Skyfall

Bond is back, baby! We all know the catchphrases, and by now we're intimately familiar with the iconic musical theme. No one is a total stranger to the illustrious 007; whether or not you've seen any of the Bond movies or spent untold hours playing GoldenEye with your friends during the tail end of the 20th century. James Bond is a cultural mainstay that has gone through numerous revisions and iterations yet still maintains the allure that has characterized the franchise since Dr. No first graced silver screens in 1962.

Skyfall, the latest installment in the Bond franchise, marks the 50th anniversary of Bond's arrival. And in short, it's a marvelous landmark in the series. Unlike the transition from Casino Royale to Quantum of Solace, Skyfall opens without any messy attachments to the title that came before and starts more or less on a blank slate. Expositional dialogue is key throughout the opening half hour or so as we're oriented to the web of events that will serve as the primary plot for the film. Taking a nod from You Only Live Twice, the movie opens on what appears to be the death of James Bond. But circumstances pull him back into the high-speed world of espionage and expensive evening-wear.

THE PROS

There is a lot to sink your teeth into with Skyfall. To begin with, the film is roughly two and a half hours long, so it's definitely one of the lengthier Bond titles in existence. This is very much by design, as the film sets a very slow but methodical pace. Essentially, the whole film is a slow reveal, taking its time to explain itself to the audience while guiding them along its story. We don't even meet the main villain (Javier Bardem) in the flesh until the movie is almost halfway over. It's not boring in the slightest, and the movie opens on another brilliantly thrilling chase scene. But action vignettes aside, Skyfall takes its time unfolding its narrative.

The movie acts as a bit of a set-up film for the Bond films of yore, and by the time all is said and done we've been introduced to several staples of the original films including Gareth Mallory (Ralph Feinnes), Q (Ben Wishaw), and even the infamous Miss Moneypenny.

One of Skyfall's real treats, though, is Javier Bardem as Raoul Silva - the primary antagonist. As I mentioned before, we don't meet Silva until much of the film's principle action is already underway. But his presence is teased throughout as his brilliance in the field of cyberterrorism manifests itself to Bond and those around him in destructive ways. Bardem's performance is so brilliant; he's the kind of sophisticated but undeniably unhinged character that almost elicits a laugh as you watch him make bemused expressions or proposition Bond with a wonton playfulness. He also hides a gruesome physical deformity that we don't get to see until even later in the film. But when he do, it's another brilliant visual cue about the nature of his character: beneath his composure and apparent grace lurks a dangerous menace.

The climactic battle sequence at the end of the film is utterly thrilling. Taking brief refuge at a homestead from his past, Bond makes a last stand against his foes on the Scottish moor; booby-trapping the estate with numerous fatal traps. But when the tell-tale sound of an assault helicopter enters the scene, we realize that this showdown is about to get even more explosive. The whole thing is just great action movie stuff, and a brilliant payoff to the whole film's methodical build.

THE CONS

There's precious little I can think of for this section in regards to Skyfall. I wanted to see more of Silva; he's an incredibly engrossing villain. But his late arrival to the film still fit well into the overall pacing, so I can't call that too big of a complaint.

THE VERDICT

Skyfall is, without a doubt, one of the best Bond films of recent memory. Daniel Craig has solidified his reputation as a bankable Bond and is one of the better actors to have worn the mantle, in my estimation. I don't know if it would be fair to say he rivals Sean Connery just yet, but another Bond film of this magnitude will move him into that bracket.

This doesn't belong in any objective praise of the film, but Skyfall is hands down my favorite title for a Bond film - perhaps of any film. It's just such a profoundly alluring word that calls to mind a kind of epic tragedy; there's a mysterious poetry to those seven letters. And Skyfall, the film, does a marvelous job of weaving the kind of mystery and allure I began to glean from the title when I saw the first trailer.

All the great Bond staples are here, and in spades. There's a visually striking opening credits sequence accompanied by Adele's theme song for the film, numerous chases, a treasure trove of expensive suits and costume pieces, explosions and gun fights, one or two steamy encounters, and just enough camp to keep the whole thing on target. Skyfall is a marvelous return to form for the Bond franchise and sets itself apart as one of the best Bond films since, perhaps, the beginning of the whole franchise.

Wreck-It Ralph

Vidya games, ladies and gentlemen! Love 'em or hate 'em, there's no denying their staying power in popular culture. And in an era of innumerable Medal of Duty: Call of Honor-type games, there's an emerging nostalgia and appreciation taking root for the 8-bit titles of yore. Simple graphics and basic gameplay haven't deterred gamers from forsaking the photorealistic worlds of many modern games, if even for a little, to dabble in the simple joys of platforming, side-scrolling video games.

It's seems that nostalgia has gone on to manifest itself on the silver screen; Wreck-It Ralph has emerged among the best animated films of this year. Following the titular character, the movie chronicles the identity crisis of Ralph (John C. Reilly) as he begins to question whether or not he wants to be "the bad guy." In an attempt to change his life, he ventures out of his own game in search of something that will endear him to the other characters in his world. In so doing, he unwittingly sets off a chain of events that will teach him and those around him what it means to be yourself.

Sheesh...when I put it like that it sounds so bland. But trust me when I say that Wreck-It Ralph is anything but bland.

THE PROS

Since Pixar came onto the scene, simultaneously revolutionizing animation and setting the bar unimaginably high for other studios, it seems that most animated features have been delegated one of two groups: Pixar movies and non-Pixar movies. Plenty of non-Pixar animated features have been wonderful; Bolt and Madagascar are the first that come to mind. But there's always been a sense that they're just not quite on par with Pixar's brilliance. That still largely remains the same, but there's a growing case against that categorization, as more and more non-Pixar animated features come closer to living up to the standards set by the previously mentioned. Wreck-It Ralph is the latest title in that case; and it's a great movie.

Its greatest strength is undoubtedly its characters and how they're realized. John C. Reilly's voice seems so perfectly matched to his character you almost forget he's the man behind the mic. As much can be said of Jack McBrayer, who voices Fix-It Felix, Jr. - the protagonist and player character of the game which serves as home to them both. Sarah Silverman voices Vanellope von Schweetz, a 9-year old in a racing game called Sugar Rush. While her voice was still recognizable, she subtly alters some of her projection and pronunciation for effect and it works beautifully. I'm not a huge Sarah Silverman fan, but this movie definitely endeared me to her more than I expected. And finally, Jane Lynch voices the battle-hardened Sergeant Calhoun, one of the lead characters in Hero's Duty - another fictional game in the world of the movie. Each character has a marvelous set of unique qualities that brought them to life in the script, and each actor behind them further fleshes out the features that make them a joy to watch. Jack McBrayer's cartoonish optimism almost marks Fix-It Felix as a kind of caricature of Kenneth Parcel, his 30 Rock character. Jane Lynch delivers each of her lines with an effected gravity and world-weariness, occasionally dishing out a ridiculous simile for effect: "A selfish man is like a mangy dog...chasing a cautionary tail..."

The animators behind Wreck-It Ralph have done more than just create characters that are fun to look at, each character very much fits into the game from which they come. For example, in the "real world" of the game, 8-bit characters still appear in the cartoony CGI that characterizes much of the film, but they move differently. For example, the tenants of the building that it's Ralph's job to wreck all move and emote the way they would if they were still rendered with 8-bit graphics: bouncing up and down in a jerking-type motion. It's almost as if they've been animated with stop-motion techniques, rather than in the "smooth" 24 frames per second way characters from other games do.

It would seem like an obvious thing to say that Wreck-It Ralph is a love-letter to video games, but there are so many references and meta-references to gaming I'm sure I didn't catch 'em all. Characters from numerous iconic titles like Mario, Sonic, Q-Bert, Street Fighter, and dozens more all make cameos throughout the film and each one is more entertaining than the last. But the movie doesn't hinge on an understanding or appreciation for video games to enjoy; the meat of the story is carried out in fictional video games that are broadly relatable to a myriad of titles.

And while not directed at Wreck-It Ralph proper, the movie opens with a short animated feature - much in the way Pixar presents their films - called Paperman. It's an absolutely lovely little piece that combines sketch animation with CGI; essentially the subjects look sketched but move in a more three-dimensional environment. But apart from looking visually stunning it's a heart-warming and humorous tale that acts a great little appetizer before Wreck-It Ralph.

THE CONS

Thankfully, nothing really comes to mind for this section. Unless you have a particularly distaste for animated features, there's not much to dislike here. Little ones might find the perilous climactic battle scene to be a bit on the scary side, but not horrifyingly so.


THE VERDICT

Wreck-It Ralph might be the best non-Pixar animated movie I've seen; it's at the very least on par with Bolt, Shrek, or the original Madagascar. Everything about the movie is satisfying: it's well written, the characters are unique and well-developed, there's an engaging story underpinning the whole affair. It's just a top notch film from every angle.

Equally as important, the movie is genuinely funny and uses a variety of comedic devices. Video game and pop culture references abound, but where they aren't accessible to non-gamers there's still plenty of generic funny to go around. There are a few sillier moments with slapstick, but even they are executed in a hysterical way.

There's so much here to like, and even more to love. Wreck-It Ralph is 100% Grade A fine film making, animated or otherwise. And as with any great animated movie, there's something for everyone. Kids will undoubtedly gobble up its wackiness and unabashed commitment to fun, and adults will find more than a measure of jokes geared to go over the kids' heads. If Disney Animation Studios keeps producing this kind of quality film-making, Pixar might wanna watch their back.

The Man With The Iron Fists

The past several years have seen a resurgent interest in grindhouse cinema. The release of the Grindhouse double feature from Quentin Tarantino and Eli Roth in 2007 is likely the best candidate for the start of this resurgence, and since then dozens of films that revel in their own "low-budgetness" have come pouring out. Hobo with a Shotgun, Machete, Drive Angry; all of these films served up hyper-stylized violence, sex, and exploitation-cinema staples in a deliciously self-deprecating way. Attempting to add itself to this list is RZA's directorial debut: The Man With the Iron Fists.

I'm not much for rap or hip-hop; it's just not something I particularly care about. With that in mind, Wu-Tang Clan was always one of the rap artists to which I gave exception. Their martial-arts themed music was consistent and engagingly written, and de facto leader RZA was an irrefutably talented multi-instrumentalist. He's no stranger to cinema, of course, and has worked with a number of critically acclaimed film makers as an actor, writer, music producer and more. But The Man With The Iron Fists is his first turn in the director's chair, so how does it stack up?

The story follows a number of characters whose lives intertwine in the fictional 19th-century Chinese township of Jungle Village. A blacksmith (RZA) forges weapons for the various warring clans around the village, taking a job but never a side. But all that changes when a shipment of gold making its way through the village brings a number of colorful characters into the tiny village including the British soldier Jack Knife (Russel Crowe), a warrior named X-Blade (Rick Yune) bent on avenging his father's death, a hulking brute of a man who can turn his body into metal (David Bautista), and a small host of battle-ready characters whose motivations are as varied as their fighting styles.

THE PROS

The Man With The Iron Fists is almost exactly what you would expect a martial arts movie from RZA to be. There are high-wire stunts of all kinds, plumes of crimson accenting over-the-top death scenes, a moderate dose of Eastern mysticism that serves to underscore the epic themes of fantasy and kung fu, and - of course - plenty of head-bobbing hip hop along the way.

The strengths of The Man With The Iron Fists are readily noticeable. The entire film is a presented with an appropriately theatrical flourish that serves to remind viewers that the majority of the movie is an exercise in homage to the martial arts films of the 70s. Dialogue is intentionally kitschy throughout, and character development takes a back seat to fight scenes. Fortunately, the characters themselves are curiously intriguing enough without the development - as most of them are defined by their weapons and paraphernalia.

The cinematography starts out a little too kinetic and frantic, leaving the first major fight scene a bit of a visual mess. But fortunately this problem rights itself rather quickly, and the rest of the combat depicted in the film flows with choreographed grace and entertaining execution. The climactic battle scene is just a delight. All the major characters converge for a big showdown in the Pink Blossom - a brothel run by Madame Blossom (Lucy Liu) and housing a small army of warrior women who contribute some fantastically choreographed moments to the film's conclusion.

As I mentioned before, hip-hop isn't exactly my cup of tea musically speaking. But its placement in the film is both appropriate and tactful. RZA took it upon himself to score the film and select tracks appropriate to the scene; much as he did with Tarantino's Kill Bill and the resulting mix between Wu-Tang beats and orchestral arrangement is a pitch perfect companion to the rest of the film's aesthetic direction.

THE CONS

RZA is a much better director than he is an actor. In a film like this - one that's wrought around how "bad" it is - acting can be tricky, no doubt. Employ too much levity, and the dialogue becomes more silly than fun; not enough levity, and a character can stand out from the rest of their cast in an annoyingly bland way. This is more or less what happens with RZA's character, who looks fairly bored most of the movie. Maybe he was aiming for gravitas...but he missed.

The script could have used a few more rewrites and polishes. RZA shared writing duties with Eli Roth on this flick, and there's no denying that it's an adequately solid script. The pacing is more or less even, the multitudinous characters don't get in each other's way, there's a solid beginning-middle-end layout; all the boxes were checked. But one or two elements needed to be expanded further while a few others could have been done away with. For example, a rather extended "backstory" scene for The Blacksmith intrudes upon the tail end of the second act. It doesn't really serve any purpose except to get Pam Grier her cameo and felt a little forced.

For all its cinema-savvy, The Man With The Iron Fists falls just short of its mark. You can see it striving to be another grindhouse movie, to be spoken in the same breath as many of Tarantino's or Roth's or Rodriguez's commercially and critically successful films. It comes admirably close, but ultimately feels like it needed a more clearly unified vision.


THE VERDICT

The Man With The Iron Fists is an admirable directorial debut. All the marks of its varying influences are visible, and there's no doubt that RZA has a diverse skillset artistically. But the movie could have greatly benefited from one or two minor rewrites; and RZA could have greatly benefited from some time in the actor's studio.

There's no one thing to blame here, it's a collection of individual parts that are all adequate on their own - but when cobbled together don't feel as strong as they wish they were. And that's not to say that the film is without its strength at all. Nearly every negative feeling I had about this movie was almost completely eradicated by one of the most satisfying martial-arts-movie climaxes I've seen. It's really a fantastic battle sequence that's not too long and not too short and tidies up all the pesky narrative loose ends. And there's plenty of kicking and punching and wire-stunts and blood squibs to satisfy anyone interested in a little grindhouse-style action.

The movie is kind of a film-companion to Wu-Tang Clan's discography - so if you're a fan of their music you'll likely find little to disparage in this title. But for me, The Man With The Iron Fists comes so close to being what it's trying to be that it's all the more disappointing to see it fall short. Here's hoping RZA's next project spends just a little bit more time tinkering on its script.

The HAARP Machine - "Disclosure"

Sumerian Records might just be my favorite label of all time - in terms of their ratio of "Bands They Have" to "Bands I Can't Stop Listening To." Even where genre differences separate the artists on their label, there seems to be a common compelling thread to the music Sumerian produces. The whole "Sumeriancore" pejorative aside, I genuinely feel like many of the artists on that label are cut from a similar cloth. It was under this impression that I jumped into The HAARP Machine's debut album with little more than a single song to indicate their direction.

What I found was a pretty even mix of pros and cons.

THE PROS

First off, my interest in this band was piqued by the single "Pleiadian Keys," which was released several weeks ago. I swiftly added that song to my Spotify rotation and even with the album securely in my hands, I can't quite get enough of that one track. It's a perfect index for what the band is like musically, though there's obviously a nice margin for variance.

As I've mentioned just about every time I come across it, I LOVE harmonic minor/melodic minor tones in my music. If it nods towards Middle Eastern sound arrangement, I'm quite likely to overlook a number of other flaws. With that in mind, it seems impossible for me to *not* like The HAARP Machine. Apart from incorporating those chord structures into their music, there's a plethora of peripheral arrangement that lends "Disclosure" a very Middle Eastern vibe. These include numerous appearances of tombak percussion, and a liberal application of the sitar. Further rounding out the "world music" vibe the album evinces is the occasional emergence of the koto.

It seems pretty fair to say that The HAARP Machine is Al Mu'min's show, as he's credited in the liner notes with "Produced by...", "Composed and Arranged by...", and "Lyrics by..." - in addition to being lead guitarist and playing both sitar and koto where it appears. For the purposes of this blog, that really endows the album with the highlights and 'lowlights' - if you will - I'll be discussing. His cultural background informs the majority of the album, both lyrically and musically.

Musically speaking, as I've mentioned before, "Disclosure" is a veritable treasure trove of Middle Eastern musical motifs. And even where it's not calling to mind the soundtrack to Prince of Persia, the album has some great hooks and grooves. The aforementioned "Pleiadian Keys" is a great example of what I'm talking about. The verses are sharp and aggressive, interplay with clean vocals and metal growls underpinning the frantic time signatures. A small pre-chorus splashes into more atmospheric orchestration, and then the chorus leaps into a soaring and triumphant anthem. The title track features a similar structure, with a more groove-oriented angle to the guitar work. Abstract percussion patterns also give "Disclosure" another level of musical complexity, and when it works the whole affair is a joy to unravel.

THE CONS

At 8 tracks and just over 30 minutes, "Disclosure" is woefully underdeveloped. It's an age-old complaint as far as this blog is concerned, but it really damages what this album could have been here. Their style is unique and well developed and I genuinely regret not having more of it to explore, especially given how most progressive metal bands practically fetishize long albums.

The biggest drawback to this album is its lyrical content though. Al Mu'min is a man of conviction, and I greatly respect him for that. But there's a difference between using your music as a platform for change and using your music as the Comments section of a political debate. To be fair, they often stick to poetic turns of phrase to communicate their message. But where they don't, it sticks out like a sore thumb. Take the opening track, "Esoteric Agenda," for example:

"There were no weapons of mass destruction/Or mobile biological weapons labs/The agenda was to remove Saddam Hussein/To reap the oil and establish a base/The Bush Administration made a series of claims prior the/ Iraq War, abuse and misuse of intelligence/There was no collusive relationship with Al Qaeda"

First things first, I actually agree with the sentiments expressed above. But there's no poetry to the construction, it's just a list of statements peppered over some intricate guitar work. Moreover by naming Hussein and Bush in the song, it prevents the song from ever reaching any semblance of timelessness or generally applicable virtue. On top of all that, they're decrying corruption carried out over 10 years ago. It doesn't make the events any less destructive, but it does remove them from relevance. Several moments like this appear on the album, and my frustration is that I agree with them for the most part. But they've made no attempt to apply their skills at musical composition to lyrical composition in these places, and it shows. It's made all the more maddening because elsewhere they evince some wonderful lyrical craftsmanship, so it's not like they're incapable of doing so. Thus the album oscillates between meticulous and sloppy in a way that damn near wrecks the entire thing.

THE VERDICT

I don't regret buying this album in the slightest. I'm glad to support this band and their label with my money because I want to see more of this kind of material produced. But I am marginally disappointed by "Disclosure" as a whole.

I really don't mind music that's politically minded, nor do I even mind listening to music evincing an agenda I don't subscribe to if the music is good. But The HAARP Machine comes off like that Facebook friend you have who posts nothing but political rants. They're entitled to their opinion, and you may agree with them completely, but before too long it grows tiresome because there's no such thing as a 'laid back' political rant. The whole point is to rage and roar and decry injustices and fume at "the other side." That's all well and good, even necessary at times. But at a certain point you just want to tell them to chill out for a bit; grab a beer, play with a puppy - whatever it takes to unwind.

The HAARP Machine is an undeniably talented band, and the music they make is compelling and fresh on many levels. But it's damaged by a message that's so relentlessly political it almost feels like the band is arguing with you even when you're agreeing with them. And refrains like "Open your eyes" and "Free your mind" emerge articulated in such a way as to feel patronizing rather than inspiring.

I still look forward to what The HAARP Machine does next, and I'll have "Disclosure" on repeat for the next few days at least. I just hope that the future holds, as the old crowd-chant goes: "less talk, more rock."

Or more specifically: "Less axe-grindage, more axe-shreddage."
 

The Redbox Report - October 8, 2012

It's time for another entry in the Redbox Report, ladies and gents! I've collected a handful of hopefully helpful hearsay, regarding recent releases. Enjoy!


BERNIE

Chronicling "small town life" has been a component of countless films, books, and television shows throughout the years. And, for better or worse, plenty of the creative minds behind these endeavors only know what they know about "small town life" from other works or via hearsay. Richard Linklater, on the other hand, has spent enough time in and around small Texas towns to know how to bring them to life on screen brilliantly and authentically. Bernie is the true story of a murder that took place in Carthage, Texas on November 16, 1996. Based on a Texas Monthly article by Skip Hollandsworth, who co-wrote the film with Linklater, the film plays out as an unlikely marriage between comedy and drama that walks an incredibly fine line with skill. Jack Black is the titular character, funeral mortician Bernie Tiede, and turns in one of the best (if not the best) performances of his entire career. His turn as a warm-hearted and personable individual - if somewhat strange (on account of his professional direction) and effeminate - is as genuine as it is paradoxical at times. Shirley MacLaine plays Marjorie Nugent, the crabby old woman whose murder marks the turning point of the film; while Matthew McConaughey offers up a hilariously hawkish performance as the local district attorney Danny Buck Davidson. The film hybridizes itself as a kind of faux-documentary, as the narrative plays out interspersed with "interviews" from the townspeople of Carthage and a few actors thrown into the mix; like Texas independent film-favorite Sonny Carl Davis. Similar to the brilliant blend between comedy and drama herein, the joining of documentary and narrative elements in this movie is handled marvelously and further serves to set this film apart from others like it. Despite it being about a murder, the film is not bloody or graphic and goes to precise lengths to play down the horror of the whole affair. It's not ignored or cheapened, but the impact of the murder (and some of the subsequent measures taken to cover it up) are tastefully negotiated by some restrained cinematography and excellent writing. On the whole Bernie is a surprisingly compelling film, given its subject matter and the pitch perfect balance it achieves between polar opposites. And as a study on small-town-Texas life, it's unparalleled. If you've spent any time in and around one of those tiny Texan townships, you'll find Bernie chock full of people you swear you've met before - or perhaps are even related to.
 

CABIN IN THE WOODS

Drew Goddard and Joss Whedon have fantastic creative synergy. Having worked together previously on Buffy the Vampire Slayer and its spinoff  Angel, the two reunited for Cabin in the Woods and hammered out a script in three days. The result was a film that simultaneously lampooned and elevated just about every cliche and narrative device horror movies are known to employ. I won't go much into the plot because the story itself is wound up in the sheer brilliance of this film, and you need to see this movie at your earliest convenience. But Cabin in the Woods essentially distills the "cabin in the woods" slasher genre down into its basic components and then reconstructs it as a meta-commentary on the nature of the genre itself. Kristen Connolly fills the roll of the innocent "final girl," Chris Hemsworth is the "dumb jock," Anna Hutchison is the "slutty one," Jesse Williams plays the "bookish guy," and finally Fran Kanz as the "idiot in the group." Each of these archetypes are sent up in creatively grisly ways, and there's an absolute banquet of references and homages to other films for the knowing eye. Just to name a few... Evil Dead and Evil Dead 2 (the films which practically started the "cabin in the woods" subgenre of horror movies), Hellraiser, Jurassic Park, Night of the Living Dead, The Shining, The Ring...those are the only ones that first come to mind at the moment but I'm certain there are countless others. Cabin in the Woods is, as Whedon himself described it, "a loving hate letter" to horror movies that simultaneously disparages its tropes while reveling in them. There are more than a few moments in the film that are absolutely hilarious, and just as many that are intensely visceral and shocking. In a word, the film is brilliant. Fans of horror will find plenty to enjoy here, and I wager many who don't care for horror will enjoy this ironically vicious romp through cliche and convention.

  
THE FIVE YEAR ENGAGEMENT
 
Weddings can be stressful; that's a fact proven and exploited hundreds of times over in book, television and film. In fact, it's a point so relentlessly brought up that it's beyond cliche. Most often this point is illustrated in the ways everything happens at the last minute or how everything goes wrong at the worst possible time. But taking the opposite approach to the same conundrum, The Five Year Engagement chronicles the prenuptial struggles of a couple whose circumstances ended up dragging things out rather than cutting things close. The movie opens on Tom Solomon (Jason Segel) proposing to his girlfriend Violet Barnes (Emily Blunt), setting in motion the course of events that will lead them through a five-year engagement. It's a fairly predictable and somewhat overlong exercise, but those cons are overcome by some fantastic casting. Jason Segel is charming and accessible as always, and Emily Blunt is her usually versatile self; oscillating between humor and drama with ease. The supporting cast steals the show though, as Chris Pratt - who plays Tom's best friend/best man - and Alison Brie (Violet's sister Suzie) ham it up on screen perfectly. My favorite moment of the movie was watching Alison Brie and Emily Blunt argue with each other using pretty terrible impressions of Elmo and Cookie Monster (respectively) in order to shield the adult nature of the conversation they were having from the children in the room with them. The Five Year Engagement isn't a brilliant movie or really much you haven't seen before in a romantic comedy. But it's got a fantastic cast who handle the subject material quite well and in between a few laughs and (maybe?) a few sniffles there's a good deal of sincerity to be had as well.



FRIENDS WITH KIDS

I'm at that stage in my life when the majority of my friends are getting married and/or having kids. While the main characters of Friends with Kids are a generation or two ahead of me, they deal with the same issue. Chronicling the lives of a group of friends and how having kids changes their lives together and individually, Friends with Kids is Jennifer Westfeldt's (who plays the main character, Julie) directorial debut. The film is most easily described as a romantic comedy, but it dabbles in some pretty heavy drama from time to time. The principle plot is concerned with Julie and Jason (Adam Scott) and their plan to circumvent the usual struggles associated with parenthood by having a child together outside of a committed relationship. The two at first feel like they've gamed the system by sharing the responsibilities of raising a child, but still being "free" to pursue their individual social lives. But it becomes evident very quickly that they have made things more complicated than they realized. Admittedly, Friends with Kids felt a little forced to me - even unintentionally preachy in places. The film's core message is sincere and relevant, but the lives of the supporting cast - namely how upended they've become with the advent of their children - seemed to skew into the cartoonishly absurd merely for the sake of contrast. And for a comedy/dramedy/romantic dramedy/whatever you want to call it, it's not particularly funny - though it tries to be. The film didn't really resonate with me on any level, though I could feel it trying to. It's not an entirely unimpressive affair, but by the end it was much more forgettable than it started out.



JOHN CARTER

Some of science fiction's earliest incarnations dealt with the subject of visiting other planets. It's in our nature as explorers and discoverers to wonder what worlds are like beyond our sky, and to invent them before we've even been there. Edgar Rice Burroughs' A Princess of Mars, released in 1917, was among the first books dedicated to events going on the surface of the Red Planet. His series, which would go on to span 11 books written over the course of almost 50 years, has been in various stages of development at Disney for the better part of the studio's existence. Going between rewrites and format revisions, Disney finally released John Carter as a live-action sci-fi/fantasy epic this year. The movie follows the titular character John Carter (Taylor Kitsch) as he is unwittingly whisked away to the planet Mars. There's obviously a great deal more fantasy employed than science fiction in this piece, as the Mars (which is called Barsoom by the race of humanoids that live there) of the movie is habitable, if barren. The scope of the film is grand, and admirably ambitious. The visual effects are impressive, and the mythology woven throughout the film is nothing if not compelling. But it's a big budget piece with stereotypical big budget hangups; there isn't a great deal of character development, the writing doesn't invigorate the way the visual effects do, and ultimately the film feels about a half hour too long. John Carter isn't terrible, but it's another example of a film that suffered for the amount of time it spent in development - ultimately feeling like the work of several different films cobbled together without compelling cohesion. Still, if you're up for an easy watch with lots of cool special effects and fight scenes, John Carter delivers pretty satisfyingly in that department; if that department alone.



KATY PERRY: PART OF ME

Either you like Katy Perry, or you don't; so your opinion of a film about her will be predicated on your opinion of her and her music. Personally, I am a huge fan of the Lady Katherine of House Perry and consequently enjoyed the hell outta this movie. Katy Perry: Part of Me unfolds as part documentary/part concert movie. There's a very nice symmetry in how that's constructed, as the songs performed during her California Dreams Tour are interspersed with topical information about her life that reflect the content of the song. For example, the song "E.T." (which describes a girl meeting a guy who she finds "not like the others") is intercut with interviews and footage documenting the start of Katy's relationship with Russell Brand. The movie doesn't delve too deeply into Perry's personal history, though it gives us just enough of a peek inside to satisfy fans wanting to know more about how she became the person she is today. Family members are interviewed, along with other performing artists and celebrities, throughout the course of the film - though the bulk of the movie deals with the tour itself and the performances put together for it. One thing that stood out to me most of all about the film is Katy's dedication to her fans, to a degree I wasn't even aware. At one point, we are privy to a backstage breakdown that's been brought on by physical exhaustion and personal turmoil. In tears through makeup and costuming, it's uncertain whether the "show will go on" or not. Literally right up to the moment before she goes on stage, she is wiping away tears and collecting herself. And then - in an instant - she takes a deep breath, musters a sincere smile, and begins her performance in spite of it all. As a general fan of her music, I've become even more impressed with her as a person after seeing this film. Again, if you don't like Katy Perry, you don't need me to tell you that you probably won't like this movie. But if you are even a bit of a fan, I think you'll find Katy Perry: Part of Me will give you cause to enjoy her music all the more.



UNDERWORLD: AWAKENING

The Underworld series is a great example to me of pulpy action flicks done right. They don't take themselves too seriously, but there's a respect for convention and backstory running through the first three films that set them apart from other movies of their ilk. But Underworld: Awakening is kind of like that fourth helping at Thanksgiving; everything leading up to it has been great, but going back for more is both unnecessary and ultimately painful. (I'm not the only one who gets 4+ helpings of food at Thanksgiving am I?) Awakening opens up shortly after the events of the second film in the franchise (as you'll recall the third dealt with the history surrounding the conflict between vampires and Lycans that started the whole franchise's gears a-turnin') and picks up where Michael (Scott Speedman) and Selene's (Kate Beckinsale) story continues. Humans have initiated "The Purge," an initiative to wipe out all vampire and Lycan life on the planet. Selene and Michael are captured and cryogenically frozen early on, but Selene has never been one to accept defeat so easily. Underworld: Awakening has some great action scenes, some of the best of the franchise even. But that's about it. There's precious little in the way of engaging story here, the writing and acting are wooden, and the whole affair seems more perfunctory than anything else. Kate Beckinsale is always a joy to watch as the icy cool vampire Selene, but even some of her scenes felt forced. I really wanted to like Awakening because of how much I enjoyed the first three movies in the franchise. But by now it seems the creators have just run out of halfway decent ideas for this franchise. I'm going to pretend this movie doesn't exist and continue to enjoy the first three as they are, any problems with that? Nope? Cool.



WANDERLUST

The concrete jungle can really take it outta you. A good deal of research even backs this up with findings that indicate greater longevity for those who live outside of major metropolitan areas for most of their lives. Wanderlust opens on George and Linda, (Paul Rudd and Jennifer Aniston) a couple signing for their new micro-loft in New York City. Egregiously expensive, it only takes the course of about a minute's worth of montage for us to realize - right along with them - that they've made a huge mistake. When both of their jobs end up tanking on the same day, they're forced to sell the micro-loft at a loss and move to Georgia to live with George's brother. But on their way they end up finding a hippie commune called Elysium, one thing leads to another, and they decide to join the commune. But the lifestyle of their new compatriots looks like it will prove to be more than they can handle. Rudd and Aniston have wonderful onscreen chemistry as a couple trying to find their bearings in an increasingly alienating world. David Wain has proven his directorial abilities in movies like Role Models and Wet Hot American Summer and he returns to a number of familiar vignettes in Wanderlust. Justin Theroux steals just about every scene he's in as Seth, one of the commune's leader figures and a hilarious caricature of every hippie stereotype you can conceive. A number of other faces and names abound in the supporting cast including Malin Akerman, Alan Alda, Kathryn Hahn, and Kerri Kenney-Silver. Wanderlust is laugh-out-loud in a few places, but it's humor is definitely not mile-a-minute. A few moments of improv dialogue definitely felt very improv, but apart from that Wanderlust is a pretty entertaining comedy with a stellar cast.

Looper

Time travel is getting tougher and tougher to sell on the big screen. Audiences have the benefit of numerous forums and web posts explaining the intricacies of loopholes in various blockbuster movies that deal with time-travel and as much as I hate to admit it, such material has largely jaded me on the genre. It takes a deft cinematic hand to use time travel in a film without tripping over one's own narrative devices.

Enter Rian Johnson.

Looper is only Johnson's third feature film (the other two being Brick and The Brothers Bloom), but as an exercise in originality it's quite impressive. The story follows Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), a contract killer known as a "looper." The film explains early on that apparently it's incredibly difficult to dispose of a body in the future so criminal organizations send the people they need to disappear back to the past where they are executed and disposed of by the aforementioned loopers. In the event that a looper lives long enough to become a liability for the companies that employ them, the loopers are sent back to the past and disposed of by younger versions of themselves - an event referred to as "closing the loop." Such a moment is the flashpoint for much of the action when an older Joe (Bruce Willis) is sent back to be killed by his younger self. But as you can imagine, things aren't quite so cut and dry in the world of the film...

THE PROS


Rian Johnson is a real up-n-comer. In addition to his relatively small filmography, he also directed the "Fly" episode of Breaking Bad and his signature style is readily notable across his body of work. But where Brick ironically played up noir elements in a high school setting and The Brothers Bloom was more of a surreal dramedy, Looper is a profoundly gritty and intense motion picture.

Johnson's direction is superb; he weaves his own signature shot composition in amongst a myriad of textbook cinematography. He wonderfully balances his own penchant for kinetic camerawork with traditional photography and the result leaves Looper in a perfect harmony. As an extension of his directorial style, the future of Looper is a marvelous construction of the inventive and the familiar. I hesitate to use the term realistic, but an orchestra of small details give us windows into the world. Solar panels on cars imply the implementation of solar power, though it's never directly addressed. Hover bikes are available, but obscenely expensive and cumbersome. Another subplot within the film involves how a genetic mutation gave a small percentage of the population minor telekenetic abilities. But the film cynically notes through Joe's narration that while the world expected a new breed of superheroes, it ended up with "a bunch of assholes who think they're blowing your mind by floating quarters."

Joseph Gordon-Levitt is at the top of his game here. You've likely seen the trailers or posters depicting some of the makeup applied to make him actually look like a younger Bruce Willis. The makeup is seamlessly applied but I can't say that it actually made him look like Bruce Willis that much, at least not in my estimation. But this is made up for by Gordon-Levitt's uncanny skill at impersonating Bruce. His voice isn't exactly the same of course, but every other mannerism - from the angle of his eyebrows to the cocky grin and hardboiled attitude - is reconstructed in his performance brilliantly. Likewise Bruce's take on a wiser and even more embittered version of his younger self interplays with his co-star's delightfully. The two are at odds for the majority of the film, for obvious reasons, but the little screen time they share swapping cold confidence back and forth is nothing short of engrossing. Emily Blunt proudly adds herself to the list of English actors and actresses who can convincingly pull off an American accent. Were I unaware of her British origin, I would never suspect it because her accent is perfect. And just when I thought she couldn't get any sexier...

As I hinted at before, Looper is much more intense than you might expect, and this is both a bit of a pro and a bit of a con. What I liked about Looper's intensity was its visceral violence, and how that violence is staged. It gets pretty gory in a few places, but personally I enjoyed some of these moments. A shockingly vibrant moment involves a minor character exploding in slow motion. Plumes of red erupt from his chest and back as his body is torn apart by a subplot I won't spoil by mentioning here.

THE CONS

Picking right back up with how intense this movie is, I obviously don't object to violence generally speaking. In most cases, I enjoy it from a cinematic perspective. But there is one moment in particular that kinda crosses the line. If you care to know what I'm talking about, the italicized text below explains:


SPOILER
As part of his mission to escape his fate, old Joe is forced to hunt down a character known in the future as "The Rainmaker" - an enigmatic crime lord who is systematically and for as-yet-unknown reasons closing all the loops. Since Joe is trying to stop the Rainmaker in the past, his potential targets and suspicions are still children. In a necessary (for the purposes of the narrative) scene, old Joe kills one of these kids. It happens offscreen, and the scene is staged in such a way as to play down the horror as much as possible - but it still happens. I'm still not o.k. with that moment in the film on its own merits, though I see why it has to happen within the context of the film and for the purposes of further building narrative tension. But word to the wise, you might find your opinion of this film overall hinges on whether or not you find that scene just too much to handle.


There really isn't much here beyond what I mentioned above and any subjective objections you might have to the movie on general principle. So if you don't care for time travel movies, you probably won't enjoy Looper all that much.

THE VERDICT

Looper is a confidently unique and genuine work of cinematic spectacle. It's a bit early to tell if Rian Johnson has earned himself a nickname like "the new Christopher Nolan" or "Tarantino the Second." But he's well on his way to carving out a niche of "Rian Johnson movies" that are unmistakably his own and unmistakably well-crafted.

Apart from Johnson's direction, the film itself is really engaging and entertaining. As a time-travel movie, it doesn't dawdle particularly long in exposition. We aren't made intimately familiar with just exactly how the time travel in the film works - but we don't need to be. The film even makes a kind of meta-comment about the topic when young Joe asks old Joe if he doesn't already know how it all ends. Old Joe fires back with a comment about how if they started talking about how he can be in the same place in two places in time they'd be there all day. They even hint at one point that time travel invariably leads to insanity for the time traveler. Good enough for me. Time travel is just the vehicle the film uses to orchestrate its collection of philosophical questions, offering the viewer ample opportunity to consider what they might do in a similar situation or how far they'd go to protect someone they love.

Looper is absolutely an action movie, but it's more of a thinker than its trailers imply. Rian Johnson has crafted a truly unique film that's consistent and engaging throughout, and he's managed to employ time travel doing so. That alone might have been enough cause to laud Looper, but layered on top of that are a host of other reasons from the visual effects, to the casting and acting, to its cinematography and everything in between. The film is definitely much grittier and much more intense than I expected, certainly more so Johnson's preceding work. But looking back at just how brilliant Mr. Johnson's little collection of films has been thus far, I'm thrilled to see what he's going to do next.

As I Lay Dying - "Awakened"

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a repeat offender here on the Other R2D2 Blog!

It's none other than American metalcore heavyweights As I Lay Dying with their new album Awakened. You may recall I reviewed their album Decas in a previous post just shy of a year ago, and as I mentioned in that post the first thing I had to note was my sheer elation at new As I Lay Dying material, despite its relatively minor position on the album overall. But where Decas is more of a retrospective album - commemorating the band with remixes, remasters, and a small handful of new material - Awakened is a never-before-seen-or-heard-brand-spanking-new-full-length album replete with everything you've come to love about As I Lay Dying.

THE PROS:

Awakened is the sixth full-length album from As I Lay Dying - not counting any live albums or EPs or retrospectives. Over the course of that six-album discography, As I Lay Dying hasn't been a band concerned with reinvention. I remember back in 2005 when Shadows Are Security had just come out, there was a fairly distinct buzz in the "underground" music scene in regard to As I Lay Dying. Even then, with only a few major releases behind them, fans and critics alike were really taking a shine to this band. Metalcore was already an existing subgenre before As I Lay Dying began to rise, but there was something about their approach to it that made everyone stand up and go "Yeah! That's how it's supposed to be!" As I Lay Dying practically wrote the book on quality metalcore and while they have a few influences to which credit is due, there's a much much larger gaggle of musicians and bands who owe them credit for creative inspiration.

All that is to say, As I Lay Dying broke the mold, set the bar high, and haven't bothered changing much since. The music on Awakened is readily comparable to music from just about any of their discography - mixing and mastering aside. And as far as I'm concerned, that's a very good thing. I've come to expect a very specific thing from As I Lay Dying as they've consistently delivered the goods with each new release. That very specific thing is good ol' fashioned American metalcore: furious back and forth tempos in verse, consistent melody in chorus and/or bridge, and the occasional breakdown.

A few stand out tracks include the very first, "Cauterize," which features all of the aforementioned to a near formulaic extent. From there "A Greater Foundation" - the next track in sequence and my personal favorite - explores almost identical motifs, but does so with the musical confidence As I Lay Dying is known for. The more subdued parts of the track are utterly joyous to experience; rhythm guitars palm-muting a double-chug in halftime while lead guitars pick out a reverb-laden and melodious undercurrent. Layered over that is bassist and backup vocalist Josh Gilbert's sincere yell-singing, which acts as a beautiful counterpoint to lead vocalist Tim Lambesis' primal growls.

Elsewhere, "Wasted Words" dabbles in the minor harmonic scales I seem to mention in every other post. I don't know what it is about those scales and chords and modes that I love so much, but a harmonic/melodic minor song structure is enough to hook me usually on principle alone and As I Lay Dying navigates that territory subtly and with relish.

The overall feel of the album is epic and anthemic, even to an extent that previous releases weren't fully. In addition to "A Greater Foundation," the song "Overcome" features some solid balance between furious bursts and muscled melody. The chorus exhorts listeners to take heart for "No matter what we face in this life, we can overcome." The entire album is chock full of this kind of motivational material; Awakened would make an excellent workout playlist as is.

THE CONS:

There aren't really any worth mentioning. As I said, Awakened doesn't showcase anything experimental or particularly innovative, but I don't see that as a bad thing for As I Lay Dying. Clean vocals feature a little more prominently on this record than previous outings, but Awakened is still Grade-A 100% All-American As I Lay Dying.

THE VERDICT

I had only heard "A Greater Foundation" before purchasing this album, but that song alone was enough to warrant the buy. I like to make a point of buying physical albums from artists I could just as easily stream over Spotify or strip song-by-song from iTunes. As much as I hate to admit it, I definitely harbor some hipsterish tendencies in regards to bands going "mainstream." But when it comes to bands like As I Lay Dying, I'm proud to help contribute to their spot on the Billboard charts because I think they deserve financial and critical recognition.



Awakened isn't really anything new, as I've mentioned a few times already. But for me, that's precisely why it's such a phenomenal album. It's a rare thing indeed to find any artist whose formula doesn't wear out its welcome, but As I Lay Dying is one of them. If you like metalcore, you will love Awakened. If you don't love metalcore then you probably won't be too thrilled with this album. If you have no clue what metalcore is and would like a demonstration, give Awakened a good listen - because that is what fantastic metalcore sounds like.