam Neill's company; Neill wants to farm humans out for their blood.  Why he is funding Hawke's work when he clearly just wants human blood, I don't know.  They kind of explain this (the general population gets the substitute, while the rich pay for the good stuff), but Neill later claims this was a lie.  Whatever.  Hawke happens to hate being a vampire.  He doesn't want to die, but he has been abstaining from human blood for a while, drinking only pig's blood.  He accidentally encounters the human resistance and meets Willem Dafoe's character, a  human that was once a vampire.  Together, they work to find a cure to vampirism...but will anyone want it?

As far as vampire movies go, this is a solid entry into the genre.  It's smarter than a lot of vampire movies and I liked the pseduo-science that went into the script.  Hawke's work with Dafoe was interesting, if a little silly, and followed a moderately logical stream of thought.  Basically, the sun starts a vampire's heart beating, but it increases too fast, causing their body heat to increase, eventually lighting on fire.  The explosions aren't explained.  Still, that's not a terrible idea, so writers/directors Michael and Paul Spierig deserve some recognition for trying to make vampirism sound scientific.  I liked a lot of little touches in the movie.  I liked that vampires can buy cars that have darkened windows and digital video cameras so they can drive in the daylight.  I like that they don't only drink blood, but it is an important part of their diet.  I really liked that this movie explained the more monstrous style of vampires; you don't usually see the scary vampires in the same movie with human-ish vampires.  A lot of thought went into the production for the lifestyle of vampires, and it really comes through in the details of this film.

That said, this movie could have used more attention to the script.  To give you an idea of the poor choices made in this movie, Willem Dafoe sings a few lines of Elvis Presley's "Burning Love."  Yes, it's awkward.  There are other things that just don't make sense.  Sam Neill has a human daughter that is captured.  He has her turned into a vampire against her will, despite knowing how close they all are to starvation.  Not exactly father of the year material.  There is a scene where humans are traveling great distances to reach a supposedly safe hiding spot for humans, but they decide to travel at night.  Maybe I have more military training (I have seen several war movies) than the Spierig brothers, but that just strikes me as stupid to a fault.  Should they travel through empty streets during the day, or travel at night, when vampires are active?  Tough call.  That sort of random stupidity is all too common in this movie and really keeps it from being genuinely good.

The acting is solid, despite a largely foreign cast.  Ethan Hawke apparently combs his hair back only when he's a vampire, but is fine aside from that.  Willem Dafoe is Willem Dafoe; he's not winning over anyone with this performance, but he is typically solid and over-the-top at the same time.  Sam Neill does a good job with this villainous turn; he does not appear to like acting in American movies much, but it's always nice to see him pop up. Claudia Karvan, Jay Laga'aia, and Michael Dorman turn in respectable supporting performances, but nobody really stands out.  As far as direction goes, the Spierig brothers seem competent, but I think directing is just their way of getting their screenplays to the big screen.

Daybreakers has an interesting concept with a lot of good detail, but the story allows a lot of stupid things to happen.  I'll give the Spierig brothers kudos for trying to make a smart vampire movie, but they don't succeed here.

The Fantastic Mr. Fox

Roald Dahl and Wes Anderson...in retrospect, it's hard to believe it took this long for those two names to be connected.  Dahl, the author of so many delightful, dark, and subversive children's books, seems to have delighted in writing legitimate literature for the young and the old.  In his books, adults were often evil, and the world is full of evil, so it always seemed fantastic when things went right.  Wes Anderson is perhaps the youngest genius director working in Hollywood right now.  His films don't always work (I'm looking at you, The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou), but they are always worth watching.  As the writer and director of his movies, Anderson pays an amazing amount of attention to detail in all his films, so much so that re-watching his movies can often be a revelatory experience.  Anderson doesn't like telling safe or typical stories, so him basing a script on a Dahl book is a natural fit.

The first thing you will notice about this movie is the animation.  Anderson wanted to capture the look and feel of the original King Kong, so stop-motion animation was used.  However, unlike the claymation-style animation from Gumby or the original Clash of the Titans, this animation looks absolutely painstaking.  The hairs on each animal move.  Not all at the same time, or even in the same direction.  They move naturally, which is extremely difficult to achieve through artificial means.  The characters are far more expressive than you would think possible with this technology.  The animation style changes, from the ultra-detailed work of the close shots to fast and loose two-dimensional shots used to pass time quickly and show off the cartooniness of the story.  Nowadays, Pixar studios have the animation market cornered with their terrific computer animated films.  The Fantastic Mr. Fox is a welcome reminder that animation comes in many shapes and forms, and can be just as amazing as the best that technology has to offer --- or even better.

That's just the animation, though.  What about the story?  This is the tale of Mr. Fox (voiced by George Clooney), a former chicken thief turned family man.  Mr. Fox has sworn off the risky life of chicken thievery to please his wife, Mrs. Fox (Meryl Streep), and provide for his son, Ash (Jason Schwartzman).  The movie conveniently skips over the twelve years where Mr. Fox kept to the straight and narrow and focuses on when he eventually starts stealing again.  There are three mean farmers near the Fox household.  Fox plunders them systematically until they decide to fight back.  This movie doesn't pull its punches with the mean humans; they have might and machines, and are willing to use them.  Fox's home is torn apart and the entire neighborhood is ruined, making Fox and his entire community homeless.  That doesn't mean that Fox stops fighting, of course.

Wes Anderson adds quite a bit to Dahl's original story, partly to make it feature-length and partly to fit into his unique cinematic vision.  The most notable change is the number of children, from four in the book to one in the movie.  This sets up Fox's somewhat odd son, Ash, for a rivalry with his cousin, the athletic Kristofferson; Mr. Fox seems underwhelmed by Ash, while openly applauding Kristofferson.  Then again, it wouldn't be a Wes Anderson movie without a strained father/son relationship, would it?

The voice acting here is fine, overall, but could be better.  Clooney is excellent as Mr. Fox.  Willem Dafoe is very entertaining as Fox's animal nemesis, the rat.  Bill Murray does a good job with Mr. Badger; not good enough to cancel out Garfield, but still pretty good.  Overall, though, it probably would have been better with voice actors.  As it is, the cast is a blend of Anderson's friends, coworkers, and actors that he likes.  That means that Adrien Brody, Brian Cox, Owen Wilson, director Garth Jennings, musician Jarvis Cocker, and Wes Anderson himself all make small contributions to the voice cast.  Anderson earns loyalty from his actors unlike any other director today; that is why so many of the same actors work with him, picture after picture, even if their part is minute.  That works wonders in an ensemble movie.  This is animated, though, and that affection does not always show through.  While the voice acting could have been better, it certainly could have been much, much worse (I'm thinking of Shark Tale as an example).  The movie circles around Clooney's character, so that makes a lot of the shortcomings inconsequential; it's called The Fantastic Mr. Fox, not An Animal Ensemble featuring Mr. Fox, after all.

From a visual standpoint, this movie is superb.  From a directorial standpoint, this movie is pretty awesome.  But the story...well, it is ambitious, but doesn't quite hit a home run.  Anderson's script calls attention to the anthropomorphic aspects of the characters, pointing out some of their odd behaviors, all while reemphasizing the fact that these animals are, in fact, animals.  It's not quite metafilm, but it's close.  The movie likes to step back and point out some of the oddities of animals acting like people, and that quality of self-awareness, while often funny, detracts from the story . It sometimes felt like Mr. Fox was giving me the old wink-wink-nudge-nudge, letting me know that animals don't really act like this.  This isn't overt stuff, like Jimmy Fallon mugging the camera, but I noticed it.  Anderson also takes the time to show the consequences of Mr. Fox's actions; Fox's selfishness (or wildness, I suppose) threatens the lives of his friends and family in the short- and long-term, makes his son feel inadequate, and might ruin his marriage.  This is theoretically fine, but a little heavy-handed in practice.  Do I need a realistic marital argument in a children's film about foxes?  No, but I admit that it was written well.  The fact that it was written, though, just feels like a case of wrong time, wrong place.

The Boondock Saints

Okay, let me get this out of the way right now.  This is not a subtle movie.  It doesn't really have much of a plot.  It is gratuitously violent.  The director (Troy Duffy) clearly was aiming more for cool moments than a cohesive film.  Several characters are simply punchlines with legs.  It is moronic.  Willem Dafoe dresses in drag and is considered attractive.  The social commentary is boneheaded.  All in all, this is a truly ridiculous movie.

And I love it, just the same.  The movie stars Sean Patrick Flanery and Norman Reedus as fraternal twins who kill a couple of Russian mobsters in self-defense.  Nothing wrong with that, right?  Well, this acts as just the first instance of them killing criminals.  With the help of their friend/ low-level mob gopher (David Della Rocco), the brothers track down criminals of varying prestige and shoot them dead.  Why?  Um... because... villains are scum?  Actually, the brothers have a dream that tells them to.  Really.  Of course, the mob opts to defend itself, calling in Il Duce (Billy Connolly), a famously deadly assassin.  All the while, the Boston police and FBI are hot on the trail, with Willem Dafoe playing the part of a brilliant FBI agent.  As the film progresses, Dafoe starts to understand the brothers' motivation and must choose whether to arrest or aid them.

Taking the already stated weaknesses of this film into account, how can I enjoy this?  There are a lot of movies with similar problems that I despise (the sequel, for instance), but somehow this one gets off the hook.  How?  The secret is in the film's joy.  This movie looks like it was a blast to make, but that does not necessarily make it good (see: Rat Pack movies).  While the movie is ridiculous, both in its action and its dialogue, the movie never veers into parody.  That would be a mistake for a better director, but first-time writer/ director Troy Duffy isn't very talented; had he tried to make this a clever movie, it probably would have come off like The Doom Generation, AKA Brian's Most Hated Movie.  When Duffy tries to be clever or smart, it's really annoying, like when he has the "man on the street" interviews during the closing credits.  No, this movie works best when it is simple and gleefully dumb.

Helping that is the Z-list supporting cast.  Take, for starters, the presence of David Della Rocco.  Rocco plays a character named Rocco, which implies that the actor couldn't remember his character's name, so they changed it.  I don't know that for a fact, but that would be my first guess.  Rocco isn't much of an actor, but he can deliver dialogue with great comedic timing.  I never thought a dead cat would make me laugh, but he proved me wrong.  The talents of the three local policemen on the case range from poor to mediocre, but Bob Marley (Yes, the reggae legend.  Just with a lot of makeup, facial prostheses and, oh, not dead) delivers several great lines.  The other cops are fine, but Marley plays the idiot, so of course his lines should be either funny or annoying.  Luckily, they are the former.

The bigger name supporting cast does a good job, too.  Willem Dafoe steals every scene he's in, even if the things he's required to say and do are stupid.  Cross-dressing and river-dancing are just two examples, but he is still charming and funny throughout.  Yes, he's over-the-top here, but this is a conscious choice; his acting is on par with the tone of the film.  Unfortunately, a lot of his character's moments (especially the slow-motion action scenes) seem derivative of Gary Oldman's character in The Professional.  Oldman did it first and did it better, but Dafoe shines when he investigates the crime scenes.  Billy Connolly does not do much in the movie, but he definitely looks dangerous and cool.  That still counts for something.

Sean Patrick Flanery and Norman Reedus, on the other hand, aren't terribly talented actors.  Luckily, the movie doesn't require much acting from them.  Really, the film is written like a series of punchlines with action scenes spliced in during flashbacks.  Flanery and Reedus do their jobs, sounding Irish, telling jokes, and looking handsome.  That's all their asked to do, and they do it well.

Some may find the lighthearted reactions to violence off-putting.  I can understand that.  This isn't a movie with heart, so the violence doesn't really hold any meaning.  That's what makes it gratuitous.  Everyone involved, though, goes for broke here.  Dafoe and Della Rocco are both wonderfully over the top.  The dialogue is often funny, partially because it is well-paced and partially because a lot of the lines are unexpected.  Basically, this movie is like movie popcorn: delicious, unhealthy, and best forgotten once you are finished.  Is this a great movie?  No, not at all.  Is it stupidly awesome?  Definitely.

To Live and Die In L.A.

It is weird how wildly a director's output can vary.  William Friedkin directed The French Connection, The Exorcist, and The Boys In the Band, all very well directed movies, and all classics.  On the other hand, Friedkin also directed Cruising, Jade, and the least exciting hand-to-hand combat movie ever, The Hunted.  While he may have an Oscar for Best Director, William Friedkin is not someone you can trust to make awesome movies every time out.  This time, though, he managed to make a good movie, seemingly against all odds.

The film stars William Petersen (of CSI fame) in his first major film role as a rough-and-tumble loose cannon Secret Service agent.  If this was a pitch meeting, I would say something like "He's gonna bring the bad guys to justice, even if he has to break the law to do it!"  Trite as that sound-byte is, it's a pretty good description of Petersen's character.  Of course, the loose cannon gets paired with the straight-laced partner, played by John Pankow (from Mad About You and Ally McBeal).  Pretty obvious, stereotypical stuff so far.  Since they're the Secret Service, they need criminals to chase.  John Turturro has a small role as a minor player, but the main villain is Willem Dafoe.  Dafoe is running a counterfeit operation and Petersen's original partner died while investigating it.  This puts a bee in Petersen's proverbial bonnet, and so the counterfeiter must be arrested, at all cost.

Obviously, the basic plot isn't anything special.  The script isn't particularly memorable, either, at least in terms of dialogue.  It's not bad, mind you, and Turturro's character in particular has some nice lines, but there are some odd choices.  For some reason, Petersen uses the word "amigo" as a synonym for "wuss," as in, "I'm sorry you feel that way, amigo, but I'm gonna do this my way."  Yeah, this is LA in 1985, but that's just awkward every time it's used.  Ooooh!  Petersen's partner, playing an aging cop about to retire, does say "I'm getting too old for this shit," which predates Lethal Weapon by two years.  So, I guess that's memorable, although always attributed to Danny Glover.

Okay, so the plot and the dialogue aren't too special.  As I watched this, I didn't think the characters or the script were too special, either, but then it got interesting.  The movie is progressing along the well-tread path of most 80s cop movies, but then Petersen's character makes some odd choices.  These choices aren't your usual M. Night Shyamalan, out of nowhere, end-of-the-movie twists.  They make sense for the character; they're just not in the top twenty logical choices sane people would make.  This is where the film differentiates itself.  The characters are well established, but you don't know them well enough to know exactly what they will do.  And yet, the choices they make, and how they react to things, still make sense.

Petersen's character is a classic hard boiled detective; he's smart, a world-class jerk, takes risks, and would rather be right than be legal.  Pankow does a good job as the reluctant partner and both characters develop naturally as the story progresses.  Dafoe (who is surprisingly not hideous in 1985) does a good job as the pragmatic villain.  Sometimes, movies make white collar criminals represent the extremes of the criminal world.  Either they're weak, or they have a hundred tough guys willing to do their evil bidding.  Dafoe is somewhere in the middle and I appreciate that.  It's hard to believe that Petersen, Dafoe and Turturro were still a year away from starring in classics like Manhunter, Platoon, and The Color of Money, respectively, because their performances here show how ready they were for a larger audience.

This movie is rightly described as a noir.  Noir might be my favorite film genre, at least in part because the bad noirs rarely make it onto DVD.  Still, the simple plots, tough guy leads, and character-driven stories are always welcome in my home theater (such a it is).  While this movie has weak points, the good definitely outweighs the bad.  If it could have overcome some cliches and drawn me into the plot sooner, this would be a great film.  Still, this stands as one of the best noir films of the last thirty years.

The Boondock Saints II: All Saint's Day

It's been over ten years since the original The Boondock Saints was released; it was a bad time for ultra-violent films, since it came out right after the Columbine shootings.  For those who haven't seen the movie, it's about two brothers who decide to become vigilantes and, more or less, start killing all the criminals they can find.  Despite never getting wide release, the film became a cult classic and a huge hit on DVD.  Personally, I love The Boondock Saints, for what it does right and wrong.  It's even become something of a tradition to watch it on St. Patrick's Day.  Now, the long awaited sequel is on DVD.  Does this mean that next year, I'll start watching two movies every March 17?  The short answer is "no."

This movie has every reason to succeed.  The writer/director of the first film (Troy Duffy) returns, along with the three stars, Sean Patrick Flanery, Norman Reedus, and Billy Connolly.  The three Boston policemen from the first movie return.  Heck, the bad guys even get upgraded in this movie; in the first flick, Ron Jeremy was the most famous villain, but here we have Peter Fonda and Judd Nelson.  There are two notable absences, though.  While the lovely and talented Willem Dafoe is relegated to a cameo, he is replaced by television actress Julie Benz (of Dexter and Angel fame); that is not an improvement, but more on her later.  Also, the funny, but not much of an actor, David Della Rocco is more or less replaced (he still cameos, but he died in the last film) by the less funny,  but arguably a better actor, Clifton Collins, Jr.

More or less, the team that made the first movie so much fun was back in business.  So, how's the script?  Well, when I was watching it, I commented that it felt like the script was written in two days, but Troy Duffy spent the next ten years making sure to turn everything up to eleven; in other words, every line in every scene feels like it was tweaked so that it would be ultra-memorable.  Duffy probably re-watched The Boondock Saints critically and concluded that he wasted too much time having dialogue that built character and advanced plot; this time around, every line would be a "zinger."  Seriously, this movie is very tiring.  You know when you have a friend that's funny, but feels that he's being ignored?  He overreacts by trying to make every single thing he says funny, and in the process just becomes annoying.  Well, your friend's name is The Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day.

The plot isn't much better.  After the events of the last movie, the MacManus brothers (Flanery and Reedus) are living in seclusion with their father (Connelly) as sheep herders in Ireland.  Somebody kills a priest in Boston and leaves their trademark after the crime, so the brothers return to Boston with the plan to kill everyone involved with the crime.  Okay, so far, so good.  Revenge and honor are as good a reason as any for vigilantes to start killing criminals, right?  And that's basically what happens.  Sure, they are lacking David Della Rocco, so they pick up an equally bumbling sidekick in Clifton Collins, Jr.  Yes, they're being chased by the FBI again, but instead of their accomplice, Dafoe, they get his apprentice, Benz.  Billy Connolly is not in much of the movie (just like last time), but when he is, the plot focuses on him (much like last time).  Ugh.  It's the same movie, but not nearly as good, despite all its efforts.

So, if the movie is basically the first movie, but with a lot more insults and supposedly memorable lines, where does it fall short?  Let's start with the MacManus family.  When the movie begins, the brothers are going incognito; their hair and beards are shoulder length.  While this actually looks natural on Reedus, Flanery looks like he Velcro-ed woolen socks to his face for his beard.  Okay, that's a small complaint.  But, when they decide to return to Boston, where the FBI will undoubtedly be looking for them, they cut their hair and beards to look exactly the same as they did when the last movie ended.  Very incognito.  The brothers are sharing the same tattoo this time around; they both have Christ on the cross in the middle of their backs, but Flanery has Christ from the head down to the waist, while Reedus has the legs and feet.  Really?  What were they thinking?  What position do they have to be in for that to look cool?  Even if Flanery was getting a piggy back ride from Reedus, there would still be a gap in their flesh portrait!  You know what would have been better?  If they shared the same tattoo, but it was split down the center; when they are back-to-back, preparing to execute a criminal, only then does it come together as one portrait.  The brothers are still amateurs, too.  They get in the same fights that they did in the last movie over the same things.  They still play jokes with unloaded guns.  They still plot their attacks like they are in a bad action movie (well, they are, but you know what I mean).  In short, over ten years, the only noticeable change in these characters is that Flanery looks older.  Oh, any Billy Connolly (who is the best part of the MacManus family) is barely in the movie; instead, we are treated to a Godfather II-esque origin story for him.  In a word: LAME.

The supporting cast isn't better, either.  Benz has the strongest (and worst) southern accent I have heard this side of sketch comedy.  I don't like her motivation and I think the way it was introduced to the Boston cops would have been much more effective if the MacManus brothers were not in on the secret.  Her part was too similar to Dafoe's, to the point of mockery.  Peter Fonda sports an Italian accent that made me yearn for his surfer turn in Escape From L.A.  Clifton Collins, Jr. was both a cartoon and, in some ways, extremely charming.  I wavered between hating him and laughing at him, so his performance canceled itself out for me.  Judd Nelson (and I can't believe I'm typing this) was underused in this movie, and I wish he had more screen time.  Willem Dafoe's cameo was welcome, although it opened the movie up for an obvious sequel (that might actually happen, since the film was profitable in the US alone).  David Della Rocco's cameo acted as a mission statement for the movie; while it was not at all subtle, Rocco is fun to see on the screen.

Overall, this is a movie that is living in the shadow of its predecessor.  Boondock Saints II wants to be the Terminator 2 for its franchise, the sequel that takes all the great things from the first movie and makes them James-Cameron-HUGE.  It certainly succeeds in making things louder and dumber, but that doesn't make it better.  Is it violent?  Yes.  Does it have a lot of creative dialogue?  Too much.  Does it make sense?  Kind of.  The main problem with Boondock Saints II is that it loves the original so much, the characters can't escape its formula.