Stupid Movie Title

     I'm preemptively declaring the worst movie title of 2013: The Haunting in Connecticut 2: The Ghosts of Georgia.  Apparently, this is the sequel to the 2002 TV movie, A Haunting in Connecticut (despite the two films having no direct connection).  As the title of the "sequel" suggests, it takes place in Georgia, not Connecticut.  Yes, it's using the same logic as Reno 911! Miami, but without any awareness of how contradictory the title is.

Trailer Trash: Dark Skies

            Horror is hard.  You want to scare the audience, and you don’t want to go the torture porn/slasher route.  Judging by the trailer, “Dark Skies”goes for the haunted house/possession subgenre.  But don’t expect  “Dark Skies” to be the next  Shining or Exorcist.  I saw the following trailer in theaters yesterday:

            You know your horror movie is broken when the audience laughs at the previews as much as they did at the screening I attended.  What starts out as a standard (if a bit cliché) horror movie set up quickly takes a turn for the comic when Mrs. Barret (played by Felicity star Keri Russel) finds her husband (played by 1992 daytime emmy winner Josh Hamilton) standing unresponsive in the family’s backyard at night.   She approaches as J. K. Simmons’s voice-over warns them about strange behavior and loss of control.  She places her hand on her husband’s shoulder, turns to face him and sees…

            It only gets sillier from there, as moments later we see Keri Russel banging her head against a glass window with complete disinterest.

     On the bright side, it will probably be funnier than A Haunted House.

Why Darth Vader Is Really the Hero

Darth Vader is the archetypal villain; even his theme song is enough to denote evil.  After all, he kills his own men and destroys innocent planets for fun.  Yet, I believe that he’s the hero of the Star Wars series.  (I’m only counting the films.  I don’t care what the extended universe says happened on Stavromula Beta or whatever, we don’t mention that here.)

Seriously, screw this.

Let’s look at the facts.  Anakin Skywalker was prophesied to restore balance to the force, but turned to the dark side and had all the Jedi except for Obi-Wan and Yoda killed.  Both of whom exiled themselves to desolate lands.  When you first meet Obi-Wan and Yoda (in the original trilogy) they seem like wizened hermits devoted to spiritualism.  It’s easy to forget that the Jedi used to have a skyscraper and an army of clones.

They take a vow of poverty, like the pope.

The Jedi were extremely powerful and, for a group that’s supposed to be operating for the sake of the light side of the force, did extremely well financially.  With their new army, is it that hard to believe that they’d convince themselves that it was okay to do bad things for good reasons and vice-versa?   Imagine if the Empire were run by a council of Jedi, instead of two Sith lords.

While most people point to Vader saving Luke as proof of his inherent goodness, that was the worst thing he could have done.  The force has the power to corrupt even the best of men, and if Vader, Palpatine, and Skywalker had died on the Death Star II, everyone who knew how to use the force would be dead.  Anakin Skywalker was supposed to bring balance to the force by killing everyone that could use it for their own means.  The same human weakness that made this drastic action necessary is what prevented him from letting his son die.

So don’t forget, Vader eliminated the Sith, and prevented Jedi control of the universe.

Truly, he was the hero the galaxy deserved.

How to Make a Good Superman Movie

         The reason it’s almost impossible to make a good Superman movie is because Superman is perfect.  Not just physically, but morally.  If you take that away, you take away everything that makes him Superman.  The first two movies worked because the first was about him discovering his abilities and the second was about him facing a moral dilemma, choosing between Lois Lane and his duty as Superman.  The fact is, his idealism is why people like him.  So instead of changing him, why not change the world he inhabits?  Instead of the cold war era moral certitude that went hand-in-hand with “truth, justice, and the American way,” put him in today’s society.

        At what point is he overstepping his boundaries?  Would a real-life Superman be morally obligated to overthrow brutal dictators?  What good is having a nuclear arsenal if one man can stop all your missiles single-handedly, and you can’t hurt him?  Who is he accountable to? 

        The story would be the logical progression from the first two movies. Part 1: Superman hones his ability, and becomes a force for good.  Part 2: He decides to dedicate himself to his position as Superman, instead of his civilian life (including personal relationships).  Part 3: He learns the limits/consequences of his actions. 

        The story would start with Superman coming back after years, maybe decades, of absence (I know Superman Returns did that, but bear with me).  So he gets back (having aged much less than an average person), and everyone is understandably excited.  But the world is drastically different.  He would stop a military action against civilians in a stand-in for Syria, and the international reaction would be extremely negative.  The military will be trying to stop him, and will contract out to Lex Luthor to develop technology for a contingency in which Superman would need to be killed/contained.  The big thing would be the moral quandary for Superman.  Even at the cost of alienating governments, and in the face of plummeting public opinion, should he do what he thinks is right?  He has to come to terms with the god he could be. 

        Luthor’s plan would pay homage to the original Superman movie.  He would be secretly selling a nuke and guidance system to a North Korea stand-in.  However, unbeknownst to the Koreans,  the guidance system would allow Luthor to remotely launch the nuke, and crash it into the San Andreas fault.  Not for beachfront property, but to cause a disastrous earth quake.  And the only construction firm big enough and prepared enough to take over the government contracts for a reconstruction project are owned by Luthor, making it a multi-billion dollar payout. 

        Superman stops the nuke, but at this point, he’s completely disillusioned.  Instead of sending the nuke into space, he hurls it back to a Pyongyang stand-in, destroying the city.  When he discovers that Luthor was behind it, he goes nuts, and almost kills Luthor.  Luthor makes some comment along the lines of “This is what you really are.  You’re not a hero, you’re not even human.”  And Superman lets Luthor live, if only to prove to himself that he can still hold that moral high ground.

Titanic 3D: Timely or Tasteless?

            On April 15^th, 1912, the RMS Titanic and 1,517 passengers sank to the bottom of the freezing North Atlantic Ocean.  The tragedy instantly made the headlines of newspapers on both sides of the Atlantic (with a few exceptions: The Christian Science Monitor’s headline that day read: Passengers Safely Moved and Steamer Titanic Taken in Tow), and has continued to be a massive source of interest to this day, eclipsing the notoriety of other disastrous voyages, like those of the Lusitania or Hindenburg.  And now, less than three weeks to the centennial of the event that has so captured the imagination of the public, I am faced with a moral quandary: Is the release of Titanic 3D an act of commemoration or exploitation?

            On the one hand, it is an area of public interest, especially as the centennial approaches.  Furthermore, the movie itself is well-regarded and made tastefully.  It doesn’t wallow in disaster footage.  At its heart, it is a love story, set aboard the Titanic.  It was released in 1997.

            I can’t believe that it’s a coincidence that the film is being re-released less than two weeks before the anniversary of the Titanic disaster, although the official website doesn’t mention it.  But even if the release date’s significance is intentional (which I assume it is), does that mean it’s exploiting the disaster, or just using the fact that it’s going to be back in the public consciousness?  If a movie is done tastefully, and represents the tragedy in a human way, is it really so bad?  And don’t you wish you could see the characters kiss… in 3D!?

            Look, I don’t hate 3D.  As far as I’m concerned, it’s just another tool that can be used to tell a story (the immersive visual world was the only thing that made Avatar watchable).  And movies that are filmed in 3D by a capable director can have a new, exciting layer added to them.  Titanic was not filmed in 3D.  The conversion process from 2D to 3D lowers the video quality, but you can charge an extra $3 or so per ticket.  This is where I draw the line on tastelessness.  The movie is set almost entirely on a boat, which makes me wonder why the 3D is even necessary (oh, right, $3 or so a ticket).  This is a case of a gimmicky use for 3D that serves no purpose to the film, and in this case it’s just shameful. 

            The sinking of the Titanic has been so romanticized in culture, that we forget that over 1,500 innocent men, women, and children DROWNED.  A way to commemorate what was, in no uncertain terms, a tragedy, is not to find the gimmickiest way to make money off of it.  If you want to see Titanic in theaters, I urge you to see the 2D version.  If for no other reason than the footage would look better.

Political Photoshop

Pretty self explanatory.  I took this movie poster:

And made this:

Why Twilight (the movie) sucks

I did not like “Twilight” for a myriad of reasons.  The poor acting and the unnecessary voice-overs were partly responsible for my attitude, but the most egregious offender was the erratic and often incomprehensibly stupid actions and decisions of the characters. In fact, a majority of the conflict in the film could have been averted if the characters were not suffering from a dearth of common sense.  This refusal to utilize even the most rudimentary mental facilities challenged my suspension of disbelief more than the premise of  friendly Northwestern vampires.  Every character is guilty of this at some point.

Bella’s father exhibits erratic behavior when he decides to go to another county to help them investigate an animal attack.  Meaning that he’s abandoning his city to no conceivable benefit to anyone.  But his greatest blunder is in the investigation of the murder victim in Forks.  He finds a footprint in the meadow and,  with no other information or evidence, decides that a) the foot print belongs to the killer and b) the killer is no longer in Forks therefore c) he stops investigating the death of his friend.

When Bella meets Jacob at the beach, he tells her that there is a secret myth in the Quileute tribe.  The myth is that in exchange for not hunting on Quileute land, the Quileute people will not reveal the Cullens’ true nature.  This secrecy is the foundation for their truce.  Yet there are readily available books containing this story, identifying the true nature of the Cullens.    If the truce is so important, why was the myth published?  Why didn’t the Quileute people buy or destroy all the copies of said books?

The Cullens themselves are not much brighter than the other characters.  When Edward brings Bella to his home, he explains that the family always enrolls in high school so that they can claim to be teenagers and stay in one place longer.  It is worth remembering that being around living people is a serious temptation for the Cullens, which makes it so much more baffling that they hadn’t decided on homeschooling.  Another example of the Cullens’ lack of basic cognitive abilities comes at the end of the climactic fight scene.  Bella has been bitten, and someone needs to suck the venom out.  Carlisle (who has successfully shown restraint while drinking the blood of the living on multiple occasions) asks Edward (who has stated that his desire for Bella’s blood is greater than anything he’s ever experienced) to suck the venom out of Bella’s blood, despite being perfectly capable of doing it himself, thus putting her in unnecessary danger.

Even Bella’s mother displays her inherent ineptitude when she meets Bella at the hospital after the climax.  According to her, the Cullens had explained that her injuries (serious blood loss, deep cuts, bruises and probably broken bones) were due to “falling down two flights of stairs and out a window.”  (I'm guessing this was after she walked into a door.)  While I wouldn’t expect her to assume that Bella was injured during a vampire battle in a ballet studio, any rational individual would have assumed domestic abuse.  Especially since, as far as Bella’s father knew, she had just broken up with Edward and run off.

But it is Bella who really ruins things.  Edward spends considerable time and energy explaining to her that he is incredibly dangerous and wants to hurt her, and she chooses to stay by his side regardless of his pleas that she do otherwise.  It is hard to sympathize with Bella when she’s in trouble, because she had been given enough warning and opportunity to avoid said trouble.

All the characters behave in a way that makes no sense, so long as it is convenient to the plot.  This makes the story seem, at the best, contrived, and at the worst, imbecilic.

Outdated Movie Review: Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance (2002)

Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance is a South Korean film, and the first part of Park Chan-wook’s “Revenge Trilogy” (it’s a trilogy in terms of theme, the stories don’t connect).  While Old Boy (2003) is unquestionably more famous, I believe that Sympathy is the superior film.

It is very rare for me to see a film, and be left speechless.  Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance is as much a tragedy as it is a revenge story, maybe even more so.  While I’ll admit, I’m not a very good judge of acting unless it’s very good or very bad, none of the actors were bad.  Song Kang-ho (who played Park), in my opinion, particularly stood out.

The violence is over the top sometimes, but it is by no means obtrusive nor is it detrimental to the movie as a whole.

The movie stands out due to its story.  In almost every revenge story, from Hamlet to a Liam Neeson action flick, there is an obvious bad guy.  This villain will often be given some sympathetic aspect, but in the end the audience knows who to root for.  Not so in Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance.  This is a revenge story about good people who make bad decisions, and the damage those decisions cause to themselves and the people they care about.

"The Room" Explained

While most people like the room because of the horrible acting, stupid story, and overall horribleness, it actually tells a very subtle story that you can only find by reading between the lines:

Claudette is the head of a drug syndicate.  Everyone except for Johnny and Denny are aware and/or  involved in this.  Lisa is in a relationship with Johnny so that she can use his connections at the bank to launder money.  She was forced into the relationship by Claudette, who values the success of her business over her daughter’s well-being, which is why Lisa doesn’t just leave Johnny nor does Claudette get upset when she’s told that Johnny hit her.

            The phrase “breast cancer” is actually code for an informant close to the heart of the operation and Claudette is worried that the house is bugged.  This fear is later given weight by the tape recorder Johnny uses to spy on Lisa.  The informant is, in fact, Peter. The syndicate members start to suspect him, as evidenced by Mark holding him over the edge of a building.  In Peter’s final scene, they all change into tuxedos.  This is because Mark wants to make sure he is not wearing a wire.  When Peter is driven off by the taunting, Mark follows and kills him.

            The scene with the drug dealer on the roof is especially important because this isn’t one of Claudette’s dealers.  Claudette and Lisa are worried that someone is trying to make a move on their turf by coming after someone close to them.  Despite Johnny’s wishes, Mark convinces him not to call the police and takes care of it himself. 

            Mike and Michelle (the couple that have the chocolate and blowjob scene early on) are near the top of the organization.  They are responsible for collecting the money from everyone beneath them, and pop in to Lisa’s house sporadically to drop it off.    Mark is the enforcer, and Lisa is heir to the top position. This is why Mark is able to meet Lisa and Johnny at any time of the day.  It is also why they never have to pay at the café, which is just a front for their illicit business.

            The photograph of the spoon and overall lack of personal effects in Johnny and Lisa’s house is due to Lisa’s inability to settle down in one spot.  She was raised in a volatile and violent environment in which she would have to move at a moment’s notice and leave everything behind.  Her inability to maintain a sense of normalcy includes her relationship with Johnny, whom she doesn’t love and is being forced by her mother to stay with.  She starts sleeping with Mark to take control of her own life and hopes that Johnny will find out and leave her.

            Mark’s feelings towards Lisa are more complex.  He has legitimately come to like Johnny, but he doesn’t want to upset Lisa because he is afraid of Claudette.  He does eventually develop feelings for Lisa, if only because of her position of power within the syndicate. 

            At the party, the character Steven is introduced.  After Peter was killed, Johnny’s tape recorder was discovered, leading Claudette to believe that there was another traitor.  Steven’s job was to find out who in the syndicate could be trusted. 

            When Lisa sees that Johnny was the one tapping the phone and he was just trying to see if she was cheating on him, she realizes that she can use this to make Claudette get rid of him.  She calls Mark, partly because she wants to see him, partly to spite Johnny.  This sends Johnny into a rage, ending with his suicide.  At finding his body, Mark flees before the police arrive.  While Lisa will always be bent to her mother’s will, she is at least free of the relationship she was forced into.

Outdated Movie Review: Tron: Legacy

            I’d like to preface this review with the fact that I’m a nerd.  If Tron isn’t something you’d be generally be interested in watching, then take everything I say with a grain of salt.  But let’s get this over with.

            The basic premise is this: After the events in the original “Tron,” Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges) takes over Encom with his friend Allen (Bruce Boxleitner) and turns it into one of the largest tech companies in the world.  He has a son with the female lead from the original, but she dies between films.  When his son, Samuel Flynn (Garrett Hedlund) is a child, Kevin disappears.  Twenty years later, Allen gets a message from Kevin, and Sam ends up in the grid.

            One of my favorite things about this movie is how it contrasts to the original.  The changes to the visual graphics in the grid and the complexity of the games mirrors the changes in technology in the years between the original and the sequel.  Visually, the film is amazing.  The action sequences are exciting and wholly entertaining.  On the downside, CGI Jeff Bridges looks like he’s stuck halfway down the uncanny valley, and occasionally it looks like the characters just stepped into an ‘80s music video.

            The story doesn’t break new ground, but it manages to keep the audience involved and caring about the fate of the characters.  Jeff Bridges does a good job, but he peppers his monologues on tragic or profound issues with phrases that seem more at home in The Big Lebowski.  It’s hard to take the heroes’ plight seriously when the response to almost certain defeat is “You’re messing with my zen thing, man.”

            I don’t think I can do a review of Tron: Legacy without comparing it to the original.  Is the Tron better?  Yes.  But I think Tron: Legacy carries on the spirit of its predecessor, and does so with style.  If you like the Sci-fi/tech genre as much as I do, you’ll like this movie.  I’d give it 7.5 out of 10.

Outdated Movie Review: The Next Three Days

            The Next Three Days was not what I expected it to be.  When I hit play, I was planning on watching a couple hours of an enjoyable, yet thoroughly ridiculous, prison break story.  A clear good guy, a clear bad guy, more of an action ride than anything else.  I was surprised that this was not the way that the story went.

            The main character, John Brennan, (Russell Crowe) wants to break his wife, Lara (Elizabeth Banks) out of prison.  His wife having been (so far as he believes) wrongly convicted of murder.  The majority of the movie focuses on his life with his young son, Luke, and his designing a plan to break his wife out of prison.  And it’s in this plan that the movie stands out.  There’s no storming the jail’s walls, no prison riots, it’s much more realistic given the capabilities of the character.

            But the film suffers from an identity crisis.  It splits its time between the escape and Brennan’s adjustment to life with his wife in prison, and doesn’t give enough attention to either.  If the film had chosen to focus on one or the other, it would have been much stronger.  Instead, it leaves the viewer feeling like they were just scratching the surface of a great story, not delving in. 

            For example, John Brennan’s relationship with Olivia Wilde’s character would have been  much more compelling if they had taken the route of his son needing a mother figure in his daily life, or if John developed feelings for her.  On the other hand, while the plan to get his wife out of prison was elegant in its simplicity, it lacked the complexity that would have made it more exciting if it had gotten time to do so.

            Besides a detective who jumps to irrational (if correct) conclusions, the movie doesn’t make any huge, individual mistakes.  The acting was average, overall.  And so was the movie for that matter.  It wasn’t a bad film, but it wasn’t great either.  It told an interesting story adequately.  Or rather, it tried to tell two interesting stories.  I’d give it a six out of ten.