Like a Delicious Edible, The Green Knight Lingers Long After Its First Impression

Let's talk about the movie The Green Knight, shall we? Mein Gott, what an extraordinary event it is! I was blown away by everything in the movie, from the acting to the settings and sound effects to the costumery to the transformative storytelling. I knew not to expect a Marvel-like experience. Knew? HOPED WITH ALL MY BEING! I'm so burned out on superheroexplosionfreneticism in films, and if you're anything like me, I know you understand. So tell me who else has seen it? What did you think? I can't wait to see it again to piece more of the mystery together and revel in all I saw and missed once more.

Image credit: https://www.looper.com/406712/breaking-down-the-trailer-for-the-green-knight/

The Mandalorian, a short review

So, The Mandalorian, maybe if I’d never seen an action movie in my life and this was my first one, I might have been a tiny, eensy bit entertained. But my godiva, I gave up after two episodes. The predictability was nauseating, and the repetition even more so. Oh look, a plot conflict. Let’s shoot at it! Oh look, another plot conflict. Let’s shoot at it! Yet a new plot conflict. Hmm, what should we do? Oh, let’s try something new. First we’ll punch it, then shoot at it! 

So yeah, I get that this is Star Wars and this guy was a bounty hunter and bounty hunters do a lot of shooting. And to be honest, I might have been able to stomach one or two more episodes of it if the writers hadn’t done something radically wrong. Well two things. First, they gave the protagonist nothing to latch on to in terms of making him the least bit either interesting or likable. He was just a laconic, faceless guy who shoots first, second, and last in every situation. In short, an impulsive, emotionally vacant psychopath. Then they made him not just dull and one-dimensional but also extremely unlikable by having him capitulate to the Jawas by heading off to kill a big, nonthreatening, rhino-type creature and steal its eggs. Did the rhino pose a threat to anyone? No. Was it planning to? No. So now the Mando is just Eric and Donald Trump Jr., going big-game hunting for sport, and not even for his own trophy but for someone else’s. Ugh. I’m really unable to get into a story where the “hero” is willing to hurt anyone or anything else for his own gain. How is that heroic? 

The last thing, and the thing most related to story craft in general, that really jumped out at me is this. One of the reasons movies and television are so popular is the visual nature of them. The Mando had a lot of great scenery (but honestly, after every other Star Wars except Empire, seeing yet another desert planet with mud and clay buildings has lost its luster)—but what it doesn’t have is a main character. It just has a guy in a mask who does things, and pretty much the same thing over and over. Part of what lets humans relate to and empathize with other humans is our highly expressive faces. We know a person’s feeling bad no matter how much they assure us they’re fine because we are brilliant at picking up on facial and body cues. A baby’s first reference in the world is its mother’s face; conversely, many people on the autism spectrum have a hard time relating to others because they don’t pick up on visual, particularly facial, cues. Therefore, it’s no stretch to recognize that it would be more of a challenge to get an audience stoked on a main character who is utterly featureless. We don’t know how he’s feeling, therefore we can’t empathize, and therefore we’re left with a monosyllabic metal-head who runs around planets killing pretty much everything for personal gain. Not exactly the recipe for heroic material, and it takes much too long to make him an interesting-ish antihero for me, at least, to give a rat’s bootie.

Not surprisingly, The Mando seems to have struck a positive note with a wide audience, many (most?) of them die-hard Star Wars fans, and that’s fine. But when you deal in story for a living, eating sleeping and breathing it, any story with such deeply rooted flaws is going to be an easy pass. There is a myriad of stories in the world that have good, interesting, even if flawed, characters who have more to offer audiences than bang-bang and brooding silence. Even the new Mad Max character played by Tom Hardy did little more than grunt his way through the movie, but at least he gave audiences a sense of his depth he showed more expressiveness than the Mando’s pure white page of nothing. Arguably, Tom Hardy’s biggest acting skill is what he does with his expressions and physicality, more than his words, but that only works because we can SEE him.

Movie Review: October Movie Roundup and Guns, Guns, Guns, No Funs!

I binged hardcore this month—the month it seems like I've been waiting all year for—and went to all the films I most wanted to see. Included in the list are: Sicario, The Martian, Crimson Peak, and The Last Witch Hunter.

If you know me, you would expect the one I'd pick if I had to pick one to recommend everyone go see would be Crimson Peak. Of course, this would only be natural. I think Guillermo del Toro has the greatest vision and quirky storytelling style of any contemporary director/writer in his class right now, even better and more exciting than Peter Jackson's, Jerry Bruckheimer's, or Joss Whedon's. He brings monsters and stories to life on the screen so beautifully and vibrantly that you can only sit back and absorb his epics and instantly watch them a second time afterward to relive all the elegance and moments you might have missed.

You'd think my pick would be Crimson Peak, but this time you'd be wrong. For once, GdT's vision became a little overburdened, in my opinion, by his movie's simplistic story and stifling set. Yes, the movie was about a specific manor and the events that transpired there in the late 1800s, but because of this, audiences weren't treated to the grander scope of place and story that usually typify his movies. After 2013's Mama, a GdT haunted-house story doesn't have quite the same impact as it might have, regardless of the quality of acting by the main characters (which was wonderful, particularly Jessica Chastain's, which was marvelous!). However, this was the only one of the four that excelled in passage of the Bechdel Test.

If I had to pick one to laud without reservation, (and because I'm too nice to make you read this whole post to find out the best of them) it would be Sicario. This film is a study in building tension and excitement. Unlike most films, The Martian for example, you can't quite be sure from one scene to the next what the movie's ultimate climax will be, but there are plenty of breadcrumbs to keep you riveted to the trail along the way. Benecio del Toro is a master at understated intensity, and Emily Blunt absolutely knows how to carry a dramatic role without being in the slightest melodramatic. This film is 5-plus stars without question. Failed the Bechdel Test however.

The Martian lived up to the hype, but I don't think you can get Matt Damon in a movie without it being an automatic hype machine. (We'll just pretend Elysium never happened.) While nothing in it surprised me, even though I haven't read the novel, and every turn was predictable to the point of being cliché, it still had enough hero appeal to make an audience root for the movie's namesake. Nope on the Bechdel Test, but that's not surprising given it being a high-budget male-main-character film. Shitty, but true.

And finally, The Last Witch Hunter. Not quite there when compared to the Riddick series, but fun and light nonetheless. Both An Aging Hipster and I were surprised by the slower pace of the story itself, yet we were still entertained by its lack of campiness and better plot development than expected. The costumes and CG were fun, but overall, this one is definitely best rented on a night when the cheaper IPA and $2 bottle of wine are flowing freely. Vin smiles a lot, which surprised me. Bechdel Test fail.

Now we get to the substantive part of these overall reviews. For those who don't care about social commentary, this is where you may bow out. I'm going to recap the events surrounding our viewing of The Last Witch Hunter, which added a shocking and unfortunate turn to the experience. No matter how you feel about guns and the right to bear arms, here is the result of living in a country where gun ownership prevails.

File this story under "gut check." Before the lights dimmed as we sat in last night's theater, I observed a solo white man in a hooded sweatshirt, baseball cap, and sunglasses (in a dark theater) walk up the aisle and stand awkwardly in the row for a while before finally taking a seat. Oh, and he was carrying a heavy-looking black backpack. An Aging Hipster and I have started sitting in the back row at theaters because…well…we like to keep an eye on things. I pointed this strange-looking and strange-acting dude out to Hip, and we both couldn't help but stare at him until he settled in and a pulled a large bag of chips from the backpack. Okay, we thought, just a guy having a picnic at the movie. And yet…

After the film ended, we left the theater behind this guy and a another couple. The three of them were in some kind of heated exchange, but I wasn't sure over what. It seems one may have bumped into another. It quickly escalated to the point that when we reached the exit, both the freaky dude and the man he was in an argument with stopped and wouldn't go through. It was a standoff. Rage was flying. The next thing that happened is the freaky dude says he's not going out first, he's not going to walk in front of the other man, and that he was going to "put something in the back of his head." He then unshouldered his backpack and reached to unzip it. Hip and I squeezed out, and he urgently asked the counter staff (in his drill sergeant's voice, which is formidable) to call security. The kid at the counter stared at Hip blankly, as if he'd spoken in Klingon. Hip repeated himself, and asked if they even had security. The kid said no. Mind you, I've had my bag searched twice by the ticket takers at this theater, yet still they had no security. Um…? Last night, however, no bags were searched.

Within another couple of minutes, the man whose life had just been threatened and his girlfriend finally managed to ease past the crazy, yelling, threatening dude to the parking lot. Crazy dude followed them out, still yelling, and then continued to rant like a madman long after they were no longer in sight. Jeff and I could still hear him when we got to our car.

My instincts knew this dude was off the second I laid eyes on him. People: ALWAYS listen to your gut. This is America, home of the mentally ill gun-toting crowd that only gets worse with each passing year. It grieves me that even the act of going to see a Vin Diesel movie requires such intense situational awareness that I now sit in the back row to avoid getting shot from behind and spend the previews not looking forward to new films, but analyzing the other people at the theater, wondering which one might pull a weapon and where their blindspot might be in case they need to be tackled. What the fuck? As the Jello Biafra and Guantanomo School of Medicine song says, "When you jump at the sight of your neighbor, arm yourselves against them instead. Stiffened up like a porcupine, welcome to Panic Land."

At what point do we recognize that there is a sickness in a society where one has to measure the risk of getting shot against the decision to do such basic things as go to school or the theater? The question I keep struggling with is what I as an individual can possibly do about such an endemic and multifaceted problem, which is only exacerbated by the conflicting agendas of personal rights vs. making responsible social agreements and laws. It's so easy in the movies to beat the villain and live happily ever after. Maybe that's why we sometimes prefer our fantasy worlds to these more and more frequent examples of what our real lives in American are becoming.

PS: I'm not actually proposing we all arm ourselves. I'm pointing out that's where we're headed. Imagine your next Sunday outing:

"Well, dear, do you think we should take the Sigs with us?"

"No, dear. Don't be absurd. You know the theater is going to be filled to capacity! Damon's latest Oscar is sure to draw the crowds. We should take the ARs. We might have to lay down a heavy suppressive fire to get clear should anyone lose their shit."

"You're right, of course, dear. I'll go grab some extra magazines."

Enjoy what you've seen so far? Bonus snark goes out to my newsletter tribe. Join to get novel news, including the first look at new stories, and invitations to contests and giveaways.

Movie Review: The Secret Life of Walter Mitty

Now and again, you just need to veg. Five and half hours on a bike will do that to you. My preferred vegging practice includes drinking a barleywine (Stone Brewing Company makes the best I’ve had), and eating leftover lasagna and homemade browned butter pumpkin spice cake with salted caramel buttercream frosting—(It’s okay, my pants still fit. I mentioned the 5 ½ hours on the bike, right?)—combined with two-ish hours on the couch watching The Secret Life of Walter Mitty.I’ve wanted to travel to Iceland and Greenland for quite some time, and even have a novel brewing that includes Vikings and Inuits (hmmm…can I write off a trip to Baffin Island as a work expense? It’s for research! Tax attorneys and CPAs, feel free to chime in ;-). Much of Mitty takes place and is filmed in Iceland, so it was really a perfect fit to my sub-cerebral state yesterday evening. (By the way, I can’t recommend enough taking a moment to escape the day by looking through cycling photographer Jered Gruber’s Iceland portfolio.)Aside from the movie’s rather stunning cinematography, Mitty is lighthearted, touching, and just off-the-wall enough to appeal to those of us who enjoy things that are outside of the ordinary. You can read the synopsis here, but the most direct way of describing it is: a highly imaginative man finds the courage to unleash his adventurous spirit. The film mixes both subtle and oh-so-human aspects of Walter Mitty’s quotidian life with outlandish and spontaneous journeys, introduces normal and super-normal people, and quite simply makes you want to book a flight to the first place a dart lands on a map just for the experience. The beauty of Mitty is that it never gets caught up with the details and makes it seem like every desire, as long as it is genuine, can be achieved. The character of Walter Mitty himself also makes a perfect analog to us writers—people who spend as much time traveling through our imaginations as we do living "real" life—thus making the movie especially appealing, at least to me.Definitely recommended for a quiet night at home, curled up on the couch with yummy food and whomever you’re closest to.

Movie Review: The World's End

Fans from all over the world flocked to theaters last weekend (or should have) to see the über-anticipated The World's End, the latest collaboration from trinitrin trio Edgar Wright, Simon Pegg, and Nick Frost. The well-rounded cast also included Rosamund Pike, Paddy Considine, Martin Freeman, and Eddie Marsan. I'm not a watcher of the new British TV series Sherlock Holmes, but as I understand it, Freeman is a much-loved Dr. Watson, and who could ever forget his role in Love Actually? And then there's Paddy Considine, a quite intriguing character actor, and always fun to watch. The most recent film I've seen him in was Blitz, actually an entertaining Jason Statham movie, smarter than most. Which isn't a high bar to set, admittedly.

Premise:

Five high school friends reunite after years of separation to conquer a pub crawl of epic proportions. Along the way, they are confronted by the realities of their lives, their mistakes, and their missed opportunities. But, even more surprisingly, they confront an alien invasion and must decide that all-important question: finish the pub crawl or not?

What I Loved:

• The smart, fun, and satirically cutting dialogue audiences know to expect from a Frost/Pegg movie was fully present. A sample:Martin's character: You do realize that the Three Musketeers is a fiction written by Alexandre Dumas?Pegg's character: A lot of people are saying that about the Bible these days.Considine's character: What, that it was written by Alexandre Dumas?Pegg: Don't be daft, Steve. It was written by Jesus.

• The "daily life of a middle-class Englishman turns utterly bizarre" twist. Also a commonality among the Frost/Pegg/Wright films.

• But most of all, there was a new and deeply poignant edge to the characters played by Frost and Pegg that audiences may not expect. This time, the troupe tackled aspects from the darker side of the human psyche, tossing them into audience's laps with a rawness and candor that may well make you reflect on things you'd rather not. Frost's character had a particular darkness to him that we've not seen before, but which he portrayed so convincingly that the usual instinct to laugh at his anticipated antics was utterly squelched (but in a good way, um…).

• The soundtrack, which was unbelievably awesome.

• The ending twist. I won't spoil it. But I will point you to a similar movie that I was reminded of (and equally enjoyed).

What I Didn't Love Much:

Can't think of a thing.Verdict: see this. You really can't be disappointed. It's everything you've come to love with this lovable group of thespians, and with a heart-warming takeaway message to boot. Kinda.Bechdel Test status: fail.

Movie Review: Elysium

Elysium, while visually and graphically fun, fell painfully far below the bar set by Neill Blomkamp's earlier masterpiece, District 9.The story is about Earth approximately 140 years in the future. Dirty, overcrowded, disease-ridden, and resource deficient, the planet has become a wastebasket for the have-nots of humanity. Elysium, a paragon of human engineering and sophistication, floats above the planet in pristine effulgence, homing only the most affluent and powerful people. The plot is simple: groups and individuals left behind to scratch out their lives in what meager options remain on Earth want, not access to Elysium and all its comforts, but really just access to the space station's atomic-reorganization technology that has the capacity to heal apparently any human disease—from cancer to having your entire face blown off. Pretty nifty. And no anesthetic required.Warning: Spoilers abound.Drop in Everyman, Max de Costa, played by Matt Damon. Max simply wants to live a law-abiding life, having learned from the crimes of his youth that being free, even in the unforgiving detritus that is 22nd-century Los Angeles, is still much better than whatever such a disrupted and disorganized society would have for a jail. But Max has a shitty day when the local robocops hassle him for no good reason, and to add insult to injury, not even Max's parole officer is human, all being merely droid facsimiles of a justice system (though, the movie never explains why they'd have robots doing these positions if there is such an overabundance of population. Viewers have to let this pass because there's, well, a LOT of important details the movie never explains).Thanks to the easy replacement of human laborers, Max's boss at the robot factory (the requisite evil corporation), in a throwback to 1800s anti-union industrialization, threatens Max with a loss of his job if he refuses to risk his life in a radiation chamber to fix a mechanical fault. Boom, zap, Max is cooked, and sent home by the company doctor (also a robot) with a "thanks for your service, you'll be dead in five days" announcement and a bottle of pills.But even radiation sickness is no big thang for the magical Med-Pods on Elysium, and desperation forces Max to seek out the one person he knows who can get him there. And here's the fun part. The King Hoodlum's name is Spider, which the Gibson-geek in me hopes is a nod by Blomkamp to Robert Blongo's and William Gibson's adaptation of Gibson's short story Johnny Mnemonic. If you saw the movie, you know the venerable Henry Rollins plays a doctor named Spider who is trying to help save the human race from a mysterious plague. In another couple of nods to Mnemonic, Blomkamp's movie relies on the use of data-storage devices that can be implanted in the human brain, and the cast includes a crazy, streetwalking freelance soldier (played brilliantly by the amazing Sharlto Copley) who has a striking resemblance and shares the psychotic personality of Mnemonic's murderous Street Preacher. Which takes us back to Elysium.In order to buy his trip to Elysium and be saved from radiation poisoning, Max makes a deal with Spider to retrieve a mass of data from the Big Corporate Kingpin (which will, of course, be stored in Max's brain implant) in exchange for the ride. Naturally, things go bad and adventures and explosions ensue.I'd like to say Elysium was visionary and unique, but giant gaping plot holes, an incredible lack of worldbuilding details or realism, and a total failure to keep major threads of the storyline both consistent and relevant (what was the point of writing in Max's childhood sweetheart, anyway?) really made the film suffer. If not for the over-the-top antics of Kruger, Sharlto Copley's character, and the subtle and heavy-hitting performance by Jodi Foster, the movie would have been less than ho-hum. Entertaining, but largely irritating. If you really want to be entertained, opt instead for Pacific Rim or the truly original District 9.Bechdel Test status: fail.

Movie Review: Hansel & Gretel

[Before jumping into the review, I thought I'd let you know about a short blurb on writing I did at the awesome and talented writer Ryan Brooks's blog today. Now back to our creature feature. Enjoy!]When I heard that Tommy Wirkola was putting out a new movie, and in English no less, you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that I'd be there. After all, no film (besides perhaps Zombieland) has done more justice to the zombie trope, with better gore, better storytelling, and a higher degree of overall surprise, than 2009's Dead Snow, also written and directed by Wirkola. A review of Dead Snow muchly deserves a post all to itself, but suffice it to say, it had me at the Braindead T-shirt worn by one of the characters. And the Nazis, of course, the zombie Nazis.Much like Guillermo del Toro—cutting his directorial teeth on little-seen and sadly under-budgeted films, and graduating to highly stylized, studio-backed big screen films with lots of special effects—I hoped that Wirkola would be able to wow a more mainstream audience with his newfound production support.And it worked.Hansel & Gretel is the other Grimm fairytale about what becomes of the sister and brother after they torch the big, bad witch living in the heart of the deep, dark woods. The combo don't fade into obscurity like they do in the original fairy tale; instead, they become an ass-kicking duo and arch-enemies of witches far and wide. The opening credits expose the audience to parchment after eighteenth-century parchment of their witch-massacring exploits, bringing us to their current mission: saving a small (luckily, entirely English-speaking) German hamlet from an unusually high number of child abductions that are clearly part of some bigger and more imperative mystery involving the coming Blood Moon (not to be confused with that time of the...oh nevermind). Time is running out, the witches are becoming increasingly hostile, and Hansel's lingering blood sugar problem, thanks to all that candy the witch tried to fatten him up on as a child, is always complicating things at the wrong time. A fine mix for a great adventure.The movie has a little something for everyone who enjoys a solid alternative reality to sink their teeth into: gore, violence, trolls, fairy tales, and a bonus of steampunk flare showing up in the weapons and other accoutrements with which the pair kills witches. One of the most impressive elements, to my mind, was the cast. Gemma Arterton, Jeremy Renner, Peter Stormare, and Famke Janssen have each appeared in some of my favorite all-time films (Rock'n'Rolla, 28 Weeks Later and S.W.A.T., The Big Lebwoski and Constantine, and Deep Rising, respectively), and having them all on one screen was about as sweet as a fairy tale witch's candy house. Sure, there were a few flaws and some silliness in Hansel & Gretel, but one doesn't buy a ticket to a Wirkola (or del Toro) film expecting to come away with new insight into the human condition.[youtube=http://youtu.be/aAkhVMgEzJM]Bechdel Test: unequivocal pass.

Enjoy what you've seen so far? Subscribe by using the "Click to Follow" button or enter your email near the top of the page, and never miss a post.

All content copyright unless otherwise specified © 2008-2013 by Tammy Salyer, writer. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to use short quotes provided proper attribution is given.

Movie Review: Mama

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icPgMEePkXU&w=560&h=315]G. Or perhaps, G-Dog. Nah, I think I'll just go with Mr. G. I'm speaking, of course, of Writer/Director/Producer Guillermo del Toro. I surprise myself for having been lax at effusing as much over Mr. G as I ordinarily do over filmmakers that blow my lobes, but with the release of Mama, his day has come.Mr. G already has a healthy montage of spine-chillers under his belt that have provided more discerning horror and thriller fans hours of entertainment for years. For many of us, del Toro first made an earthshaking impact on us with 2006's Pan's Labyrinth, a surprisingly gory fantasy story. Or was it more of a surprisingly fantastical historical film? Or perhaps, a surprisingly historical thriller? Therein lies the beauty of Mr. G's storytelling; in many of his films, he brings his viewers on a journey that can't be neatly tucked into a single category to be lined up, compared to, and forgotten along with the string of other movies that fit the same category. His films tend to linger, to strike a low bass chord that reverberates in our subconscious long after the lights have gone dark and the credits have rolled. Even Cronos was quietly and insidiously disturbing in its inexplicability. And when the lights are out, many of us continue to wonder: what might have oozed into corporality and been left behind to inhabit the darkness with us?With Mr. G as producer, there could be no doubt the creep-out factor of Mama would be huge. Remember the Orphanage? The Devil's Backbone? And creepiest of all, *shudder*,  Mimic? Unarguably, one of his greatest movie-making talents is incorporating believable and frightening monsters, tangible fairytale characters, and nebulous creatures of both the light and dark that are so realistic in their make-up, prosthetics, and puppetry that they appear to be actual, living beings. Remember Hellboy, and again, Mimic?So, Mama. The story begins with an unfolding tragedy where, in a complete psychotic break, the father of two girls who are one and three years of age kills his estranged wife and kidnaps the children with the intent to end their lives and his own. Within the first ten minutes, viewers are already hugely sympathetic to these young, adorable girls and want nothing more than that they be safe. If there is one theme consistent with almost every movie Mr. G is involved in, it is that the strongest character will be the child/children. Just something to note.To minimize spoilers, I'll simply tell you that the girls' father takes them to a remote cabin in the woods, where they are rescued by Mama. The plot then moves forward five years where the girls are discovered and brought back into civilization. The dead man's brother, a cartoonist, and his girlfriend, the bassist for a punk band (win!), are made the legal guardians of these wild, unsocialized, badly damaged children.What follows is a scare-fest of the kind movie-goers have come to expect in films about ghost hauntings, such as the Grudge or the Ring or Stir of Echoes, with lots of strange noises, creepy camera effects, and things jumping out of the dark at you. Which still works, no matter how many times you see it. However, in true del Toro fashion, the end of the movie jumps far past the obvious conclusion and leaves viewers with both the heebie jeebies and, unfortunately, a gaping inconsistency in the overall premise of the story.And that, dear readers, is the biggest takeaway. While the storytelling in Mama has much of the elegance and complexity we all enjoy about del Toro's films, the enjoyment of Mama is consistently derailed by story inconsistencies that are clearly the results of editing room mistakes, and in the final scene, out-of-step writing. I won't list them here, as they wouldn't make much sense out of context, but there are enough of them and they're so obvious that you'll instantly recognize them when you watch the movie. The final letdown is that Mama relied completely on computer-generated graphics, which, try as they might, never appear real enough to actually get under your skin.My faith in Mr. G is not shaken however, and I am, much as I'm sure you are, thoroughly pumped for Pacific Rim later this year. We've already seen how capably he handles stories that are larger than life, e.g., Hellboy, and giant robots and monsters from another dimension couldn't be a better playground for del Toro's brilliant imagination. In the meantime, Mama would make a comfortable night on the couch with the lights out, but don't expect to have your lobes blown by anything new to the genre.Bechdel Test: pass.

Enjoy what you've seen so far? Subscribe by using the 'Click to Follow' button or enter your email near the top of the page, and never miss a post.

All content copyright unless otherwise specified © 2008-2013 by Tammy Salyer, writer. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to use short quotes provided proper attribution is given.

Movie Review: Looper

[youtube=http://youtu.be/2iQuhsmtfHw]I’ll come right out and declare that Looper easily deserves a 4.5- out of 5-star rating. It’s a time-travel movie with not just one, but two unique twists on the time-travel motif that make it a refreshing and enjoyable way to spend an evening, either with a significant other, or a gang of friends. That is to say, there are elements in this film that will appeal to both hardcore scifi fans and drama aficionados alike.Quick Plot SummarySet in 2044, time travel has not yet been invented, but Joe, our protagonist played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt, works for a crime syndicate that exists thirtyish years in the future—after time travel is developed. His job is to assassinate and dispose of the bodies of people sent back by said crime syndicate in order to cleanly and completely erase the evidence (though it’s never explained why disposing of a body in the future is so difficult). Those in this profession are known as Loopers. Pretty easy to grasp, so far, right? The drama begins when GL’s future self is sent back as his present self’s next target—and escapes! This is very not good as the men in charge of the present-based Looper crew don’t look kindly at men from the future, who their future-based employers have gone to a lot of trouble to have disappeared, are running around freely with a good deal of insider knowledge about what’s coming. You can imagine the dent in plans this could create.As you’ve guessed, denting this plan is exactly what future Joe, played by Bruce Willis, intends, and this is where the story gets really, really good. Without spoiling anything, I’ll reveal that there are depths and plot twists to Looper that the trailer doesn't even hint at.Best BitsThe sets and settings within the film are a delightful mix of futuristic technology and steampunk-inspired novelties. Blunderbusses, steam engine-based crop waterers, and silver bars appear right along with touch screen monitors and hovering motorcycles (which still look decidedly steampunkish). The makers put a great deal of thought and time into creating realistic-looking and functioning machines that tickle the viewer’s imagination. Additionally, they had a particular flair for presenting a plausible future, throwing in many details of things to come that are not too outlandish to believe. From recirculating outflow/inflow pipes on vehicles to a visible and accepted class division in the social structure, these elements made the entire film feel decidedly intimate and almost prophetic.Though the violence in Looper was unapologetic, it still fell shy of gratuitous and mostly served to give it a gritty and realistic feel. Distilling the film down to it’s most basic themes, it’s a story about how a broken society breaks its members, how the broken often turn vicious to survive, and the high but necessary cost the vicious pay for a chance at redemption.Improvable BitsAs with any time-travel film, there were moments that left the audience scratching and shaking our heads. Such as this. These were small enough to be forgivable, however, as sometimes writers have to take liberties in order to make a story work (I’ve heard, anyway *wink*). The main issue with it was an abrupt shift in tone about halfway through. The film begins with the exposé of the dark, rough-and-tumble lifestyle of Loopers and their criminal leaders, all occurring in an urban setting, everything moving in a fast-paced, almost staccato gallop. Then suddenly, the cast of characters is pared down to three, and the storyline shifts to a more focused experience between Joe, a woman named Sara, and her son, all set on a rural farm with nothing breaking up the scenery but a farmhouse, barn, and row upon endless row of cane (and, I’m no horticulturalist, but what kind of cane is it? Not sugar cane, obviously, but...?). The transition, while working in terms of the story, is too sudden and jarring for a film that starts out as pure action and violence.Surprisingly Good BitsThe unexpectedly enjoyable element was how complex and dimensional the main characters are—both the younger and older Joe; the beautiful and talented Emily Blunt’s character Sara; and the film’s most incredible gem, the young Pierce Gagnon. The relationships and choices each of these characters make were rarely groundless or predictable, adding a fun, edge-of-the-seat sense of expectation to the story.A word on Joseph Gordon-Levitt. With the exception of G.I. Joe and Inception, I’ve never watched GL in anything with substance. And yes, I recognize fully that one could argue with G.I. Joe being classified as a movie with substance (but I liked it!). His character is not a person you’d like. A morally derelict, gun-for-hire junkie whose only so-called personal relationship is with a working girl. Joe’s ambitions are simple and straightforward: make money and cover the scars of his youth. GL does a sublime job of exhibiting a coldly calculating demeanor while still allowing enough of a human conscience to bleed through in the scenes where he isn’t blunderbussing someone into chunky salsa that it isn’t completely impossible to buy the movie’s eventual outcome. In other words, GL’s portrayal of Joe is hardbitten, but not hateful; unlikable, but still compassion-inducing; bad, but not repugnant, and makes the audience cheerlead for his eventual coming to terms with what’s right. The character of Sara is likewise dynamic; her past choices may seem untenable to many, but her present actions reveal the operose evolution of a conflicted and confused girl into a responsible, independent, and fiercely protective woman and mother. These are the types of multi-dimensional character arcs that make a film stand out.Overall, I highly recommend Looper to, as mentioned, anyone who enjoys scifi and drama. The plot is relatively hole-less and easy to follow, the characters are interesting, and the twists make for a very good story indeed.Mad fail on the Bechdel Test however. Still, there is one redeeming scene where Old Joe is telling Young Joe about the crime lord of the future whose identity is a mystery to everyone and, thankfully, mentions that it could be a man or a woman.

Enjoy what you've seen so far? Subscribe by using the 'Click to Follow' button or enter your email near the top of the page, and never miss a post.

All content copyright unless otherwise specified © 2008-2013 by Tammy Salyer, writer. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to use short quotes provided proper attribution is given.

Movie Review: Lawless

I'm sitting in my hotel room in Manchester, England marveling at the greyness of the skies, the wetness of the air, and the innate knowledge in my primal systems that I am very close to the ocean. Having grown up near the Oregon Coast, but being landlocked for the last two-plus years in Colorado, that information sends zings of joy and excitement through me. There is definitely some metaphysical setting in the subconscious of people who've ever felt the pull of the sea ~ once it's in your blood, your blood will forever be composed of part seawater. Not to mention, I'm hanging out in the country that brought us both Bradley Wiggins and Mark Cavendish.Back on track. I realize that splash of personal divulgence is not the reason you're visiting this post. If you're like me, the reason you're here is simple: Guy Pearce. Okay, or maybe Nick Cave. Tom Hardy? Mia Wasikowska and Jessica Chastain? Shia LeBeouf, even? Can't say I blame you at all. As the central cast of Lawless, these ladies and gentlemen comprise spicy and delicious complements to a story made of unadulterated Appalachian moonshine and violence.First, the warning. If, like me, you were knocked nearly off your literary and story-conscious feet by the dark maelstrom of brilliance and creativity of Nick Cave's book And the Ass Saw the Angel and his and John Hillcoat's (of The Road fame in the States) collaboration on the movie The Proposition, you know to tote an impact-ameliorating pillow on which to land (possibly in the form of a giant flask of whiskey) along with you to see Lawless. (And if you didn't read or see the other two, let this post serve to inform you of the need).Second, the not-so-awesome disclosure. Imagine Lawless as pure gullet-busting White Lightning moonshine. Now imagine what happens to that deadly but pellucid 'shine when the taint of a film studio's pandering to a mass audience is mixed into it. Clouded, limpid, disjointed, and probably berry or licorice flavored. Like a Charleston Bog cocktail, Lawless became much harder to swallow after Hollywood's saccharine influence was added.A quick story description. In the Prohibition Era, three Appalachian bootlegging brothers refuse to kowtow and pay tribute to corrupt law officials in order to protect their moonshine business, instead opting to go rogue (but not like Sarah Palin) and keep their own full proceeds.Don't get me wrong, the twisted violence that only Cave and Hillcoat can bring to the screen in such gruesome, animated detail remains in full effect in Lawless—and I have to say, if those two ever work with David Cronenberg, we're all in for a very vivid look into one of the seven levels of hell—but somewhere during the adaption and editing, this movie lost its heart. The story itself lacks the usual focused, clear, and driven-by-a-single-purpose goal audiences have come to expect from Cave and Hillcoat, instead meandering through a number of subplots and walk-on characters that served merely to dilute what should have been a story of greed, murder, family, and revenge. It isn't until three quarters of the way into the film when one of the bootlegging crew is killed that any real resolution or purpose to the overall events is even articulated. (Note: The last is hardly a spoiler since we already know the film is about bootlegging and violence. What else could possibly happen?) By then, audiences who are still invested in the movie at all are really there just to see what happens to the antagonist, played by Guy Pearce.A word (or thirty) on Guy Pearce. I'm going to go completely off the rez here and bravely compare the transformative and transcendent acting skills of Guy Pearce to such great method actors as Gary Oldman and Johnny Depp. If you want a character who is truly evil, you need look no further than Pearce's villain in Lawless, Charlie Rakes. His role in this film will have you squirming in your seat, and make even the most charitable and forgiving soul pray for his bloody and screaming death. The trainwreck of brutality perpetrated by Rakes in nearly every scene, both those he's present in as well as several he's off-screen for, render the audience helpless to look away.Pearce pulls off such exquisite depravity in Lawless that it's easy to forget that he's also the actor that brought us Leonard Shelby from Memento and Capt. John Boyd from Ravenous. Or maybe it isn't. Pearce's mild on-screen presence belies a subtly disturbing yet beguiling persona that infuses each of the characters he plays with a kind of charisma and a kind of magnetism that audiences of discerning taste can't help but be drawn to. Much like Cave's songwriting, each time Pearce takes the screen, you know that something unexpected and markedly genius is going to happen.Overall, I recommend Lawless for three reasons: One, it's Cave's baby. Two, Guy Pearce takes the audience on a gruesome but entertaining ride. And three, despite being tainted by Hollywood, Lawless still has enough independent flair that audiences who are bored with the usual action or angst of most big screen releases will still feel they're being treated to a fresh and unique story.Bechdel Test status: Does not pass. Not even close. Not one tiny bit.Related and Also Recommended: Lockout with Guy Pearce and Maggie Grace.Next on my list of To See Films: Seven Psychopaths.

Enjoy what you've seen so far? Subscribe by using the 'Click to Follow' button or enter your email near the top of the page, and never miss a post.

All content copyright unless otherwise specified © 2008-2013 by Tammy Salyer, writer. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to use short quotes provided proper attribution is given.

Summer Movie Review Mash-up

I know I’m a little late writing up reviews of the following three movies, despite the fact that I went to all three on opening weekend. That should give you a pretty solid sense of how underwhelmed I was by all of them. *frowny face* Am I being obtuse, or has Hollywood simply forgone strong plots and characterization for off-the-reservation special effects? Or maybe it’s the writer in me; I spend so much time focusing on the story arc and development that I have lost touch with the point of sitting in a really dark room, surrounded by ten foot high speakers, staring at a screen that is large enough to serve as a helicopter landing pad. In other words, experiencing complete auditory and visual overload (which is a completely separate experience from the cognitive and cerebral experience of absorbing a good story). Do the other writers out there have this same issue?

And also, after the lobe-blowing let down of Prometheus, I do believe I have become hopelessly jaded.Abraham Lincoln: Vampire HunterI’ll start out with this one because it was by far the best--for what it was. I had no expectations for ALVH other than being entertained by some unbelievable special effects and general storyline silliness. In these things, it did not disappoint. ALVH had three exceptional things going for it: fun characters; interesting plot, especially in terms of reinventing history; and outstanding fight scenes. The one complaint I have is that the story covered far too long of a timespan to really allow viewers to settle into the characters and vicariously experience their inner struggles. There was a lot of glossing over of interpersonal conflicts and psychological development. That being said, there was enough of a hint at the grander details the story must contain in the novel that I definitely left the movie wanting to read it. And, surprisingly, it passes the Bechdel Test.The Amazing SpidermanI have to admit, I was confused about this one. What happen to Mary Jane? What happened to Norman and Harry Osborn and the Green Goblin who I thought were integral to the original Spiderman origin story? Granted, I haven’t read a comic book since I was maybe ten, but I found a re-telling of this story without the original cast of characters to be very off-putting. All of the actors in TAS did a good job and were believable in their roles, and the special effects were generally fun, but the story just really dragged along. Essentially, it’s the story of a fringe-dwelling teenage genius who solves incredible genetics-based problems (that the world’s top scientists can’t??), struggles to impress a high school beauty (who somehow has the time and lab experience to also work in a genetics lab??), copes with the loss of both his parents and his beloved uncle, and is transformed into one tough hombre through a spider bite. There are holes, and lots of them, throughout the plot (like, how does he manage to synthesize the benefits of the genetically-modified spider’s bite, while his nemesis can’t? And how did no one in this high-powered lab notice that the spider’s venom could lead to such amazing benefits in the first place?), and the story itself took quite a long time to actually head in any definitive direction, like saving the world from an evil scientist. Not to mention a scene lifted directly out of Gleaming the Cube. This one was a solid “meh” and a full failure in regards to the Bechdel Test. I’m sure fifteen year old boys loved/will love it, however.Total RecallThis iteration of Total Recall had a couple of marked improvements over the first: the settings and special effects (which kind of go without saying since it’s been gasp twenty-two years since the original came out). The fight scenes were fantastic, especially those involving Kate Beckinsale, who pulled off quality bad-assery nearly as fine as Sharon Stone in the original, and the overall look and feel of the two cities (plus a bonus ruined landscape) where all the events take place were quite elegant and well designed. But that’s where the magic ends.One complaint I have with Total Recall redux is that all of the characters are completely cardboard. All of them. Kate’s character, Lori Quaid, runs around pissed off and intent on killing Quaid. Quaid, played by Colin Eyebrows, er, Farrell, runs around confused and ready to fight, and Jessica Biel’s character, Melina, runs around bummed that Quaid can’t remember her but intent on making sure his brain gets dissected by a new character, leader of the resistance, Mattias (played by Bill Nighy, who really looked like he just wanted to take a nap instead of be in this film). Besides Nighy, everyone, as described, does a lot of running around and fighting or shooting things, and not much else.There are two other major flaws in the film, which are inter-related. For an unknown reason, the writers dramatically changed the plot from Schwarzenegger’s TR. Instead of the story taking place on Mars with a focus on its alien artifacts and the element turbidium, the mining and distribution of which is being controlled by a corporation run by the evil Cohaagen, everything occurs on earth and Cohaagen is transformed into a despotic political leader played by Bryan Cranston. The new story is that Earth was devastated by chemical warfare and there are only two livable regions left, basically the UK and Australia. The people living in Australia are low-paid servants to the metropolitan dwellers of the UK and commute every day through the Earth’s core to work in UK-based factories (why the factories, which would seem to be giant waste-producing facilities that would muck up the pristine metro environment of the UK aren’t based in Oz isn’t explained). SPOILER: The gist is, the UK is running out of living space (because they didn’t realize how much room the factories would take up, presumably) and Quaid knows that Cohaagen is planning to wipe out the population of Oz to make room for the excess UK population (which would leave no one to work in the factories???). The only obstacle is the Resistance, which Quaid, in his original role as a member of Cohaagen’s goon squad, is supposed to infiltrate, much along the lines of the original movie.So, the flaws. Besides the traveling through the Earth’s core idea being rather boring when compared to the elaborate infrastructural implications and physiological variations resulting from the Mars motif in TR One, not to mention the ever-present threat of the livable Martian infrastructure being breached and the inhabitants dying an eye-popping, tongue-extruding death, Cohaagen’s character is completely inconsistent with the world he apparently leads. The idea put forth in the thin storyline is that he rose through the ranks in the chemical wars as a ruthless warlord, yet somehow becomes an esteemed and respected leader in a fairly mellow, egalitarian, and orderly modern society in the UK. Yet, in all of his screen time, his character does nothing but revel in the idea that he gets to wipe out a couple million people and can’t wait to share the fun with his good buddy Quaid (once Quaid is reverted back into his original persona as a bloodthirsty assassin). None of it really makes sense. How does a bad guy thrive as the leader of the free world when all he wants to do is wipe out half of said free world?Long story short, TRr had a gaggle of sparsely drawn characters running around inside a very thinly fleshed out plot. Worst of all, really, is that there were none of the classic one-liners Schwarzzenegger is so adept at. Plus, it fails the Bechdel Test.See you at the party, Richter!

Enjoy what you've seen so far? Subscribe by using the 'Click to Follow' button or enter your email near the top of the page, and never miss a post.

All content copyright unless otherwise specified © 2008-2013 by Tammy Salyer, writer. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to use short quotes provided proper attribution is given.

Movie Review: Prometheus

Holy Scott Free! I sprinted to the theater last night to see Prometheus 'cause I've been pretty much DYING for this one, and left Regal with these three words spinning like a gyroscope in freefall through my head: Jumped. The. Shark.Yeah. I know.Ever been to a movie that felt like the screenwriters had gathered for a pre-production brainstorm, wrote down a list of say, a hundred plot points and events, threw them all in a hat, picked the first 25-50, and said, "All right. Let's lay these out in random order and just fill in some basic information in between to make it seem like they all cohere into a more-or-less comprehensible *cough* story, shall we? Oh, by the way, Set and Effects Departments, could you make sure that there's something pretty happening on the screen so the audience will at least feel like the 3D glasses were worth the extra two bucks? Yeah, that would be great."There will be a number of spoilers ahead because I really don't feel like this movie could be any more spoiled. Just so you know.Let's start with characters and character development. No really, Ridley, let's have some. We'd appreciate that in our big screen entertainment. Otherwise, this aimless collection of people walking around sharing bits of disjointed dialogue that frequently has nothing to do with what's actually occurring in the movie is a bit hard to make sense of and not in the least engaging. Let me see if I can sum up for you: two scientists, one of which is more of a dudemanguybro than an actual archeologist, who wish to meet an alien life form who they postulate created humans because, well, how cool would that be? A tough-as-nails, bitchy ship commander who...spends two hours being a tough-as-nails, bitchy ship commander. A gaggle of "scientists" who, in their minimal screen time, behave like a bunch of petulant ten-year-olds who woke up on the wrong side of the bed and fail to actually perform any scientific activities before encountering slimy alien-beings (which, in a totally unsurprising turn of events, promptly attack and destroy). And some ship crewpersons who...crew the ship.That about it? Oh, there was Idris Elba, the wry, pragmatic, hardbitten-but-in-the-end-heroic ship captain. And let's face it, I could watch Idris Elba play a man in a coma and be content for hours. If the movie had been two hours of Idris kicking alien ass and taking tongue-twisting alien names, there might have been a chance it wouldn't have sucked. Might have been.Then there was Michael Fassbender's character, David, the sinister yet necessary (and compulsory, given this being essentially a prequel to Alien) android. Or is that artificial human? In any case, Fassbender pulls off his role with acceptable believability. But would someone please give that man a meatball sandwich? After making Hunger—a stunning film about the hunger strike by IRA-activist Bobby Sands—he apparently didn't get the memo that it's okay for his size-to-weight ratio to be within normal human range.Finally, there was the star of the movie, Noomi Rapace, who plays Doctor Elizabeth Shaw. In the annals of movie stars, I am absolutely certain there's never been another actor who matches her amazing range of distraught chin-quivering. Which is about all she does throughout the film.The moment where the film completely lost me came about forty minutes in. After the sinister robot infects the dudemanguybro with some alien goo, and dudemanguybro and Shaw have an emotional moment about her being unable to reproduce followed by having steamy space sex, Dr. Shaw winds up, gasp!, pregnant. Apparently, this is what the bad robot had planned all along, but how he could have known this would be the result of the goo-laced champagne he gave dudemanguybro is anyone's guess.That's not what lost me, however. Here's where things go from corny to worse. Dr. Shaw learns of this illicit pregnancy and decides to have the extremely handy all-in-one surgery performing booth (which the audience was introduced to early in the film in a moment of totally in-your-face "foreshadowing." Really, it would have been more entertaining if Ridley had just made a cameo appearance during that scene and said something like, "Listen up everyone, this cool piece of tech is going to come in handy later. Wait for it. Waaaaaaaait for it.") give her an emergency C-section with only local anesthetic. The one thing us gore-lovers did get to enjoy was a gritty close-up of this massive open wound, the subsequent removal of the alien baby (which resembled a large wad of phlegm more than anything), and Noomi getting some well-aimed stomach staples.You caught the part where I mentioned this was only forty minutes into the film, right? That's important because after this major abdominal surgery, our heroine gets to run around and fight baddies for another hour and twenty or so. Let me repeat: jump the shark. And for some super questionable script writing, not a single one of the other characters even asks her why she's running around the ship in her bloody underwear with a bunch of staples in her stomach. 'Cause, yunno, apparently in Ridley's imaginings of the near-future, there's nothing strange about that. People have random abdominal surgeries all the time, right? And are more than capable of going for a few laps around the perimeter moments later, right? Right?Let's move on to theme, of which there were a few running through the movie: thwarted mommyhood being the most blaring, which, again, is apparently compulsory in any Alien-derivative piece. There were threads of Freudian parenting and psychosexual development theories, along with touches on the Cassandra Complex, but these moments keep bumping up against sequences of alien attacks and nasty alien viruses causing people to explode. The overall experience was to leave the audience awash in a daze of discomfort and confusion.In the end, the film was simply unsettling. As mentioned, the visuals and some of the tech were quite an achievement. However, they were lost on Prometheus. Too many pointless characters, short bursts of action, and conflicting themes all tumbled around on the screen in disconnected fragments. In a simile that perhaps Ridley would approve of: after all of Prometheus's hype and promise, the experience was somewhat like having the Corporation's drone try to stuff a rolled up magazine down your throat. Some things just don't work out well.Bechdel Test status: Passes. Barely.UPDATE: Another review of Prometheus that is absolutely spot on. Delves more deeply into the vag symbolism (um, should one ever use the words "delves deeply" and "vag" in the same sentence? You be the judge.)

Enjoy what you've seen so far? Subscribe by using the 'Click to Follow' button or enter your email near the top of the page, and never miss a post.

All content copyright unless otherwise specified © 2008-2013 by Tammy Salyer, writer. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to use short quotes provided proper attribution is given.

Movie Review: The Avengers and Why Joss Whedon Should be One of Them

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hPpG4s3-O4]Who is your favorite Avenger? Mine is, hands down, Joss Whedon.Full disclosure: I have never read a Marvel comic. Additionally, I was ambivalent to all the movies that have come out with Spiderman, Ironman, Captain America-man, Green Swollen Man, Hammer Man, etc. I enjoyed the movies for the ever-advancing special effects, but felt their overall depth was not quite up to my expectations. Or maybe standards. Either way. [Note: The aforementioned standards do not apply to horror films. Just sayin'.]But you take a master screenwriter and director like Joss Whedon, throw in some amazing special effects, kick-ass technology, superb actors (okay, maybe not all of them, but we'll leave that to your personal judgement) who can fulfill the roles of both a super-hero AND a complex human being, and suddenly, I begin to sit up a bit straighter in my seat and take notice.A short list of elements that make the Avengers stand out as superior to the other Marvel super-hero movies:

1. The main external conflict in the single hero stories is between them and an enemy, with a sub-conflict (or, one could argue, a primary conflict) with themselves. This is a fun story to see unfold once, but since all of the Marvel movies are the same story, varying only in the tightness and design of the heroes' latex suits and handy gadgets they get to use, it's become overdone and unoriginal. Whedon had the freedom and maneuvering room to move beyond this tired theme and take our heroes to a new level of conflict. Not only did they have to fight a common enemy, but they had to learn to do it together. Thus, most of the Avengers focused on the intra-personal clashes and struggles that would naturally come about when you put a demi-god, a narcisstic genius, a sir-yes-sir, bottle-enhanced super soldier, and an invulnerable and unbeatable scientist-slash-mega monster together. After the epic fight scenes we've all gorged ourselves on in the previous Marvel movies, it was high time for exposure to a battle of another sort: a battle of wits. Something Director Whedon excels at.
2. That being said, Whedon didn't let us down when it comes to the reason the child in us really loves super-hero movies. The action and destruction were spectacular. I'll say one thing about Bruce Banner; he loves to stomp the holy hell out of New York City.
3. And the third and most unexpected bonus of the Avengers was Scarlett Johansson's character, Natasha Romanov. Almost 49% of you are saying "duh," but I'll explain what I mean. Unlike sweet, affable darlings such as Betty Ross or Mary Jane Watson—who are lovely, true, but consistently need a good saving at the hands of their respective heroes—Nat Romanov can and does lay down plenty of hurt on her own. Naturally, being a Joss Whedon film, no one would expect the female lead to take a side role, and once again hats off to Whedon for putting Johansson's character front and center. In a turn of particularly subtle brilliance, there's a point in the film where Hawkeye states the distinction between the Black Widow's identity as a spy instead of soldier, or, in other words, someone who uses wit and intelligence rather than brute force to extract information. This is important in that it gives Johansson's character layers that you rarely find in either super-hero personas or the female characters that inhabit the sidelines of the films featuring them.

And for one final bonus, Mark Ruffalo's portrayal of the Hulk was to date the best of the best. Conflicted, neurotic, nerdy, depressed, heroic, the list goes on. And with the most soulful eyes in Hollywood, who better to embody such a range of characteristics? The good news is, there's a chance we'll see more of Mr. Ruffalo in this role.If you are a comic book fan, a ten-year-old boy, a ten-year-old girl, an action-lover, a Joss Whedon fan, a green screen worshipper, trying to speed up your rate of hearing loss, or simply looking for a stellar two-hour span of entertainment, the Avengers is the movie for you.Bechdel Test status: Does not pass.

Enjoy what you've seen so far? Subscribe by using the 'Click to Follow' button or enter your email near the top of the page, and never miss a post.

All content copyright unless otherwise specified © 2008-2013 by Tammy Salyer, writer. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to use short quotes provided proper attribution is given.

Movie Review: The Cabin in the Woods

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Itzujv4JwU]What is the thing that you most fear? The monster under the bed? Unstoppable zombies gangling through the moonlight? Giant snakes that can swallow you in one bite and let you to slowly digest in their thoracic cavity (I'm sure that description is not quite biologically apt, but you know what I meant)? Maybe something else? Something even more gruesome? Here's a thought project for you: imagine that thing that you most fear, and now imagine it times a thousand. Wouldn't you be tripping all over yourself to go see a movie featuring THAT!?Why are you shaking your head? Hello?Okay, well, perhaps my movie taste is a touch, ahem, unique, but don't let that dissuade you. If you ever sat through a movie like Evil Dead, or Dead Snow, or even one without the word "dead" in the title, like the Walking Dead, er, no, like Night of the Living Dead...no, wait, I'll get it, um...Fright Night!—whew, as I was saying, if you ever watched a movie like one of those and had even a fleeting moment where you thought to yourself, "This is the grooviest gorefest of all time" then Joss Whedon (of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Firefly fame, among others) and Drew Goddard's (involved in such projects as Lost and Alias, and writer of Cloverfield) latest collaboration, the Cabin in the Woods, will send your horror-loving heart into spasms. Of joy, just to be clear.With a tagline such as "You think you know the story" one thing you know you can count on are surprises. But let's face it; we've all seen movies that had a bit of a shock, and we've all become almost numb to the expectation of the unexpected. Us gore junkies are always looking for the next big thing, the next big whallop that sends the adrenalin glands into overdrive and the stomach lurching so far up the throat that we have to bounce in our seats to get it back down where it belongs. With Josh and Drew, we can relax, because those gents know how to deliver.So it's off to the deserted, dilapidated cabin in the woods we go with our five vacationing college friends. Of course, if we weren't in such capable storytelling hands, we'd already be yawning. But no, we're not yawning. We're sitting raptly attentive in our seats, hands clutched together just beneath our chins knowing that at any moment, we'll have to yank them up to our faces to cover our eyes as the real show begins.And when it does, get ready, because you won't be expecting this.I wish I could tell you more, but suffice it to say, the anticipation is part of the experience for this movie. The characters are all charming and well cast, the setting is perfectly eerie, and the story leaves nothing to be desired. If you, like me, enjoy a good arterial spritzing and prefer your horror with a side of humor, the Cabin in the Woods is what's for dinner.And because I can't help myself, here's a tiny, two-word, pseudo-spoiler: Sigourney Weaver.Bechdel Test status: Squeaks by, barely.

Enjoy what you've seen so far? Subscribe by using the 'Click to Follow' button or enter your email near the top of the page, and never miss a post.

All content copyright unless otherwise specified © 2008-2013 by Tammy Salyer, writer. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to use short quotes provided proper attribution is given.

Movie Review: Act of Valor

When I grow up, I want to be a Navy SEAL.

You guessed it, I saw the movie Act of Valor recently, which is easily the best hour and a half recruitment video the military could have ever wished for. If the Navy and Army don’t see a thirty percent jump in enlistments in the next year, I’ll eat frog legs. (Frog legs, hehe, get it? Mmmkay, bad joke *rolls eyes at self*.)

Put quite simply, this movie will not disappointment anyone who enjoys action, explosions, and a healthy dose of patriotic seasoning (even on their frog legs). Act of Valor offers not only these usual genre standbys, but also takes authenticity in moviemaking to an unprecedented level. By now, most everyone interested enough in the film to be reading a review of it knows that the main characters are all real active duty SEALs, and that they filmed much of the movie using live and battlefield-current munitions. Which, of course, is what made the whole thing so damn good.

[Side story: the main weapon the SEALs carried throughout the movie is the M4 rifle, which was just coming into wide use back in 1998 when I got out of the Army. I had to ask a gun-nut friend if that was what it was because the ones carried in the film were heavily bedecked with different types of sights, scopes, stocks, camouflage, etc., which, as I understand it, are options each special operations soldier gets to personally decide on. If I ever need to accessorize an M4 (and who doesn't at some point need to?), I believe I might go with this feature.]

I have to admit, however, that this level of realism had an unexpected effect. It was eerie and dark, close enough to reality that it actually made me uncomfortable. In some scenes, it felt more like witnessing real footage from a terrorist attack; the opening scene was particularly disturbing. The blood, the splatters, the explosions, and the SEALs’/actors’ calibrated precision—knowing that these experiences aren’t far from the truth for these guys—REALLY—made it a bit hard to watch. There is something about looking into the face of a person who has personally seen, and perpetrated, violence and death and witnessed the darkest parts of the human psyche that can take the ooh-aah-show-me-more factor out anything.

Fortunately, the directors, Mike McCoy and Scott Waugh, and writer, Kurt Johnstad, seemed to understand that there needed to be a lighter side to give the film more “entertainment” value. The banter between the two lead SEALs, LT Rorke and Chief Dave, provided most of this comic relief, but also did something much more important and meaningful; it gave us viewers a sense of the granite-strong fraternal bond formed between people who live and function in a world of danger and chaos. In many ways, this subtle but powerful subtext may be more of a draw for potential new enlistees, as well as moviegoers in general. I suspect it is the same magic that moved so many war veterans who saw Saving Private Ryan. Explosions and splatter-patterns of brainy goo on walls go a long way (if you’re as much of a gore whore as I am), but what makes a person truly connect with a movie, a book, or even just a catchy image is feeling that emotional tug. And really, I’m not even sure a die hard anarchist’s eyes can stay dry at the sound of Taps on a bugle.

I’ll end with a nod to the filmmakers for doing their best to incorporate some female characters with more complexity than the stereotypical “wife left behind.” I won’t reveal any spoilers, and of course, it still doesn’t get a pass on the Bechdel Test. But in a movie based on an all male tactical team, you can hardly expect it to.

If you plan to see this movie, prepare yourself by doing two things: Bring Visine because the action and excitement are so non-stop you won’t blink the entire time. And stuff some tissue in your back pocket just in case your eyes get a little more teary at the end than you’ll feel like admitting. You can blame it on the Visine.

One last point, why does everyone refer to “the elite Navy SEALs”? Navy SEAL is the definition of elite.

Enjoy what you've seen so far? Subscribe by using the 'Click to Follow' button or enter your email near the top of the page, and never miss a post.

All content copyright unless otherwise specified © 2008-2013 by Tammy Salyer, writer. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to use short quotes provided proper attribution is given.

Movie Review: Haywire

What happens when you throw a nearly undefeated mixed martial arts champion into the "ring" with director Steven Soderbergh and such heavy-hitting Hollywood giants as Michael Douglas, Antonio Banderas, and Ewan MacGregor? Yep, pretty much what you'd expect.If you saw the trailer to Haywire, then you already know exactly what the movie is about. Exactly. A woman working as a gun-for-hire gets burned by her employer and must piece together why while trying to save her own skin. That's it.Haywire dances around the cage, never quite landing on being either an action movie or a thriller, but throws eye-watering punches every time the audience starts to get a bit bored. And I mean this almost literally. The film's sequence of events can easily be summed up in one line: stuff happens, Gina Carano kicks the shit out of some hapless mutt who's in way over his head, more stuff, more Gina battering men as if she were the vengeful ghost of every domestic violence victim in all of history, a little more stuff, and Gina finally gets her man. The plot surrounding the fight scenes in Haywire seems only to have been necessary in order to have the film show up on movie theatre screens instead of a giant cagefighting stage at the MGM or Ceasar's in Las Vegas, and it's meandering simplicity reflects this.Director Steven Soderbergh stayed very true to form by keeping every scene, with the exception of the fight scenes, yawningly subtle (think Solaris or Sex, Lies, and Videotape). The audience is almost duped into thinking there is more going on under the hood than what appears. He must have realized by the end of the film that he'd cut too many threads loose, and attempted to neatly tuck them all back in during one final scene of revelation. If not for this, the audience would have left the theatre feeling just as dazed as if Carano had landed one of her signature Muay Thai kicks to our heads.Do not get me wrong. Even though Haywire is by no stretch of the imagination analogous to a female lead Bourne-type film, Gina Carano's blazing fists-of-fury awesomeness goes a long, long way. I highly doubt anyone who is interested in seeing this film is going because they expect Oscar-worthy writing or performances. Despite the great actors mentioned, the movie revolves completely around showcasing Carano's undeniable talent as a fighter and being one sexy woman. Throughout the entire film, my own girl crush on her was doing the equivalent of a teeny bopper at an Elvis show.One thing I will give Haywire that might surprise you is something you don't get from your usual Hollywood heroine; and that's authenticity. Unlike, say, ninety pound and nearly muscle-free Zoe Saldana or Angelina Jolie, when Carano slams a knee or fist into someone's guts, you're really hoping she doesn't mis-time her strike and knock her sparring partner into oblivion. This is a woman that could easily--like in her sleep--turn your average person on the street into a crying mound of quivering wuss-flesh before they could shriek "tap out". Her illustrious MMA career made the fight scenes in Haywire almost as good as being ringside.Haywire, of course, comes nowhere near passing the Bechdel Test (there were only three scenes throughout that had any other women, and these were mostly just crowd), but it's essentially a technicality that fails it. Carano's character is at least the lead, and the movie isn't a romantic comedy (gag!). The good news is that Gina is a natural at showbizness, and her acting abilities are not as bad as they could be (think Jean Claude Van Damme or Steven Seagal). Though for her first big Hollywood film, she may have been better featured in something a little more down-to-earth, like Michelle Rodriguez's Girlfight (an all time fave of mine).If you're an MMA fan, or just like watching women fight like gladiators, this one is definitely for you. But, if you're hoping for an in depth, complex, and rich thriller/suspense film, you'll be better off waiting for the next Bourne (which, rumor has, will feature (girlish squee of joy), Jeremy Renner).Gina doing her thang.

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFHX2V0qGyU]

Enjoy what you've seen so far? Subscribe by using the 'Click to Follow' button or enter your email near the top of the page, and never miss a post.

All content copyright unless otherwise specified © 2008-2013 by Tammy Salyer, writer. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to use short quotes provided proper attribution is given.

Movie Review: The Debt

If you were a movie star, is there anyone you’d rather be than Jesper Christensen? Playing along side such fantastic, talented, and gorgeous women as Dame Judi Dench and Dame Helen Mirren would be any actor's dream come true. Few film stars have such grace, such presence, and such exquisite depth and charisma as these two marvels.

But Jesper’s no scrub either. As a doer of evil, there may be no equal (except of course, Daniel Day Lewis in There Will Be Blood), and his role  in Labor Day’s new release The Debt has proven that there is just not enough of this master of the diabolique in current film.

Of course, I admit, I have an over-the-top bias for Danes and Danish cinema. Susanne Bier is probably the best thing to ever happen to movie-making, and for dark humor, does anyone come close to Anders Thomas Jensen? Coming from a movie culture such as this, it’s no surprise that viewers get the caliber of darkness and brutality that Christensen emotes.

The Debt is the story of a team of three young Mossad agents in the ‘60s that are assigned to take captive the Surgeon of Birkenau (Jesper Christensen), a WWII-era monster loosely based on Dr. Joseph Mengele.  The team, comprised of a beautiful translator (Jessica Chastain), an ambitious unit commander (Marton Csokas), and a driven yet damaged operative (Sam Worthington), all too quickly falls into the inescapable games of humanity, and are tormented to the breaking point by their charge.

On the surface, the first movie you may think of to compare this to is 2005’s Munich. Same dark theme, same driven yet guileless characters. But a story that more readily compares is 1994’s Death and the Maiden, a similarly haunting tale of  victims of Nazi ruthlessness facing their demons. The Debt has the same intimate feel as the Sigourney Weaver, Ben Kingsley film, folding us viewers into the delicately intertwined hands of the young, idealistic protagonists who only know they want to do right, but have not yet learned how to comfortably categorize right into simple terms of black and white.

Director John Madden has done a brilliant job, much as Roman Polanski did in Death and the Maiden, of ratcheting the tension tighter and tighter in every scene of this movie. From the relationship between the three agents, to the plotting and violent capture of Vogel, and on to the mounting tedium, uncertainty, fear and hatred the agents endure while holding Vogel captive, this film lets viewers personally and intimately experience the slow spiritual and emotional decline that grows from hopes for justice into acts of violent revenge, and finally, prayers for redemption.

While you won’t leave The Debt feeling good about, well, anything much, you won’t be left with a lack of deeply moral and philosophical questions to explore for the next few days. Some of those I took away include: Is a man’s death fair justice to those he has killed, or is it merely a tentative salve that hides surviving victims’ wounds for ever so brief a time? Also, is it fair to expect a few people to sacrifice their innocence, or even lives, for what may be, but is not guaranteed to be, a happier, safer future for others?

On the lighter side, the big shocker of the film is that Sam Worthington is indeed a human being after all. After shooting to stardom as first a robot, then a demi-god, and finally a giant, blue, über-humanoid, it was a bit surprising to see him in a role where he’s just a regular Joe who can’t crush cars in his fists or jump from 700 foot high cliffs onto the back of flying pterodactyls (or whatever those were). Despite such a long hiatus from roles that required much more besides fighting, yelling, and looking pissed off, it was surprising, in a good way, to see him show a range of emotions. Of course, playing the younger version of the character also played by eternally melancholy Ciarán Hinds helped his credibility a great deal. Hinds practically bleeds gravitas and despair with merely a simple shift of the eyes or dip of the chin. With Tom Wilkinson and Helen Mirren playing the older versions of the other two protagonists, you know that the film is going to be teeming with volatile emotional conflict and intensity.

There is nothing about this film that would keep a person seeking something serious, dramatic, and deeply thought-provoking from writing off a couple of hours some evening this week to watch it. Love, revenge, genocide, hate, truth—your tragic themes know no end. Just be sure to bring your tank of helium. You’re going to need something to make you laugh after it’s over.

Enjoy what you've seen so far? Subscribe by using the 'Click to Follow' button or enter your email near the top of the page, and never miss a post.

All content copyright unless otherwise specified © 2008-2013 by Tammy Salyer, writer. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to use short quotes provided proper attribution is given.

Movie Review: Thor

What do dreamy blue eyes, steroid cocktails and giant hammers have in common? They are all the main components of the new Marvel comic-adapted movie Thor. Notice what is missing from this main component list: good acting, strong plot, complex and well-developed characters. But who needs those minor elements when you have Marvel’s legions of fans backing you? Let’s break this down.First, blue eyes. Yes, I’m a sucker for a nice pair, but when they become the only noteworthy characteristic of a movie’s main character, I can’t help but feel as if there just isn’t enough movie in my movie.But wait! They’re NOT the only characteristic of Thor, as played by the once hunky Aussie actor Chris Hemsworth. There is the apparently constant diet of anabolic milkshakes that turned this formerly proportionate actor into something both unnaturally lumpy and strangely grody (to revive an adjective from my middle school years). I almost couldn’t see his head, much less his eyes, on top of that over-inflated Sequoia stump of muscle mass. Note to bodybuilders--when the diameter of your neck exceeds the diameter of your brainpan, it’s time to drop the barbell and walk away. Godiva’s sake man, something could burst!Then of course, there is Thor’s massive hammer, Mjölnir, which, despite Odin’s not-too-subtle remonstration that it could actually be used for building as well as destroying, Thor wields like a supersonic baton of death throughout the film. Seriously, Thor’s mad twirling skillz would easily make every Majorette in the world cower in shame at their pathetic and puny human artifice. Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying: Thor could expand his repertoire of hobbies to include marching in a baton-twirling troupe. He really is that good. You can probably tell I’ve never read the Marvel comic namesake of this movie. The aforementioned legions of fans may well, most likely do in fact, have a completely different takeaway from it than I did. Besides, it’s not as if i didn’t enjoy it. Where ever did you get that idea? I am easily entertained, after all. As long as there are epic special effects, plot is optional. Other perks included Anthony Hopkins, who I’ve often wished I could just sit down and have tea with. The man has more presence and acting ability than half of Hollywood combined. And of course, Stellan Skarsgård is always a delight. His role in Good Will Hunting has won him permanent kudos in my book (Breaking the Waves notwithstanding). But the absolute highlight--SPOILER ALERT--was the cameo by Jeremy “I make Modesto more than just some hick burg in the flats of California-land” Renner. I won’t go into more detail than that.So, the big question you’re probably asking yourself is: Should I see this flick or not? Unfortunately, only you can answer that. If you love Marvel, big muscles, metaphysical questions about magic vs. science, and Natalie “I’m the female Matt Damon” Portman, then the answer is unequivocally “yes.” But, and this is a big but, if you require a strong story and meaningful character arc, you may prefer to see the next Harry Potter instead. Just sayin’.

Enjoy what you've seen so far? Subscribe by using the 'Click to Follow' button or enter your email near the top of the page, and never miss a post.

All content copyright unless otherwise specified © 2008-2013 by Tammy Salyer, writer. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to use short quotes provided proper attribution is given.

Movie Review: The Warrior's Way

Raise your hand if you loved the movies Hero and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. Wow, a lot of you. Okay, now raise your hand if you loved the movies The Good, The Bad and The Ugly and The Proposition. Um, yeah, another waving sea of fingers, as expected. Excellent.Now, imagine a director with the stunning creative vision of Ang Lee (Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon) and the campy-yet-engaging wit of Baz Luhrman (Moulin Rouge) taking those four movies and shaking them together in a snow globe. What you get is The Warrior’s Way.I loved this movie. It combined the whimsical with the dangerous, the terrible with the daring, and the grit with the wit of a something almost akin to a Shakespearean dramedy (not that Shakespeare would have ever used the word “dramedy”). It retains that epic quality we so love in movies like Crouching Tiger and Hero, yet still brings to life quirky, mischievous, and downright rotten characters that you can relate to. Especially if can fly or shoot a stick of dynamite falling through the air from the top of a ferris wheel.The story, while simple, is filled with timeless themes and juicy plotlines that never fail to titillate: revenge, betrayal, love, broken promises, sacrifice and redemption. The hero, Yang, played by Seoul-based actor Dong-gun Jang is an assassin whose training began as a young boy and was so cruel and complete that part of his rites of passage were to kill his own best friend. When he grows to adulthood, he finds there is still a thread of humanity at his core and he cannot complete the mission of blood commanded by his assassin clan, the Sad Flutes. The mission: to kill a baby girl, the last survivor of a rival clan.Instead of this grisly chore, Yang saves the child and flees in search of an old friend who has escaped the Sad Flute life and become a sword-swinging virtuoso in a traveling circus in America. But what he finds is not what he expects. His friend has died, and the circus is on a permanent dead-end stop in a dead-end dusty town far from the limelight.Yet, with the help and encouragement of a sassy wannabe knife thrower, Lynne, played by Kate Bosworth, this homeless drifter finally finds a place he can settle down for good, and a troop of similarly lost souls to help him raise his adopted daughter.But of course, villainy is afoot. This time, in the form of a megalomaniacal rapist with a fetish for good teeth, who leads a gang of cut-throat desperadoes on annual forages of terror and wantonness into Yang’s new home. And not only that, Yang’s old clan is after him to finish the job he failed and mete out the ultimate punishment for doing so.Like any good western, there’s a showdown at high noon. But you’ve never seen a showdown of this grandiosity. To call it explosive would not do it justice. To call it bloody would not properly capture the volume of gore. And to call it anything but excitingly original would be to challenge me to a movie watching duel.While you won’t walk away from The Warrior’s Way with a profound sense of wonder or emotional drainage, you will walk away feeling thoroughly entertained. And with a supporting cast including Geoffrey Rush and Danny Huston, come on, you just can’t get any better.(If you think Geoffrey Rush is as amazing as I do, run, don’t walk, to Blockbuster and rent Quills. The BEST (only?) movie about the Marquis de Sade in history. Rush is truly sublime.)I highly recommend seeing all the movies just mentioned, but start with The Warrior's Way. If you do, tell me what you think.

Enjoy what you've seen so far? Subscribe by using the 'Click to Follow' button or enter your email near the top of the page, and never miss a post.

All content copyright unless otherwise specified © 2008-2013 by Tammy Salyer, writer. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to use short quotes provided proper attribution is given.

Where Have I Been?

Hey Folks. Sorry there have been no postings lately. I have been REE-DIC-U-LOUSLY busy. Doing National Novel Writing Month, better known as NaNoWriMo, so putting out 2-3000 words into a new novel per day. Which is a lot, in case you were wondering. The goal, of course, is to have an entire novel written within a month. Eek!!!! Anyway, I'm excited about this one--been thinking about it for several months. It's got wolves, Vikings, Inuits, struggling grad students, murder, ghosts, demonic possession. So, you know, kinda bland and boring.Also, I'm applying for an MBA program and building my first website. And then I got hooked on the series Lost, and there's still Castle, and Jon Stewart has been more irresistible than usual lately. Plus there's all the research to do for the novel. Whoa! Where does the time go?If you have time for a good movie, I recommend Dorian Gray, based on Oscar Wilde's novel. Really good Victorian England pathos film with monsters (or are they only human?).Oh yeah, and also, check out The Fast Runner. The first film every made entirely in the Inuit language, Inuktitut, and based on an ancient Inuit myth. Quite a fascinating and spell-binding glimpse into life in the Arctic and this lovely culture.

Enjoy what you've seen so far? Subscribe by using the 'Click to Follow' button or enter your email near the top of the page, and never miss a post.

All content copyright unless otherwise specified © 2008-2013 by Tammy Salyer, writer. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to use short quotes provided proper attribution is given.