Top 5 Least Disappointing Movie Monsters

Okay,

To preface this list, I had a brief conversation today about the power of imagination vs. the power of technology with regards to on screen creatures. For the most part, I'm in favor of the "less is more" because computers, puppets, miniatures... all have their issues to varying degrees. I've read a lot of books in the horror genre and then seen the accompanying movie, and usually, what shows up on screen just doesn't quite match up with what I have in my head. When the images meet or surpass what I've thought, it generally makes the movie a little more special. So thus, the top 5 least disappointing movie monster list. To make this list, the movie has to be based on a pre-existing book or story and I have to have read the story before I saw the movie. So without further ado...

5. JawsFoot, Peter Benchley's Creature

This isn't a particularly well known movie, to the point where I couldn't find any good screen shots of the titular beast. Instead faithful readers, you get the maquette pictured at the right. A short backstory/explanation... Peter Benchley is the guy who wrote Jaws (as well as the Deep) and based on the Jaws money, wrote 2 other sea creature monster movies, The Beast and White Shark. Both of these were made into TV miniseries, White Shark being renamed the awesomely generic creature. The book featured a nazi genetically enginereed shark/human hybrid that would have looked something like an albino Arnold Schwarzenegger with metal teeth and claws. As a middle school aged kid, I had this awesome mental picture of Ahnold as the White Shark monster (that line of reasoning wasn't too much of a stretch... I mean, he actually made Junior around the time I read this book). Instead, the producers of the movie changed the monster to what I have since dubbed Jawsfoot. When I watched the movie, I really loved this concept... I know it's completely ridiculous, outlandish, and dumber than the book, but I was not disappointed by this monster at all. Jawsfoot gets bonus points for the cast (including pre Sex and the City Kim Catrall and the Coach himself, Craig T. Nelson!) taking the ludicrous concept fairly seriously.

4. The Balrog, Lord of the Rings, Fellowship of the Ring

The fiery demon from the mines of Moria whom Gandalf would not let pass... The only Balrog I saw as a kid was this stupidity from the Ralph Bakshi 1978 Lord of the Rings... A guy rotoscoped in with butterfly wing, slippers, and a lion mask... Terrible, just terrible











After seeing the early previews for Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings, I was fairly excitied what
the Balrog might look like... The book says "shrouded in fire, darkness, and shadow" and mentions the many pronged whip... Trying to combine fire and shadow together would seem like a really tough character design, but as you can see, I think it came together amazingly well. The only reason why the Balrog is so low on the list is that well, he isn't in the movie very much (less than five minutes of screen time in a two and a half hour movie). Still, an amazing use of CGI and one of the most imposing fantasy monsters I've ever seen.




3. Kothoga Monster, The Relic

I realize that this was a fairly unoriginal movie, but I really liked the Jurassic Park meets Alien concept from the book. The authors, Douglas Preston and Lincoln Child intentionally keep the descriptions fairly vague as to the actual creature's appearance. I don't want to post a picture because I think far and away the best part of the movie is actually seeing the monster itself. My mental picture of the Relic creature from the novel was blown away by an amazing Stan Winston (he's a visual effects guy who created both the Terminator and Predator among others) made creature.

One of the things I love is that the eye color of the monster changes from the novel to the book (yes, it's a small detail) and it's a really great, subtle tweak to the design. Yes, there is some poor late 90s CGI work at hand in parts of the movie, but the practical full size creature is one of the best of it's kind (I would use the Alien or Predator on this list, but since they were created directly for a movie and I saw the movies before any of the fan fiction, they don't qualify). So for being an organic, nasty, and crazy monster which elevated a mundane movie... the Kothoga (it's called MBun I think in the book)...

2. the Medusa, Clash of the Titans (the original)

I realize that Clash of the Titans has no exact literary basis, but I read the myth of Perseus before I saw the movie, so to me it counts. Clash of the Titans is the final movie done by legendary visual effects guru Ray Harryhausen. Harryhausen came to fame by creating a series of stop motion creatures in fantasy and science fiction films of the 1950s and 1960s. After watching CGI films for going on 20 years now, Harryhausen films seem really archaic and outdated, but as a young kid, I thought they were amazing (In my opinion, the moat monster from Willow seems inspired by those old films).

The medusa in the movie has a snake like lower body, a rattlesnake tail, and shows skill at archery (I always thought that was cool as a kid, then when writing that, I think to myself, self, "why would someone as deadly as medusa need to be an archer?" It'd be like if Magneto was also a sniper or something... just stupid... but then, she's immortal, so archery is a hobby or something... yeah, I'm a dork...)

Ahem, the point is, the movie differs from the classic interpretation, but I really love the more aggressive, hunting Medusa. I know Clash of the Titans is fairly corny and takes itself a little too seriously (especially Laurence Olivier and Maggie Smith), but it's rooted in Greek Mythology, so it's a fantastical adventure and nothing more than that. I know Clash is going to remade later this year and I'd wager that the Medusa in the remake will be a CGI creation that blows the original out of the water. For me, that old Medusa was an amazing representation of a myth brought to stop motion life.

1. All the monsters (besides the tentacles), The Mist

When I came up with this list, I knew that the menagerie of the Mist would take the top spot. For the not aware, the Mist is a novella (it's a little over 150 pages) in a book (Skeleton Crew) of short stories by Stephen King. It's about as simple as a plot gets, a bunch of people get trapped in a supermarket by an eerie mist concealing a number of deadly creatures. I read this story at the age of 13 or so, and I always wanted/pictured a movie adaptation (I thought of Christian Slater as the star back then, ended us with Thomas Jane, kind of a wash)... My wait finally came to end when Frank Darabont, better known as the force behind both Shawshank Redemption and the Green Mile, released his version in 2007. I was disappointed by very little of this finished product, as Darabont treated the material very seriously, (it's a fairly ridiculous setup and I always had worries a movie would get campy or Tremorsish) even getting a Stephen King approval to alter the ending.

Given the pretty modest 18 million dollar budge, the creatures in this movie were executed to near perfection (this movie, the 19 M Pan's Labryinth, and the 30 M District 9 prove to me that the talent/will of a crew of artists and technicians can overcome budgetary constraints to create amazing visual effects). My one problem was the 'tentacles' sequence... which didn't look quite finished as far as the integration with the rest of the environment was concerned (they also reminded me a lot of the lake monster from the first Lord of the Rings as well as the monsters from the Treat Williams opus, Deep Rising). The flying creatures bit, the pharmacy, the 'Blowhole' (super obscure Tick reference there) creature towards the end all show what CGI can accomplish in this modern age of movies... for sequences or creatures where puppetry, stuntpeople in suits, and stop motion all would completely fail.

So that's this fairly odd list done... I could write a reverse (the most disappointed I've been... to figure out an early candidate... "Amy Ugly Gorilla Amy Go Away") someday, but that might be hard to cut down to just five... Next up to finish... either my top 10 underrated villains or my top 10 supporting horror characters (the second would use the same criteria as my cartoon list). Any request anyone for something different?

Remakelicious

okay,

To start this off, I'm very anti remake of 70s-80s or just movies in general. It's a huge hollywood fad right now (I know there was a screenwriters strike a little while back, but really?) and I think the remake of the excellent Spanish horror movie Rec was the low point. For those who are unaware, Rec was released on November of 2007, a little movie told from 1st person perspective ala Cloverfield about a group of people trapped in an apartment complex with an infectious disease ala 28 Days Later. Nothing mindbreaking, but a fun, claustrophobic little thriller. In October of 2008, we got Quarantine... A shot by shot 'remake' that was RELEASED eleven months later. Meaning that after some studio execs saw Rec, they decided right away to make their inferior version... Rec didn't get a theatrical release in america and was just released on DVD a few weeks ago in early July of 2009 in America. People at my store actually thought Rec was a ripoff of Quarantine, when in reality... grr...

Moving on... Up to this point, my two favorite remakes have been horror movies, namely fairly flawed horror movies. Texas Chainsaw Massacre with Jessica Biel was substantially less gritty and nasty than the original, but had things like "a budget", "sets", and "professional actors" all of which I appreciated. Plus it had one of my favorites, R. Lee Erney, in a new role that filled some plot holes (if you don't know who he is... the abusive drill sergeant/cop from many movies, starting in Full Metal Jacket... bushy eyebrows, yells a lot... that guy).

I also thought the Hills Have Eyes was great... Once again fixing some dodgy acting, taming down the "superdogs" and featuring some outstanding makeup effects (although for sheer creepy factor, no amount of makeup tops Michael Berryman from the original...).

Bringing us to the actual review of...

The Last House on the Left (2009)

Now I respect the original a whole lot. For those who are unaware, horror god Wes Craven (who brought us Nightmare on Elm Street and Scream) started his career with the exploitation flick Last House on the Left way back in 1972. It was made on a shoestring budget and is famous for being banned in the UK and only getting past a "X" rating because a personal friend of Craven's was on the ratings board. Unfortunately, (and I'll piss off some hardcore fans of original) it's flawed, almost fatally by bad writing (the 'comic relief' cops belong in a different movie), bad acting (especially the parents), and cheap production values and camerawork (although the crappy camerawork does give it a true life gut punch feeling at times).

When I first heard about a remake, I thought immediately to some of the more hideous 70s remakes (I'm looking at you, Julia Stiles' The Omen and Van Wilder's Amityville Horror). I was really pleasantly surprised with what I got instead... a movie that fixed 95% of the original's flaws and improved on the first flick a great deal. Where to start??

Since the movie is a character driven piece with a pretty small cast, acting is important. The 'biggest names' in the remake are Tony Goldwyn (the villain from Ghost and Neil Armstrong in "From Earth to the Moon") and Monica Potter (the female cop from Along Came a Spider or the love interest from Patch Adams) as the parents. Okay, so maybe they aren't A list celebrities, but if you take a look at IMDB, they are fairly recognizable, yet bring a really nice grounded sort of realism to a somewhat ridiculous plot. Both actors brought an odd combination of sympathy, vulnerability, and flat out viciousness that played out well onscreen and they made a believable married couple to boot. Sara Paxton as their daughter also brought a nice "girl next door" vibe and seemed a much stronger, tougher character than the "victims" from the original movie.

For me, the two stars of the movie were Garrett Dillahunt as Krug and Spencer Treat Clark as Justin. I knew Dillahunt could play a crazy villain from his performance as Wolcott from the excellent Deadwood series (he's also supposedly quite good in the Terminator TV series, but I haven't seen that) and he didn't disappoint with his first big theatrical performance. Dillahunt was an amazingly grounded, likeable, and at times fairly charming protagonist. To me, it was a really interesting approach to that sort of character... he didn't take some of the 'obvious' choices and almost seemed like a more daunting hurdle... It's tough to talk too much about him without getting into major spoiler areas (which I'm trying not to do). Speaking of vulnerable, Treat Clark really made me feel for what his character goes through as the youngest member of the gang. I connected to his performance... a lot of impact using his body language and especially his eyes... and very little dialogue (I've seen this character before with Jared Leto in Panic Room or the hillbilly girl from Hills Have Eyes, but this might be the best version in my opinion).

Despite being an hour and fifty minutes (somewhat long for horror movies) the movie was paced quite nicely. There were some beautiful camerawork by director Dennis Iliadis, really polished and fairly stunning cinematography, and a pretty haunting score. I especially appreciated the moments of just silence... it's almost a cliche, but when the movie got quiet, it amped up the tension. Finally, the different suspenseful buildups and how tense some of the scenes got... I was glued... It was also great to see a minimum of stupid "jump" scares (no cats, birds, or unnecessary loud noises in this one) instead using music and camerawork to create the solemn, moody atmosphere.

The action in the movie was nasty, brutal, and realistic. Goldwyn and Potter... reminded me oddly of Scream as they fought more like "real people" and not like "action heroes". The movie isn't a gorefest the whole way through, but there are some pretty damn nasty setpieces... And yes, a brutal and fairly long (in the unrated cut) rape scene is present... I know that really, really turns some people off, but it is a fairly important plot point and necessary for the conclusion to have the right emotional oomph.

So what didn't I like... the setup was a little clunky in terms of exposition and plot points (yep, she's real good at swimming... yep, he's a doctor.... wonder if that might come into play later). Two of the gang members that I didn't mention with my acting recap were a little stereotypical for me, (we got 1 'bad girl' and 1 'creepy, wide eyed rapist') in a crappier movie they'd have been fine, but with the other performances at hand, they stuck out a little bit. The very last scene was monumentally stupid, (after the 'boat scene', just turn the movie off) tacked on, and felt out of place (not to mention ripping off Wolf Creek and Gremlins). This scene is fairly over the top, completely out of left field, and takes away from the gritty realism and the mood established in the rest of the movie. I hoped it was just a 'deleted scene' only in the unrated cut, but unfortunately was in the theatrical as well...

So I give this remake.... 7 out of 10 (same score I'd give Hills Have Eyes remake)

Recommend for some great acting in this kind of genre flick, some high tension :o), amazing music, and great 3rd act.

Stay away from goofy gang members, clunky exposition, a few pacing issues, and a just awful final scene.

And that's all I have to say about that.

Thief and the Cobbler

Continuing on with last weeks' obscure animated classic, I'll jump right into what may well be the most intricate and detailed hand drawn animated feature of all time, one that took thirty years to finish. That would be the Richard Williams opus The Thief and the Cobbler.

A little background on Richard Williams... a Canadian animator, he worked on the early Pink Panther cartoons, the Raggedy Ann and Andy movie, and the animated adaptation of A Christmas Carol from the 1970s. His most famous work is Who Framed Roger Rabbit and he was directly in charge of the ToonTown sequence. After the success of Roger Rabbit, Williams got money from Warner Brothers to complete the Thief and the Cobbler. He had been working on the project by himself for twenty years (only completing twenty minutes) and was given a staff and several million dollars to finish it. By early 1992, it was obvious that the project was running over budget and wouldn't be done on time, so with about fifteen minutes of movie left to finish, Warner Brothers cut Williams out of the project completely, hastily finished the movie on their own and added several musical numbers.

Beyond being over budget, the actual story of the Thief and the Cobbler closely parallels a popular Disney movie. Let's see if you can figure out which...

In a fantastical middle eastern land, a poor teenage boy is arrested and meets a beautiful princess who he befriends. Along with a wily thief, the boy and the princess have to defeat the evil grand vizier. The vizier has plans to take over the kingdom and to marry the princess himself. He also has magic powers that he's used to enchant the king/sultan so that the vizier himself is basically in charge of the royal palace. Among the supporting characters are a tough bodyguard for the princess, a burly set of palace guards, and a bird sidekick to the grand vizier.

And to make matters worse, Warner Brothers decided to rename the movie Arabian Knight...

So if you are going to watch this movie, both the Arabian Knight cut and the Thief and the Cobbler cut are available on Youtube. I strongly recommend the Thief and the Cobbler recobbled cut - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgQy2I9NCS8&feature=PlayList&p=18B0CA620B61D076&index=0... This has several unfinished sequences that were never animated but is the closest thing to Williams' vision that has been released.

Why do I love this movie? Like I said earlier, it contains some of the most innovative, wildest, and most energetic sequences from any animated movie. The two titular characters are both silent the whole time (in the Arabian Knight version, Matthew Broderick is dubbed over the Cobbler and comedian Jonathan Winters dubbed over the thief) which gives the movie a really old school Looney Tunes vibe, especially with some of the antics of the thief (who' s a combination of Abu from Aladdin and Wile E. Coyote)

The two vilains are the high point for me though - for one thing, Vincent Price voices ZigZag, the evil vizier. I've always been a giant fan of Price (and his other vocal performance as Professor Ratigan in Great Mouse Detective) and his fairly comic (he speaks entirely in rhyme) and menacing performance defiantely steals the film. (although it may have been confusing to audiences because this film was released theatrically two years after Price died: he recorded his lines in 1968). Zigzag looks like a combination of Jafar and the Genie from Aladdin. I wouldn't mention this but a lot of the character animation is similar to Aladdin because many of the animators worked on both projects (making Thief not an Aladdin ripoff because it was started 20+ years before Aladdin came out).

The other villain, King One Eye, is another amazingly impressive and scary villain. The vocal actor, Paul Matthews, apparently delivered a package to Williams who was so impressed with his deep, booming voice that he cast in the movie despite having no acting experience at all. As much as I enjoyed James Earl Jones as the Emperor in my last review, the force and malice of Matthews' performance similary impresses. In fact, a several of One Eye's scenes were cut out of the actual theatrical release because they would have given the movie a PG instead of a G rating.

So anyhow, this is a really strange yet beautiful movie, (I haven't even mentioned the brigands, the witch, Donald Pleasance choking and coughing as Phido the vulture, or the absolutely insane, Rube Goldbergesque finale) I don't want to ruin the plot any more. It's free on Youtube, check it out...

Thief and the Cobbler Recobbled - 8 out 10 (only because it's kinda hard to watch because of the unfinished animation in parts)

Obscure animated classics

Okay, I'm gonna stray a bit from current releases back to some older 'gems.' I personally really enjoy well done animation and since I grew up in the 80s, I thought I'd mention a couple of overlooked childhood favorites. Now, people who know my tastes might think that I'm going to talk about An American Tail, Secret of Nimh, or maybe the Black Cauldron (all of which are overlooked and very good). But I'm guessing that most people who read this are somewhat familiar with those three movies (or at least are aware they exist).

The first movie I'm going to discuss is the sequel to Pinocchio (not those Disney awful DVD ones). You weren't aware of the 1987 sequel to the classic Pinocchio. Y'know, the one where Pinoc befriends Don Knotts, drinks absinthe and is tempted by the devil. Bringing us to the Filmation Production of...

Pinocchio and the Emperor of the Night, Animated, run time of 1 hour, 30 minutes

This film was released on Christmas day of 1987 and completely bombed in the box office, making under 4 million with a budget of 8. The production company, Filmation, was famous for the He-Man/She-Ra TV series, the 1960s Batman/Superman cartoons, and the animated Star Trek. Most of the animation was very simple and repetitive, but the writing was above average for the cartoons of their time. Pinocchio was the big budget attempt to rival Disney and Don Bluth and after it tanked, the production company went under.

Why did it fail so badly? It opened opposite Good Morning Vietnam and Moonstruck, which didn't help and I can see where people would rip it to shreds on being a ripoff of the original Disney version. The film I see as more of a reinterpretation of the original source material then a knock off. Besides its small theatrical success, it has yet to be released on DVD. However, industrious folks on YouTube have posted it, so if you want to watch it after I'm done chatting, click here: YouTube - Pinocchio and The Emperor of the Night part 1.

Why do I like this movie? The combination of being truer to the darker tone of the original story (in the book, Pinocchio kills Jiminy Cricket with a hammer early on), the really surreal imagery, and some very strange yet beautiful animation. If you've seen the Disney Pinocchio, you know most of the major plot points in this one. One of the reasons why this a very imperfect movie is the hammering of the moral message of "freedom of choice." I realize its the backbone of the story but everytime the characters talk about that issue, it just seems clunky. I realize that this is from the people that brought us He-Man and therefore aren't particularly subtle, but the preachyness stood out to me.

The animation is fairly uneven, especially in some of the early expository scenes. The highlight for me comes in the latter third. The Disney version is famous for the transformation into a donkey, but I think what happens in this movie comes across as even more disturbing and twisted and I'll leave it at that. The animation of the titular Emperor is stunning; he may be the most intimidating and evil antagonist in a movie 'for the kids' (on par with the Horned King in Black Cauldron). There are some songs in the movie, most of them forgettable (the first one sung by the Blue Fairy is particularly kind of lame) but I did like the "Your a Star" number (a lot of the Youtube commentators mentioned it as their favorite part of the film).

Voice acting.... Scott Grimes plays Pinocchio, he's not really a household name, but he's had reoccuring parts on ER, Party of 5, and Band of Brothers and he does a good job being the plot catalyst (and isn't as irritating or helpless as similar characters in other animated movies). Jonathan Harris (Dr. Smith from Lost in Space) grumps and humphs his way as the pompous Lt. Grumblebee (the most disposable character in the movie).

Ed Asner is recognizable and hits the right notes as the conniving raccoon con artist Scalawag (if you've seen Up, he plays the primary old man) and Frank Welker (who does a ton of animal voices and is the original voice of Megatron from the 1980s Transformers) does an odd quasi-mexican voice for his monkey sidekick, Igor. I will point out that these characters are an overall improvement to me over their Disney fox and cat counterparts, having even somewhat of a character arc.

Two vocal performances elevate this from middling throwaway to obscure classic. Don Knotts plays the unfortunately named Gee Whilikers (yes, Disney copyrighted Jiminy Cricket). I'm not sure if Knotts did any other animated roles of note, but he is perfect as the plucky conscience. The character with his bug eyes, hat, and scarf even physically resembles Knotts a bit. The booming voice of the Emperor of the Night is none other than James Earl Jones. Obviously, I don't need to discuss the merits of having a villain voiced by Jones, but he makes the Emperor even more threatening than his nasty animation alone.

Overall, there is a fair amount of filler in the story (the whole sequence at Bugsburg sticks out like a sore thumb to me), some sloppy animation, and a corny "message." However, the more creepy surreal parts, the Emperor of the Night himself, and the fairly ballsy idea of having a movie about Pinocchio being tempted by Satan is why I like it quite a bit. So if you have a spare hour and don't mind 80s animation, click on the link and check it out.

I give it a solid 7 out of 10 and that's all I have to say about that.

Ben Button

So yeah, last post, I was talking about Benjamin Button and Forrest Gump. Button is not a carbon copy of Forrest Gump, but very similar in plot structure and story. The better question is - is Benjamin Button any good?

I liked it. I mean, pretty much... (and there are gonna be some spoilers in this review, so if you haven't seen it... well, there were a ton of spoilers in my previous post because it was practically the whole plot)

Technically, it's brilliant. I watched some of the extras on how they used a combination of a midget, an actual old man, etc. and CGIed Brad Pitt's aged head onto those characters. The CGI in this one looks pretty much flawless... For a while, I thought they hadn't cast Pitt for the first couple characters (Ben in his 80s and 70s) and just used makeup on some existing old men to do the parts. Its different from Gollum or the Transformers in that it doesnt' look like a visual effect for the most part.

Actingwise, its Brad Pitt's show to steal and he does a good job and that's about it. I guess beyond the whole aging in reverse, Benjamin Button isn't the most interesting of characters. Pitt's at his best to me when he's playing loonier, more colorful characters like the boxer from Snatch, Jesse James in Ass. of Jesse James, or my personal favorite, the mental patient from 12 Monkeys. Aside from the visual trickery and I have to give credit for playing Button the whole movie at all the different ages, this is more Brad Pitt from Legends of the Fall with a southern accent (that was well done, but still sort of distracting).

Cate Blanchett doesn't fare quite as well, I just got irritated with her character and actually thought her best character moment is when she meets Benjamin and hides under the bed talking to him late at night. Much was said about Taraji Henson's role as Benjamin's mom. I thought this role straddled parody sometimes as a stereotypical sassy ole' black lady (and it gets worse the older her character gets) but she did play the compassionate mom well. Speaking of parody, Jared Harris as the tugboat captain... yikes! For me, this was the low point acting wise. Between a goofy accent, bad dialogue, and generally really hammy acting... Obviously yes, there's the directing and writing but for a really serious, darker movie tonally, he really stood out to me.

My two favorite supporting characters were Tilda Swinton and Jason Fleyming. Swinton as Benjamin's first real love, albeit as a late night affair in a hotel room, has a great chemistry with the experienced/inexperienced Pitt. Fleyming who most people don't know by name and generally is cast as a thug (like in Deep Impact) or psychopath (Jekyll/Hyde in the underwhelming LXG), is Ben's father, and he goes from being pretty evil character (almost throws Ben off a bridge as a baby) to quite a tragic one. I've never seen Fleyming with a part like this and really pulls it off well.

So the movie is long (2 hours 40 minutes), fairly depressing at times, yet I'd still recommend it. Anyone who knows my tastes knows I really enjoy David Fincher's work (Se7en and Fight Club are some of my all time favorites, I also like the Game, Zodiac, and even the maligned Alien3)
This is Fincher's take on a fairy tale/fable, in actuality, a pretty standard story that's painted in murky yellows and rusty oranges and while emotional, never felt like it was overly sappy.

Except for the wraparound story which I haven't really gotten to. The movie technically takes place in New Orleans, 2005, hurricane season. This has nothing at all to do with Benjamin's story, but tried to amp up the tension with a series of boring cutaways to Julia Ormond as Daisy's daugher and Cate Blanchett in old age makeup. Unlike the old Benjamin, this is obviously makeup and it really breaks up and distracts from the story every time this scene gets cut back to (it happens a lot). There's no real need for it, especially because Benjamin tells the story in 1st person the whole time, not Ormond's character (I know she's reading his diary, but still...).

So a recommend for technical wizardry, a non R rated Fincher film, affecting Tilda Swinton and non-evil Jason Fleyming

Stay away from the unnecessary length, the bland Cate Blanchett, and the goofy, redundant wraparound story

I'd give it 7/10... good, but not great

And that's all I have to say about that

Patrick

Really similar movies

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, or so says an old adage. You could also put it that there are just so many ideas out there. Whatever the case, movies pushed out by the Hollywood factory often are quite similar. I'm not talking about direct sequels/series or remakes or movies made by the same director, but completely separate films. A lot was said about the dueling volcano movies of Dante's Peak and Volcano or the dueling CGI kids movies about ants, A Bug's Life and Antz. Less was said about the "What is reality" concepts behind the Matrix and Existenz or the dueling brother cop movies We Own the Night and Pride and Glory. Anyhow, I saw a movie last week that, as I watched it, reminded me of a blockbuster from the 1990s. Here's a plot synopsis for you...

A caucasian boy is born in the south with birth defects that impair not only his ability to walk but his quality of life in general. With the support of his mother, he learns to walk and dramatically sheds his walking aids. He meets the love of his life at a very young age who then leaves him all alone. As the boy becomes an adolescent, he decides to join the military, going from a Meanwhile, the man reaches adulthood, and puts in a wartime stint in the U.S. military. During this stint, the man proves at first an indifferent asset, but during his one firefight, he turns out to be very valuable, saving the day singlehandedly, while also witnessing the death of one of his best friends. The man also spends much time on a small ocean vessel, serving alongside a rowdy, grizzled, hard-drinking man of the sea. This salty sailor serves as one of our man’s two best male friends; the other is a black man who first teaches our man the lessons of friendship before departing forever.

Our man wanders all around the world, his life brushing up against key historical moments of the 20th century. At some point he returns to his childhood home, and his mother dies. The man comes into considerable wealth through blind luck. Around this time, his lifelong love returns from her adventures, ready to commit to him. During their brief time together, they conceive a child. The couple part ways, due to the woman’s perceived inability to take care of the man. He does not raise the child through its early years but later makes an appearance in its life. The woman eventually dies in bed from illness. The man’s later years are hardly touched on, even though the movie has lavished much attention on his early and middle years.

The entire story dwells repeatedly on the theme of life’s uncertainty and, in contrast, on the notion of fate or coincidence. The film’s symbol for these themes is a small object seen hovering improbably in the air. A narrative frame scene punctuates the story, as does the main character’s drawling first person narration.

So I'll ask you, what movie is this??

Answers next time

X-men Origins Wolverine

Running time, 1 hour, 45 minutes

Okay, I'm not sure what I can add to what's already been said about Wolverine. He's been named the greatest Marvel Comics character of all time, he's been in countless comics, video games, and the star of the first 3 X-Men movies. So all I can offer is my opinion... I should preface this that as a big fan of comics, I could go through a nitpick all the things that were changed. In fact, I did this for about 15 minutes with a really die hard Wolverine fan at work the other day. This would be pointless, as this is a movie, and bottom line, I think it does a pretty damn good job of condensing 30 some odd years of Wolverine history into a fairly coherent movie. I'm also going to try and avoid any major plot points that haven't been shown in the previews, so if you haven't seen the previews, then don't read what follows

A lot of the internet reviews compare this film to X-Men 3, the Last Stand, which I don't think is really fair. In both movies, there are a lot of mutants and a lot of characters all together, but this in and itself isn't a terrible thing. I mean, the Lord of the Rings movies had literally dozens of characters, and they were pretty awesome. The problem with X-Men 3 was it had too many plots: you had the Mutant Cure (1), the Phoenix story (2), and Magneto and his Acolytes attacking mankind (3), not to mention introducing important characters like Beast and Angel.

X-men Origins Wolverine is actually a fairly linear story about James/Logan/Wolverine. I think the strongest part is the two opening sequences. First, you get Logan as a kid, followed by him and his brother Victor fighting in a lot of the major wars. Then, he gets recruited by the government and joins "Team X" or the "Weapon X" team, a bunch of mutant mercenaries who do covert ops type missions. There's also a fairly well done love story, and when the movie shifts into the present (there actually aren't too many flashbacks, most of the movie is in chronological order), you get some fun cameos from the first 3 X-Men movies.

I have to take a plot recap break and talk about the casting. In general, the Marvel movies have done an absolutely superb job with casting. After DC ruined Batman by casting the biggest Hollywood stars they could, (Jim Carrey, George Clooney, Nicole Kidman, The Governator) Marvel has consistently strayed from big names for more acting talent. Obviously, Hugh Jackman is once again fantastic as Wolverine and he has a little more range to cover in this movie. He's in absolutely fantastic physical shape and I found it cool that he focused on being amazingly toned and muscular without being overly bulky, which fit the character. Acting wise, I especially liked the touching scene about half way through when he befriends an older couple on a farm.

The best new character for me was Liev Schreiber as Sabretooth (You may remember Schreiber from the Scream movies as Cotton Weary or the psychotic kidnapper from Ransom). I know most people remember Sabretooth as the hairy 7 foot tall goon from the first X-Men movie which was closer to how he was depicted in the X-Men comics. In the Wolverine comics, he was a lot more of a three dimensional, yet still menacing human character. There's a good combination of aggression, physical menace (he's seems a lot taller and bigger than Jackman even though he's 6'3"... a whole inch taller), and a sense of fun that he has with the character.

I also have to mention Danny Huston as a scheming Stryker (although I preferred Brian Cox's take on the character from X-Men 2, apparently he was busy with a Day of the Triffids remake or something), Will. I. Am. (I feel dumb typing that) as the suave teleporter John Wraith, and Lynn Collins as the sensual SilverFox who all do a fine job. A little gem for me personally was Dominic Monaghan (better known as Merry from Lord of the Rings or the rock star in Lost) who really portrays the sad reality of living with mutant powers (one of the better elements from the first 2 X-Movies). Ryan Reynolds as Deadpool was also spot on, with his usual charismatic sarcasm being a perfect fit for the merc with a mouth. One final supporting cast star goes to Kevin Durand as the Blob, yes it's a pretty comedic, one note performance, but with how serious most of the rest of the movie was, it was a nice change of pace.


Finally, Taylor Kitsch as Gambit... To preface this section, I'm a huge fan of Gambit, I loved him in the 90s animated series, I thought then if they did a movie that Jean Claude Van Damme should play him (Before you laugh, Van Damme could do the stunts, had the accent... okay, I was 13, it was a dumb idea, laugh) (I also wanted Dolph Lungdren as Colossus, so he could bust out "I will break him") The producers of X-Men tried to get Gambit in both part 2 (in the X-mansion invasion scene) and part 3 (in the military transport that housed Juggernaut and Multiple Man), but decided he was too important for a glorified cameo. Well, that's pretty much what the character ended up with. Kitsch looks the part, but his accent isn't Cajun at all (it sounds more Texasish then anything else) and isn't much of an actor either. Also, since when did Gambit's mutant ability turn into jumping long distances? If they do a spinoff movie and this was just an introduction to the character, I'd be okay with that, but if this is it, its pretty sad and pathetic (and really distracting to the important WOLVERINE story).

It actually reminds me a lot of Venom in Spiderman 3, where it seems like some producer was like "If you make another X-Men movie, you HAVE to use Gambit" and the director was like "But it's a Wolverine movie" and then the producer says "Pick one of Gambit! Giant Metal Spiders! Wolverine fights polar bears" and the director is like, "fine, Gambit, let's see, replace Maverick or Forge, add in Gambit, DONE!"

Overall though, really nice, well done action movie. Gavin Hood, who directed, is more known for drama, and he really takes all the time he can for character scenes/development. Aside from my Gambit gripes, most of the acting is really well done for a superhero movie. There is some subpar CGI at times with his claws (how is it they look worse and the final sequence/fight seemed really unnecessary and a little silly (especially if you recall the Darth Maul fight from Phantom Menace).

You probably know if you want to see it or not already, but overall, it gets from me...

8/10... and that's all I have to say about that