***½ (3.5/5)

Directed by: James Watkins
Written by: Jane Goldman
Based on book by: Susan Hill

Hammer. That word will always strike a chord in any true horror fan. Have they done themselves proud with their first truly Gothic horror since the late 70s?

We’ll get to that.

THE HUNGER GAMES–I really have no investment in these stories at all. I kind of want to read the books, but they’re not on the top of my list because I feel like I’ve already read the best book about the exact same subject. What can these books add to Battle Royale? If the preview is to be believed…not much. Sure, it’s more of a Running Man sort of event and there’s a teen romance involved (more so than in BR), but that doesn’t interest me as much as what was going on in BR. I guess we’ll see, but I’m not seeing how this is truly different…except that it was written for young adults.

SNOW WHITE AND THE HUNSTMAN–I hate to say this, because I kind of love Tarsem…but I’m more interested in this dark version of the Snow White story than his silly comedy version with Julia Roberts. It helps that Rupert Sanders’ version has Charlize Theron as the wicked witch. She’s just a better actress than Julia and I can see her being more menacing. Visually, it looks cool, but I’m still not completely sold. I’ll check out this first time director’s flick, though…at some point.

7500–This movie was directed by the creator of Ju-On…and it kind of shows. It’s J-horror on a plane. That could be cool, or it could be, well…Ju-On. One thing is for sure, though: John Denver has never been more ominous.

Time to bring the Hammer down.

Wow. Sorry.

Hammer Films has been out of the picture for decades. But, for about 10 years, they were at the top of their game, churning out a slew of great, Gothic horror films that pushed the envelope of gore for a short time. (Even they couldn’t keep up with the 60s, though.) By 1979′s remake of The Lady Vanishes, the once great production company had fallen to new trends in horror. They reappeared occasionally to do a tv movie or a one-off straight to video flick (Beyond The Rave, anyone?), but no one paid any attention at all.

That was, until they decided to remake a beloved modern foreign horror film. Let Me In was a bit of an under-performer, but it did well enough to warrant more films from the venerated horror house. The Resident (featuring Hammer’s former leading man, Christopher Lee!) and Wake Wood followed to not much fanfare.

Hopefully, though, with their return to the Gothic horror that brought them to the world’s attention in the first place, we’ll see more and better Hammer films coming down the pipe.

The Woman In Black starts off with three little girls jumping to their deaths from their bedroom window. From there, we’re taken to  Arthur Kipps (Daniel Radcliffe), a grieving widow who has to take care of his four year old son. The young lawyer is sent off to a take a look at the papers of a recently deceased woman to see what should happen to her dilapidated estate. What he doesn’t know is that the house is apparently haunted and that he is about to start a chain reaction that could possibly kill every child in the nearby village.

The film is full of jump scares, but they’re the kind that you won’t get pissed off at. There are no cats in the closet…it’s always a ghostly face or a rocking chair that IS actually just rocking the fuck out. There were plenty of times that there would have been a Prof Wagstaff-shaped hole in the wall as I swam away from the tiny island, tide be damned. (The house is on an island that has only one way on or off…and that way is only usable when the tide is out. THE FUCK?!)

The performances across the board are at least serviceable with veteran character actor Ciaran Hinds as Sam being the real standout. Sam is Arthur’s only friend in the village and the only one who doesn’t believe that Arthur brought the Woman In Black back to wreak havoc on the children. He’s skeptical of anything that doesn’t show hard evidence, but he also knows not to push his luck. This man is awesome and he needs more roles…although I think he’s gotten quite a few in the last year. I had no idea who he was until BNAT this year when he showed up in both Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy and Ghost Rider 2.

The Woman In Black is not an amazing film by any means. It is, however, a perfectly creepy ghost story set in the early part of the last century with more creep-factor scares than just about all of the films I saw last year put together. It’s a good start to what will hopefully be a long string of Gothic films from the masters of the genre.

Here’s what I hope for from Hammer in the future:

1. MORE GOTHIC! Keep going with movies like this. Perfect it again. Keep doing it until you get it down again…and then do it a lot more.

2. Get a good stock crew again. The reason that Hammer worked so well in the first place was that it was basically a family making these great little films for little to no money. They kept the same cast and crew for years and it helped keep things simple and familiar. Keep Ciaran Hinds around for a few more films. He’s GREAT in this sort of film. Hell, I even think Dan Radcliffe would be a good stock actor for the company. All he had to do here was be sad and scared and he was good at it. He fits the time period and he’s got a built in audience.

3. MORE CHRISTOPHER LEE!! I know you brought him back for one film, but it wasn’t a true Hammer film. It was some one-off that no one cared about. Bring him in for small roles in movies like this one. He did it for Tim Burton. He’ll do it for you guys. Trust me.

4. Don’t worry about trends. Sure, Gothic horror isn’t super popular right now. That’s fine. There are lots of fans out there, though, and we want to see these movies on the big screen. They’ll make their money back so that you can keep making more. Eventually, others will catch on.

Follow these rules and you’ll have a good run. Maybe not like the hey-day of the late 50s and 60s, but it’ll be good. For everyone.

****½ (4.5/5)

Directed by: David Fincher
Written by: Steven Zaillian
Based on book by: Stieg Larsson

Before the turn of the Millineum, let’s see some previews.

CONTRABAND–Mark Wahlberg has had a pretty interesting career. It’s a little hard to understand sometimes, actually. He’s gone from silly white rapper to silly b-movie actor to pretty well-respected actor all within about 15-20 years. He’s still doing some great stuff (The Departed will always stand as one of his best films), but sometime he chooses to just do a fun little action flick like Shooter…or Contraband. Could this one be that fun? Kinda looks like it. I’ll check it out.

THE IRON LADY–I’ve never been a fan of Margaret Thatcher, but I am a fan of Meryl Streep. (Who isn’t?) And I’m pretty interested in the story of this important figure in British (and world) history, no matter how I felt about her politics. Although, this was directed by Phyllida Lloyd (Mamma Mia!). Not too enthused by that. Watch for everyone’s favorite librarian (Anthony Head) throughout the preview.

21 JUMP STREET–Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum may get some butts in seats, but this looks pretty awful. A retread of an 80s series that is basically a footnote in the career of Johnny Depp doesn’t sound particularly interesting to me. Probably give this one a miss unless I start hearing good things…but I doubt it.

Ok. Let’s check out that tat.

When Stieg Larsson’s book about a couple of investigative reporters getting caught up in a 40 year old murder mystery suddenly became a surprise international bestseller, it was really only a matter of time before Hollywood put it onscreen. It didn’t make it before the Swedes got to their countryman’s work first, putting all three of the books in the series up before anyone else could even breath on them.

Good for them, I say. I’ve only seen the first film in the Swedish series (and I haven’t read any of the books), but it is very good.

How does the American version stack up? Well, let me tell you something about what you’re about to read a review of first.

Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig) is on the edge of being out of a job. He’s just exposed a multi-millionaire as a crook, but the rich guy got the drop on him. He sued Mikael for libel and now it’s a national affair.

To blow off some steam and get out of the line of fire, Mikael decides to take a job as a sort of historian for Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer). Vanger and his family are among the richest people in Sweden. Rich enough to basically own their own island. But there’s a cut that has never healed. Henrik’s niece, Harriet, disappeared when she was in her teens and is believed to have been murdered. Henrik wants Mikael to find out what really happened. He and his brother, Martin (Stellan Skarsgard) are on one side while the rest of the family seems to be on the other…of course, one of them is a “former” Nazi.

This is truly one fucked up family.

Meanwhile, Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara) is fighting for more than just her job. She’s a bit of a rebel. In fact, she’s just about the most punk rock character I’ve seen on screen since Sid Vicious. She’s not particularly likeable, but you can’t help but pull for her. She’s a bit of a genius, but that doesn’t always help her get out of situations where she’s forced to give a fat man a blowjob so that she can get some cash out of her own account. (She’s a ward of the state at 23 because the state found her incompetent at a very early age.)

She ends up working the case with Mikael. Chaos and death ensue.

None of this really even hint at the darkness that Mikael and Lisbeth uncover in their investigations. This is by no means a happy story. It’s dark, dark, dark and no one but David Fincher could bring it to the screen. He’s become fairly subdued since Fight Club, but he’s still always on the edge of madness and it works perfectly with this story. Between that and the score by Trent Reznor (watch for a reference to his band that’s pretty hard to miss), this is a pretty note-perfect adaptation of a book that I now want to read.

Of course, none of it would be possible without the right Lisbeth. After a casting call that rivaled the call for Scarlet O’Hara (ok, maybe not, but close) and having the originator of the role, Noomi Rapace, turn down playing her again, Fincher and the studio finally decided on Rooney Mara, the show-stealer of the first scene of The Social Network. They made the perfect decision. Rooney is fucking amazing and does things that (actually did) make a grown man cry. If she’s not up for every major award this year, I’m not sure what I’ll do. I know what she’ll do, though. It’ll involve a stun gun and a very large dildo.

There’s nothing pleasant about this movie. It’s not for the squeamish. It’s for hardcore film people and people who love a really good story. As with just about any David Fincher film, it’s not for everyone. But it is a great film that, if you can handle it, will reward you.

One last thing: WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU THINKING, TAKING YOUR CHILD TO THIS MOVIE?!?! I can’t believe that a small family walked past me to get to their seats before the movie started! The little boy couldn’t have been more than 7…probably younger. You know, maybe you should see the movie first! It’s not that there’s sex in the film because, really, small children don’t care about that. It’s the fact that there’s sexual fucking violence! THAT will scar a kid!

Wow. Parents. Just don’t even know what to say.

Directed by: Jan Egleson
Written by: Andrew Klavan
Based on book by: Simon Brett

It’s pretty kick-ass whenever black comedy is done right. No compromises, no switchbacks, no tritely false happy endings. While I can’t say its quite as brilliant as “Homer’s Enemy,” “A Shock to the System” is still fairly kick-ass as it is succinct and brutal–not to mention funny in a low key, audacious kind of way (though a few deep belly laughs happen occasionally).

Like that episode of the Simpsons, the comedy is dark and STAYS THAT WAY. It goes all of the way. The leading Michael Caine character, in one of the movie’s greatest assets, not only isn’t redeemed but doesn’t care one way or the other. As it should be.

Watch that face, listen to him:  Michael Caine.  I laughed so hard at one scene in particular which had Caine’s disaffected Graham waving good-bye to his detestable, insatiable wife while holding a saccharine smile for just a bit too long.  A rather clever use of the ‘f’-word at another point made me laugh nearly as hard.

Let’s talk about Michael Caine for a moment. He’s subtle, he’s smooth, he’s funny and he’s great. He brings an authority and believability to almost any character he plays. Understated, graceful, dry–Caine is, for me, one of the few actors that can command me to watch a movie simply because he’s in it. I just love to see him work.

Here, Caine plays a character that either breaks his sense of morality or has it broken; its a little open. He’s an exec in an American corporation with a shrew of a wife and a soul-sucking, patronizing position. Right off the bat, like James Mason’s Ed Avery in “Bigger Than Life,” we can tell a little disgruntlement is growing. He resents his life and seems to grow smaller, to have less energy every day.  Eventually, after he reaches a breaking point, we see him lose his humility and degradation and become more lithe, sexual and ruthless before our very eyes.

But its funny. Its funny partly due to the screwy, modernistic score that undercuts all of the action, from the film’s calm but creeping and engaging direction by Jan Egleson, from its tight, trim screenplay that’s rightly ruthless and unsentimental, but its funny most of all because of Caine’s performance as Graham Marshall.

As an actor, Michael Caine doesn’t screw around.  He doesn’t ever announce that he’s acting.  We get behavior that reflects a quiet, reflective understanding of what makes us human.  So, naturally, he’s funny.  Not necessarily in the way that makes you laugh, but grounded and realistic.  In this movie, though, his character is indeed very funny as he is cold and brutal.

Caine’s character, in what might be a gimmicky way to start the movie, gets a ‘shock to his system’ when he touches an ungrounded light bulb chain. I suppose the movie could want me to see this as his catalyst for his transformation, but I didn’t really care. Caine’s very real performance grounded (NO GODDAMNED PUN INTENDED) this silly premise for me and made his character transformation more about what it takes to push a man beyond his principles of good and evil.

And so, we witness Michael Caine’s methodical take down of all of the oppressive forces that gave him shit. That’s almost all I really want to say about what happens. There’s a potential love interest that works pretty well, he becomes more cold and frightening as the movie progresses, you know…its pretty good.  I’ll say this, I guess: the scene that’s truly key to the story and his transformation–one of my favorites out of a number of good ones–is one where Caine deals with one of the several bums that he presumably encounters every day. He’s had a bad, bad day at the office and tells him, increasingly authoritatively to ‘go away!’ In one swift second, he’s accidentally pushed the bum right in front of an oncoming subway train and instantly kills him. For a while, he’s oppressively paranoid and panicked, yet, as in “Crimes and Misdemeanors,” he finds that he’s not in hell, he’s not been punished; he is, as he puts it, “free.” Its all downhill from there, bobby boy.

You could use this movie as a great example of the kind of authorship an actor can bring to a film.  Despite the movie’s many positive, smart qualities, they are all elevated and transcended by the depth of character that Caine is willing to plumb in his performance.

I think my main problem with this movie is its swiftness. It may just be a bit TOO succinct. Hell, its only an hour and a half long…it hardly seems long enough to soak in the shifting psyche of a complex man. Its no “Taxi Driver” that’s for sure.  However, its tone is true.  The skilled, deadpan direction, the performances, intelligent–despite certain gimmicky touches–screenplay and score make the weaknesses less important.  The score in particular is very inventive and, thankfully and remarkably, remains completely free of post 1990 decay. No synths to speak of (except in a short, in-the-scene bit of Stevie Wonder), nothing dated really. In fact, the whole movie may work even better now than then; which may have more to say about our modern apathy towards morality demonstrated by our higher-ups than it does about the perfection of the production.  Our stale, stifling offices haven’t changed much in 22 years.

There are a few weaknesses in the otherwise very smart and dark script, as well as there being a poorly cast minor supporting character that consequently serves an only functional role at best.  The emphasis in the narration on the ‘dark magic’ metaphor manifests a couple of times too often in actual spoken dialogue.  Once, really, was too much.  These little perturbations break up the darkness and create the momentary vibe of a cute ’80′s fantasy rather than a grotesquely cynical, dark comedy.  Though the feeling only lasts for a moment, its enough to be a little jarring.  Before long, though, we get right back to the darkness and all is mostly regained and forgiven.

I should add that Peter Riegert (remember him from “The Mask?” “Animal House?” “Local Hero?”) is perfect as Caine’s main younger superior in what simply isn’t an Oscar kind of role. It isn’t a meaty role–that belongs to Caine–but he fills it with a natural understanding that never shifts into overt villainy. He’s really just a sleaze and a shrewd, cold-hearted businessman to me rather than really being out to get anyone in particular (as in many a lesser film).  Elizabeth McGovern as well gives a very good and very different kind of performance that makes her more than just a love interest.

But really, the descent of Caine’s character is what this movie’s all about. And, because its Michael Caine, we want him to get away with it; despite how unremittingly ruthless and slick he becomes. And he never apologizes–not even when he gets the girl.

Aaron J Brian

When I first heard it, I think I was a freshman in high school.  I had already absorbed and loved “Tommy,” “Who’s Next,” and “My Generation,” and “Quadrophenia” was inevitably to come.  Right from the swelling storm of the atmospheric intro track, I was taken with it.  I had already heard “The Real Me” before on a compilation (that in itself was very important to who I was and who I am), but now I heard it with a new sense of paranoia and ‘fuck it’ style of abandon.  The words stood out:

“The cracks between the paving stones
Like rivers of flowing veins
Strange people who know me
Peeping from behind every window pane
The girl I used to love
Lives in this yellow house
Yesterday she passed me by
She doesn’t want to know me now.”

With the screaming chorus:

“Can you see the real me
Can ya, can ya?”

It was so hurt, so angry, so frank and so directly spoken from me, it seemed.  It was and is very potent angst.  The music in conjunction struck me as hard as anything ever has.  More than any other later period Who recording, the whole thing seems almost completely off-kilter.  Roger Daltrey belts out the angry lines with such thick conviction and strength that you forget that what he’s singing is so high-pitched and vulnerable.  His voice even strains under the pressure in an endearing and truly awesome way towards the end.  The guitar by Pete Townshend is agitated, scruffy and scratchy while still laying out the discipline in thick, authoritative chords.  John  Entwistle, in this song, is busier than ever.  His bass provides an endless number of memorable, melodic twists and turns that help keep the song speeding by and bubbling with energy.

Keith Moon, the drummer, speaking of energy, sounds nearly batshit.  I was thinking about his general drumming style the other day, and decided that its kind of like standard rock drumming, but everything you’ve ever wanted and more.  There’s often a basic beat or at least the template of one that he’s dancing or stomping around, but he’s all over the place with fills and rolls and brutally (actually brutal, not metal kid ‘brutal’.  Asshole) hard hitting cymbal washes and flourishes.  All of this would be ok by itself, but in Moon’s hands with this group of yarboes we get a completely distinctive sound that rolls and bounces along through even the heaviest of songs and subjects.  Keith Moon’s subtlety, individuality and sensitivity behind the drumset make for absolutely essential parts that can be memorized almost like the lyrics.  Imagine ‘Sparks,’  ‘Going Mobile,’ ‘I Can See For Miles,’ or ‘A Quick One…While He’s Away’ without Moon’s bright, unique touches.

“The Real Me” sets the tone for the entire album, which is a very, very good thing.  The problem with “Quad” is that while the feelings expressed in such a raw state in “The Real Me” remain constant and true throughout, not all of the songs reach those heights.  Furthermore, a lot of them take some stretch of the imagination to see them being played by the same band that first put out the almost childish in comparison “I Can’t Explain” just nine years earlier.  Of course, that fundamentally isn’t a problem.  What is a problem, is deciding if you like the new sound.

I think there may be a stage for everyone in his/her own hero worship where they simply want to love whatever their hero does.  Whether it comes from some need to cling to perfection, I don’t know.  But I went through it.  So, for a while, I assimilated all of the Who’s material that I wanted to and elevated most of it to genius level.   “Quadrophenia” was the one album that, over time, has really shifted around from love to indifference and back to love.  I was and still am, to a lesser degree, conflicted by it.  At the time, I sort of just selectively heard what I loved from the album and conveniently ignored the rest in order to call it as great as I wanted it to be.  But now, after about 9 years or so of “Quadrophenia,” I think I’m really able to hear it honestly; for better or worse.

What do I hear?  Well, I still don’t love all of the songs, for one thing.  Yet, something new becomes clear.  Once you get used to the most frenzied of rock bands playing songs that almost sound like show tunes, you become free to drink in the absolute sincerity and quality melodies with which the whole project simply breathes with.  It is this straight-from-the-heart quality combined with simply some truly excellent music that makes the whole album, excepting a few bores, work so powerfully.

I won’t go song by song through the album, but I’ll say what for me makes the album so worth hearing and so curious at the same time.  Its frankly odd to have such overblown and show-tune-like songs like “Is It in My Head?” and “Helpless Dancer” and “I’ve Had Enough” alongside such breathtaking, heartbreaking classics like “Love Reign O’er Me,” “5:15,” and “I’m One.”  But, I’ve learned to live with what I cannot change; and, nowadays, the songs I like or love far outnumber the clunkier ones.

When I was a younger lad, the urge to simply explode on stage was at the forefront of my mind quite often.  “Quadrophenia” both reflected and instilled such ideas onto and into me.  I wanted, not to be a ‘rock star’ like the Disney channel talks about, but I wanted, simply, to impress upon others something incredible.  I wanted them to sit down, shut up, and pay attention as I slammed them with blistering feedback and made them understand.  This only sporadically came to fruition with bands I was (and still am) in, but the dream was there and was really all that mattered.  “Quadrophenia” both helped create that dream and reflected what dreams were already there.

Not that the album aimed to be truly triumphant or all-powerful in this way—it was too honest and self-aware for that.  Rather, it simply expressed these dreams and desires and used tremendous power to express the feelings of the meek and the helpless and the outcast.  It seemed to hold the world in its hand while, realistically, pissing it all away or meekly hiding in the corner at the same time.  Let me explain:

With a song like “I’m One,” for example, you get a very powerful, well-written, melodic, smashing-good song, that contradictorily demonstrates awesome power while reflecting the (mostly, I’ll explain in a moment) powerless thoughts of a blustering, lonely, alienated adolescent.

But he’s ‘one.’  He may be a loser with no chance to win, but he’s one.  This is his only powerful insight.   It’s not clear what being ‘one’ means exactly, but for the hero, and for me, its clear that to be ‘one’ is to be at least something rather than the nothing that he feels like.

“Ill-fitting clothes and I blend in the crowd
Fingers so clumsy, voice too loud
But I’m one
I am one
And I can see that this is me
And I will be, you’ll all see
I’m the one.”

I think this sums up the entire album, in a way; or at least it sums up what’s great about it.  We get strong, authoritative, exuberant music and melody to hold up the bluster of a weak, inarticulate kid and to even lead him to a kind of mystical new understanding and even appreciation of himself.  Its really not hard to see why a young, sensitive boy like me grasped onto it so hard.  I think a lot of the greatest art, or at least a lot of my favorite stuff, performs this kind of transcendence in contradiction.  This theme runs through the heart of “Quad” and especially in my favorite moments.

What IS my favorite moment?  There probably isn’t one.  But for a good while, “5:15” was my favorite Who song, and that says a LOT.  Its not like it has moved down the list much either.

The song seems to say everything and nothing about disillusionment, failure, alienation and the real lack of a place to call home.  He’s disappointed in his heroes, his past and himself most of all.

“Where have I been?
Out of my brain on the 5:15.”

The words work well enough when looked at on a piece of paper, but this isn’t poetry, its music.  That’s what unimaginative people never understand about lyrics.  What makes the song so wistfully tragic is the anthem-like way the song goes.  We get a familiar Townshend chord progression that only serves to prolong the half-reverie between the sad, wonderful piano part that frames the song asking:

“Why should I care?  Why should I care?”

Moon’s drumming has scarcely been more creative.  As the song progresses, the train nears a stop, as does the reflection.  As he comes down, both from the pills and the train, he doesn’t care anymore.  He just slinks off into relative obscurity and quiet desperation.  Moon’s drumming mimics a train more closely than almost anything I’ve ever heard before.  It is not a gimmick, however, as it breaks down the hero, slows him down, and finally stops his mind from racing, or indeed, moving in any significant way at all.  His drumming ‘settles’ the dream.

I can’t get enough of that chorus—“out of my brain on the 5:15.”  With the melody written by Pete and intoned by Roger, its so loud, so defiant, so angry and so embracing of its failure that it’s beautiful.  It practically twirls the mic itself.

I suppose the guitar work in the song could be seen as nothing special, but I don’t talk to those people.  I’ve always believed that, as wonderful a visual, visceral and symbolic image as the ‘windmill’ is–the act of swinging one’s arm wide about oneself to hit the guitar strings–especially and maybe only in Pete’s arms, the act has a wonderful SOUND too.  In the guitar to “5:15,” we can hear the windmills and the pick scraping down the strings.  It just makes me want to dance.  In the context of the song, it creates the height from which the hero must fall back into indifference and desperation.  The guitar, like all of Pete’s best, is so ecstatic that its infectious, and its truly affecting when the part takes its leave.

Basically, what you get with “5:15” is a typical day in most people’s lives where they have a moment to reflect, however unpleasant it may be, before they drift back into the comfort of the present.  When I was younger, the ‘comfort’ of the present, to be un-reflective, was, to say the least, harder to do.  I won’t lie and say that I was a miserable, unhappy person, but the reflective state of mind made up of insecurities and disappointments in myself and others and the world was hard to displace.  “5:15” is an anthem to reflection, which is what makes it one of my favorite songs ever.

The more I think about “Quadrophenia,” the more I’m tempted to ignore its faults and say its completely great.  But its got a couple of problems besides just a couple of its songs being weak.  Its overblown beyond belief, for one.  There’s an absurd amount of reverb as well as having a few overextended chord sequences and repeated refrains and over-inflated, exaggerated vocals.   Respected internet critic Mark Prindle has called “Quad” a “bunch of flabby show tunes for old people” and, at one time, I may have agreed with him.   In “Quad’s” worst moments, it seems, once again, odd that these weak elements could even be within a thousand miles of its best parts, let alone on the same album.  Its not so much because these elements are truly awful, but that they couldn’t be farther from the youth that not only the album is about, but what the Who seemed to be about and represent since their very beginning.  Interestingly enough, incidentally, I really like “The Dirty Jobs” now—the most synth-laden and show-tuney of the tracks.

In fact, what led me to write what you’re reading now, was listening to “Doctor Jimmy” again after years of kind of hating it.  I just wanted to see if it was as bad as I thought.  As it turns out, it isn’t.  But the production with its reverb and keyboards and general lack of Pete’s guitar still is.  It doesn’t help that Daltrey, who creates another problem for “Quad” in the process, occasionally goes overboard with his delivery of stuff like this.  When its a sensitive, quavering Pete-song, and not a rocking one, sometimes Daltrey can make it unintentionally overstated on this album (and on stuff like “The Song is Over”).  He can bring too much theatricality to what could just be a song, not necessarily an opera.  “Doctor Jimmy” is one of those moments.  Still, its got both damned good lyrics and damned good melody, and is still enjoyable because of them.

The only truly weak tracks for me now are on side two of the album:  “Is It In My Head?” and “I’ve Had Enough.”  Some of the lyrics in “Helpless Dancer” are kind of dumb, but overall I still really like the song.  And, really, I love the choruses and other parts of “Head” and “Enough,” I just don’t like the production, any part of the verses or Roger’s tone.  These parts sound like Gilbert & Sullivan’s impression of a Who song for some musical.  This, I cannot abide.  I should also add that I’m not a fan of the ‘Zoot suit’ stuff in the otherwise beautiful ‘Cut My Hair’ or the ‘my jacket’s gonna be cut…’ faux-rocking refrains that jump in out of nowhere to remind you that you’re listening to songs that link together.  We don’t need that reminder, Pete.

“Bellboy,” however, the fourth song on side three, is a magnificent song that works in such an almost arrogant way.  I’m not talking about typical rock star style arrogance, of which the Who remain relatively free of (hear that Oasis?), but the kind of serious defiance needed for Townshend to write a song so very theatrical and operatic while also having an intricate and stomping chord progression that, as the song rises and falls in action, rocks unabashedly.  I can’t help but smile in listening to the Who (with Townshend’s songwriting) simply get away with it, let alone just enjoying it as the great song that it is.  It took serious balls to make such a dynamic and seemingly odd song.  In a way, I could have just described almost every Who song ever made.   But while the Who had always been theatrical, culminating up to that point with “Tommy,” they’d never before skirted so close to out and out stage musical style trappings while still rocking–and they don’t always succeed.  But here in “Bellboy,” its daring and perfect and unlike anything I’ve really heard before.

I love the one tom that Moon plays in this song (and ‘I’m One’) that he seems to have picked up for this album only.  He only hits it every once in a while, but its low and frigid sounding like a stiff winter wind.  Somehow, with this incorporated into his usual triumphant upbeat rolls, it just makes the overall effect more appropriately grandiose and powerful.

“Bellboy” involves our hero running into the leader of his old mod gang; now reduced to gathering tips and humiliation in equal measure as the bellboy for a hotel.  With the stage that I’m at in my life right now, I identify with the self-loathing, pathetic bellboy more than I used to.  Keith Moon delivers a partly comical, partly pathetic but seriously touching lead vocal turn for what was something like one of the two or so times in the Who’s catalog.  During one of the quieter moments:

“Some nights I still sleep on the beach
Remember when star were in reach
I wander in early to work
(I) spend my day licking boots for my perks”

The other day, a little absentmindedly, I found myself rehearsing a bit of hypothetical small talk with myself that I’d have with my supervisor at work.  When you bring home with you your stunted chatter, your diminished expectations and muted intellect that you adopt at work out of productivity, its an unpleasant feeling.  Finding you have little to do and sitting placid on top of your ambition, you find yourself at work early and a bit more desperate to please.  I think a lot of people have been there, me included.  That’s “Bellboy” to me.  Except I’m happy when I listen to it–and I dance a lot more.

Any discussion about “Quad” for me has to involve the two instrumental overture-ish tracks that come after the first and before the last songs.  The first is the title track itself, which has to be the one of the most involving and invigorating overtures I’ve ever heard.  It represents, in four disctinctly different mini-songs, the four major recurring musical themes in the album.  I love this track far too much.  The flamenco-ish strumming from Towhshend in the bellboy/Keith theme along with the brisk roll from Moon that starts the song, are enough to give me goosebumps every time.  Later, when this track is reprised as “The Rock,” its sadder and more damaged, but maybe even more affecting.  It sums up all we’ve been through and leads right to “Love Reign Oe’r Me, one of the best songs, to end the album.

All in all, because of “Quad’s” difficulties, I’ve always been tempted to just ignore it as much as I’ve attempted to praise it.  To just shelve it and say “eh, its got some good songs but its not good enough to consider much beyond that.”  Well, even if I were to judge simply by my descriptions earlier in this thing, I would say that that is just wrong.  When I add to that the simple fact that when I put on this album, for the majority of it, I feel the uncontrollable urge to move, to dance, the previous point becomes even more moot.

Oh yeah.  Also, fans of the Who may have noticed that I haven’t discussed one shred of the overhanging concept to the album that helps to play up the theatricality (not that that’s necessarily a bad thing).  Well, the album was meant to cap off the childish conceits of both the band and their audience by telling a story of a fan who reflected the four extreme personalities of the group–quadrophenia.  The album reflects, in its arc, the story of the growing up of their mod audience, and the growing up of the Who.  Its really a pretty good story, but I’m not here to tell it.  It simply doesn’t figure directly into my enjoyment of the album near as much as how, say, the natural, ambiguous progression of the story of “Tommy” seeps in over its running length to be an essential part of my talking about the album.  With “Quad,” its just not near as essential to my experience.  The songs speak to me on their own terms, not as someone else’s story, but as my own, really.  In the end, I think that Townshend would appreciate that.

I simply love this album.  It sweeps me up every time, despite its just WEIRD defects.  Its got some of the most poignant and beautiful and rocking music ever created in it, while it also just so happens to have some of the more uninteresting, bland show-tunes ever created.  Odd, but never to be ignored.

Aaron J Brian

This year kicked of with a video sent from Harry’s buddy, Quint, over in New Zealand. Quint’s been on the set of The Hobbit for the last few months and has been reporting on the filming of the future masterpieces. He did some behind the scene intros for the video and it was all a lot of fun. Then Peter Jackson called Gandalf (Ian McKellen) over because Quint was feeling pretty awful for not being at his best friend’s birthday party. Gandalf did a little hocus pocus and, after some in theatre explosions, Quint was in the audience! Gandalf leaned in to the camera and told us that he had secretly stashed a copy of the trailer in Quint’s bag just before he sent him.

WE GET TO SEE A TRAILER!?!?!

Well, first, Quint had to find a trailer bearer. You see, you don’t just walk into the Alamo projection room. A few people stood up, but it was Elijah Wood who stood up and yelled, “I will take it!” and ran up to Quint.

Wow. We’re all such freakin’ geeks, because this was awesome.

Well, they couldn’t get the trailer to work, so we had to go into the first film, but we did eventually see the trailer…three times in a row. I can’t tell you anything specific about it, but godDAMN, it looks amazing. I am hardly going to be able to wait until next December to see this movie.

The first movie that we saw was one that Harry introduced by saying that we had all probably just paid to see it very recently. He didn’t care, though, because it’s his birthday and he doesn’t care if it was just released a couple of weeks ago. The movie was pretty much about him and, as soon as he programmed it, all the rest of the programming just fell into place. Luckily, Hugo is probably my favorite movie this year.

Watching it a second time, I really noticed all of the more subtle film images throughout the entire movie. All of the clock faces and gears look like film reels and many of them make the noise of a film projector. Hugo runs around the clockworks, looking out of all of the windows as if he’s watching movies about all of the people who work at the train station. He’s a voyeur just like we all are when we watch movies.

I love this movie and it’s at least as good on a second viewing. It also helped to introduce what ended up being an underlying theme of the festival and, really, all movies: unexpected adventure.

Next up was a movie that plays a big role in Hugo.

A TRIP TO THE MOON (1902)

***** (5/5)

Directed by: Georges Méliès
Written by: Georges Méliès

Georges Melies was THE early visionary of film. Before Melies, film was a sideshow technology. Even the Lumiere Brothers had no idea that film would be a truly big deal. Melies figured out that you could actually tell a story with film.

A Trip To The Moon is Melies’ most famous film and deservedly so. It tells a simple story of a group of scientists (or wizards, depending on how you take the long beards and hats that they wear) who figure out how to go to the moon. They all climb aboard their rocket, hit the man in the moon in the eye, fight some mooninites, bring one back to Earth and are heroes. End story.

While the story was huge for its time, the sets are what amazes now. It’s all stage sets, but they still look better than a lot of CGI sets made today. Because of his background as a magician, he was the first filmmakers to use special effects on screen. His use of jump cuts to make people and objects appear, disappear and change instantly was an accidental invention, but he used it all the time to amaze his audiences.

If you have any interest in film history, A Trip To The Moon is absolutely essential to your film viewing. If you like sci-fi films, this was the first. It’s beautiful to see on the big screen. I wish it had been a tinted version (hand-tinted, of course), but it’s still a great film that should be seen by anyone with the slightest interest in film.

JUST IMAGINE (1930)

** (2/5)

Directed by: David Butler
Written by: Buddy G. DeSylva/Lew Brown/Ray Henderson

In 1930, Hollywood was looking for something new to put on the screen. Movies had just started talking fairly recently, so what could they do with this new version of the media?

Well, a sci-fi musical, of course!

That’s right, kids. This is not only Hollywood’s first sci-fi film, but it’s the first sci-fi musical!

Let’s not take that as a great thing just yet.

Basically a remake of A Trip To The Moon, Just Imagine takes place in 1980, a time far too distant for citizens of 1930 to even dream about. Cars have been replaced by airplanes, marriages have to be approved by the state (weird…we’re pretty much just starting that now), everyone has a number instead of a name and there are no people with pigment in their skin.

In other words, it’s a Republican dream!

LN-18 (a pre-Tarzan Maureen O’Sullivan) and J-21 (John Garrick) are in love. Unfortunately, another man has asked for permission to marry LN-18 and he is above J-21 on the pecking order. This, of course, means that he gets first priority. Unless, of course, J-21 can distinguish himself in the his field: aviation.

What’s a boy to do when everything’s already been done in aviation?

Luckily, esteemed scientist X-10 (Wilfred Lucas) wants to send J-21 to Mars. If he succeeds, he’ll be able to marry LN-18 and everything will be hunky dory. This can only happen, though, if he survives the trip.

Along for the fun are his best friend RT-42 (Frank Albertson) and Single-0 (El Brendel). Single-0 is a man who was somehow frozen in 1930 and is thawed out. He’s all about comic relief and has almost no bearing on the story. He just runs around with a Swedish accent (“What about yustice?!”) and does some vaguely funny Harpo Marx routines. El was a comedian at the time and this was his schtick on vaudeville. He’s kinda funny, but nothing to write home about.

Really, there’s not much to write home about for any of this movie. The sets are pretty amazing and the effects are nice. (A couple of the uncredited effects guys would go on to break down barriers with King Kong a few years later.) But that’s really it. The story is silly, the acting is stiff and the songs are kind of awful.

This isn’t an easy film to see. Amazon is out of stock and the ones that are for sale by other sellers are $999.99. Trust me. It’s not worth all that. If you really want to see the sets, check out a serial from the same time period. A lot of them were reused for…well, I can’t actually remember the serial. Apparently, it’s awesome, though. Too bad.

If you do see it, check out the strangest song of the entire movie where RT-42 and his wife sing about how they no longer kill flies because that fly might be in love with another fly. Then they save a pair of flies just so they can force them upon each other.

Um…what?

Also, there’s a jab at Henry Ford’s antisemitism. THAT is some funny stuff.

Next up was a different kind of adventure.

TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY (2011)

**** (4/5)

Directed by: Tomas Alfredson
Written by: Bridget O’Connor/Peter Straughan
Based on book by: John le Carre

John le Carre is one of the preeminent Cold War spy novels. With books like The Spy Who Came In From The Cold (1962) and The Looking Glass War (1965), he basically invented the cerebral, inward-looking spy novel. His books aren’t about globe hopping and lady laying. His are about the inner struggles of being a spy and the inner workings of MI6 and the Circus, the upper echelon of British spies.

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (1974) is one of his best loved novels with his most well known creation, George Smiley. Smiley is a man whose entire life revolves around the Circus. Although he’s married, his wife is barely a character in the story…or his life, for that matter.

In the beginning of the film, Smiley (Gary Oldman) is in the middle of a forced retirement. His former boss, Control (John Hurt), calls him back into duty to find out who the mole is among his co-workers. They all seem to have different views from Control, but one of them is feeding information back to the Soviets. Who could it be? When Control dies, Smiley is basically on his own to save his country.

There’s the entire plot. Just a few lines. But, while the movie is VERY good, it’s also incredibly hard to follow at times. In fact, in my already tired state at this point in the day, I was pretty much lost by the time I got my burger. (In fact, that might have been what totally distracted me from what was truly going on. Don’t eat while watching this movie. You’ll get lost and never find your way again.) With all of the names, double-crosses and characters, it was nearly impossible to truly figure out.

This, of course, does not make this a bad film. The plot is kind of a McGuffin. We don’t necessarily care who the mole is. What we care about is seeing Smiley go through the motions of finding the mole. We care about the toll that it takes on Smiley. We care about seeing all of these characters interact together.

It also helps that Gary Oldman is at the top of his game here. Smiley is a very “normal” character and Oldman manages to make him real. There were definitely times that I forgot that this was Sid Viscous/Beethoven/Sirius Black that I was watching. His voice has a British aristocracy lilt to it that I’ve never heard from him before. His face, although not really made up, was older than ever before. And he was perfectly amazing.

The rest of the cast was just as good. Toby Jones, Colin Firth, Tom Hardy, Benedict Cumberbatch (it was nice to see Sherlock play Holmes), Ciaran Hines…all were great. Alfredon’s (Let The Right One In) direction caught all of these performances perfectly, often from a distance away…much like a spy would have.

After sitting through the two hour film, just about everyone had the same look on their face: “That was great! What happened?” Luckily, the studio knew that they had made possibly the most cerebral and complex spy film in decades, so the Alamo staff was provided with dossiers for every audience member, complete with plot points, character sketches and basically a flow chart explaining what the fuck happened.

I kind of love them for it.

This is definitely a film that warrants multiple viewings. I can’t wait to give it another shot and see if I can follow more of it. I’ll have one up on the rest of the audience with the dossier in my hand.

Hell, I actually can’t wait to read the book.

SHERLOCK HOLMES: A GAME OF SHADOWS (2011)

**** (4/5)

Directed by: Guy Ritchie
Written by: Michele Mulroney/Kieran Mulroney
Based on characters created by: Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

Sherlock Holmes has come back in a big way lately. In 2009, Guy Ritchie directed the amped up version of the world’s greatest detective to accolades and dollars. Then there was the BBC update of the original stories perfectly cast with Benedict Cumberbatch as Holmes and Martin Freeman as Watson. There will also be an American version of the Holmes legend on television soon.

Now, Ritchie is back with the sequel to the film that restarted it all. This time out, Holmes (Robert Downey, Jr) and Watson (Jude Law) are on the run from Holmes’ greatest enemy, Professor James Moriarty (creepily played by Jared Harris). The two men are perfectly matched in just about every way with one exception: Moriarty is willing to kill anyone who gets in his way. Even the innocent.

Watson, of course, is about to get married when he and Holmes reconnect, so he is none too excited to get caught up in this latest adventure. The bromance is palpable and the near homosexuality of the two leads is played up even more than it is in the BBC show. “Lay with me, Watson.”

It’s been a couple of years since I’ve seen the original, so it’s hard for me to compare the two. From what I remember of it, though, I think this one is just as much fun and just as good. Yes, there are plenty of explosions and the direction is kinetic, as always. This is no sedate, Basil Rathbone film, but I think you all knew that. To say that it has a Michael Bay style is to insult the movie. It’s not dumb like a Bay movie. It’s not shit like a Bay movie. This is a Guy Ritchie film and he is getting back in our good graces by using other peoples’ characters. (His next project is The Man From U.N.C.L.E.)

Of course, this movie really has almost nothing to do with the original stories. There are things that fans will recognize, but there’s no story that I know of that follows this kind of path. (Somehow I doubt that Conan Doyle teamed the boys up with a sexy gypsy woman (Noomi Rapace) who kicks just as much ass as the two men. And I don’t think that Mycroft (Stephen Frye) was as…strange…as this version of him.)

This was an incredibly fun movie and, honestly, I can’t wait for these folks to team up again for a third film.

THE BEAST WITH FIVE FINGERS (1946)

**** (4/5)

Directed by: Robert Florey
Written by: William Fryer Harvey/Curt Siodmak/Harold Goldman (uncredited)

At one time, a man like Peter Lorre could be a huge star. With his bugged out eyes and crazy voice, you would think that he would be a hard sell. But Lorre was a movie star pretty much from the first time he stepped onto the screen in M in 1931. He has never stopped being an icon.

That’s why it was a bit surprising when Harry said that he had never played a Lorre film at BNAT. The fuck you say?

The Beast With Five Fingers was a pretty good way to start.

Lorre plays an astronomer who lives with an eccentric old pianist (Victor Francen) who has lost the use of his right side. His music has been rewritten by a cynical young man named Bruce Conrad (Robert Alda). When the old man dies leaving all of his money to his nurse (Andrea King), his descendants descend upon his house to try to make it seem like the old man was a blundering fool and that the money should come to him. Of course, Bruce and the nurse are in love.

Oh yeah…Peter Lorre. He actually plays a big role in this, although the description makes it seem like he doesn’t. He is pretty much the catalyst for the whole thing to happen. He’s incredibly protective of his books and his research and wants everyone out of the house…except for the nurse, of course. She can stay.

As time goes on, Lorre goes crazier and crazier and starts to see a disembodied hand crawling around the house and occasionally playing music. Sometimes it even kills people.

This is a great little film that, unfortunately, is hard to find outside of this sort of festival. It’s never been released on DVD and Warner has no plans of releasing it. That’s really too bad because I think the movie could find a niche audience now.

If you ever get a chance to see it, check it out.

G.I. JOE 2: RETALIATION TRAILER

Well, they got rid of Stephen Sommers, so I guess that’s a step in the right direction. But they replaced him with Jon M Chu, director of such classics as Step Up 2, Step Up 3D and Justin Beiber: Never Say Never.

Uh…what?

First off, was anyone really clamoring for this sequel? Second…shit. I don’t even know. I don’t remember anything about this trailer. Whatever. Do what you want, Hollywood. Enough stupid people will be into it.

Let’s move on.

THE ADVENTURES OF TINTIN (2011)

**** (4/5)

Directed by: Steven Spielberg
Written by: Steven Moffat/Edgar Wright/Joe Cornish
Based on comics by: Herge

Tintin is one of the most popular characters in the world. Created by Georges Prosper Remi (aka Herge) in Belgium in 1929, he has become like Mickey Mouse to about 85% of the world.

So, you ask, why have you not heard of him? That’s because people in America don’t really care about what happens in any other country. Most Americans had never heard of Jackie Chan until Rumble In The Bronx in 1995. He had only been making movies for about 25 years before that, becoming the most famous man in the world. Why would we have heard of him?

I’m not saying that Americans are stupid. We’re just very insular. Many people see something foreign and they suddenly become uninterested. That really is a shame, though, because other countries make some amazing stuff.

Anyway, enough PSAs. Tintin is like a Belgian Mickey Mouse. He’s a boy reporter who was able to have 23 and a half adventures before Herge died in 1983 while writing the 24th. Sometime in the early 80s, a young director named Steven Spielberg became interested in Tintin because someone compared Raiders Of The Lost Ark to his adventures. Herge then became a fan of Spielberg saying that he was the only man who could possibly bring Tintin to life. Spielberg bought the rights in 1983 and has never let them go.

Skip ahead nearly 30 years when Spielberg goes to fellow Tintin fanatic Peter Jackson to see about using WETA to do special effects for a live action Tintin movie. Jackson says, “No! The only way to do it is motion capture and CGI!”

Agreeance!

I’ve never read a Tintin book, but I feel like I need to now that I’ve seen this movie. It follows Tintin (Jamie Bell) as he and his dog, Snowy, run amok all over the world. They meet Captain Haddock (Andy Serkis), rescue him from smugglers led by Mr. Sakharine (Daniel Craig) and then search for treasure. There’s also the Inspectors Thompson (Nick Frost and Simon Pegg), two identical policemen who bumble their way through helping Tintin catch the bad guys.

And it all starts with a model ship.

This is a really fun movie with amazing animation. For just about the first time, motion capture isn’t totally creepy. I think it’s probably because they don’t try to make these characters look realistic. They look like slightly more realistic versions of the real comic book characters. (Watch for the analog drawings at the beginning of the film.) The 3D works beautifully, too. Not as essential as Hugo, but still a good addition to the film.

I think, though, that even if the animation was as creepy as Polar Express the movie would still be a lot of fun. Story and action go a long way and this one has both to spare. The action is basically non-stop, just like it would be in a comic book.

My only complaint is that maybe the story moves a bit TOO fast. I felt like we got caught up right from the start and there wasn’t enough time to really figure out what was going on who who these people really were. Then again, maybe that’s how it would be in real life. Just go, go, go and don’t stop to think.

I think I’ll have to see it one more time to really get a good feel for it. I had a lot of fun with it, but I think it may be a movie that a second viewing would give it another half star…maybe even a full one.

THE DEVIL INSIDE TRAILER

From the producer of the Paranormal Activity movies and (sigh) Insidious, this looks like Paranormal Exorcist. Lots of people (same person? not sure) getting possessed and then breaking their own backs. Oh, and found footage. Of course. We can’t make a horror movie anymore without found footage.

I dunno. Maybe I’ll check it out on video. I just don’t really want to give this guy THAT much more money.

Oh yeah, when the trailer said, “Based on a true story,” the whole audience laughed.

PORCO ROSSO (1992)

**** (4/5)

Directed by: Hayao Miyazaki
Written by: Hayao Miyazaki

Hayao Miyazaki is one of the best directors alive today, live action or animation. The man is amazing. All of his films are at least entertaining on some level. There are some that I don’t like as much as others (don’t shoot me, but I’m just not that into Totoro), but they’re all great.

Porco Rosso is one that has always been on my list, but I’ve just never gotten around to checking it out. I mean, it’s about a pig who flies airplanes. Why does that sound good? Well, it has the name Miyazaki attached to it. That’s why.

Porco is the best pilot in the air just before World War II breaks out. He makes his living as a bounty hunter and rescues people from air pirates. He also happens to have had a spell put on him that turned him into a pig. This, of course, does not stop him from romancin’ the ladies. There’s one lady in particular that he’s had his eye on, but he’s constantly thwarted by Curtis, a fellow flying ace.

This was definitely a movie that I could not stay awake through just from sheer fatigue. It had nothing to do with the quality of the film because, you know, it’s Miyazaki.

Here’s the deal, though. This is Harry’s favorite Miyazaki film. He dressed as Porco for Halloween this year and just loves the shit out of this movie.

I don’t think it’s going to be one of my favorites. I just couldn’t quite connect with it like I did something like Princess Mononoke or Castle In The Sky. It’s a good film (note the four stars), but I don’t think it’s Miyazaki’s best. I will, however, give it another shot sometime.

CABIN IN THE WOODS (2012)

****½ (4.5/5)

Directed by: Drew Goddard
Written by: Joss Whedon/Drew Goddard

Joss Whedon did a LOT for the horror genre when he created Buffy The Vampire Slayer. It’s a real turning point for horror if only for the girl-centric plot of the whole thing.

Unfortunately, he’s also inspired a lot of rather uninspired clones over the years.

Cabin In The Woods is his way of knocking all of them down a peg or two…even if that’s not what he says it is.

I’m not allowed to do a detailed review here, but I can tell you that this movie kicked my ass. It’s so freakin’ smart, funny and full of turns that you don’t quite expect that it’s hard not to fall in love with it. It takes every trope of horror movies and turns them on their inverted ears in a way the Wes Craven and Kevin Williamson couldn’t quite bring themselves to do with Scream.

It’s been a long and winding road for this movie (it was filmed a few years ago, I think), but it’s finally coming out and I hope that it endears itself to lots of fans. It deserves it.

GHOST RIDER: SPIRIT OF VENGEANCE (2012)

** (2/5)

Directed by: Mark Neveldine/Brian Taylor
Written by: Scott M. Gimple/Seth Hoffman/David S. Goyer
Based on comics by: Roy Thomas/Gary Friedrich/Mike Ploog

When Harry announced this one, I think most of the audience groaned a little bit. Seriously? Ghost Rider 2? Why would we want to see a sequel to that shitty movie?

Actually, he had the same reaction when Columbia asked if he wanted to screen it at BNAT. He said, “I need to see it.” He did and he thought it was completely different from the first one and kinda loved it.

Again, I’m not allowed to write a detailed review…but I’m not really sure that I could even if I wanted to. I not only couldn’t stay awake through it, I wasn’t interested enough to stay awake. Sure, Nicolas Cage is in Bad Lieutenant mode here, so he’s a lot of fun to watch while he goes through his weird faces and crazy voices. That, unfortunately, doesn’t make the movie particularly good. It’s good enough to be better than the first, but that’s not saying much. Really, only the kinetic direction (from the guys who brought us the Crank saga…they do know how to get into the middle of the action) and Nic’s craziness keeps it from being the worst movie at BNAT this year.

THE GREY (2012)

****½ (4.5/5)

Directed by: Joe Carnahan
Written by: Joe Carnahan/Ian Mackenzie Jeffers
Based on short story by: Ian Mackenzie Jeffers

Joe Carnahan is one of those directors that everyone just kind of lost faith in. When Narc came out in 2002, everyone thought that the 70s cop drama was coming back. It was a great story of dirty cops in a dirty world.

Then things started going slightly awry. Smokin’ Aces came out and no one but me liked it at all. No, I didn’t think that it was a great film, but I thought that it was fun. I was all alone. Then came The A-Team.

Done with that.

I really hope that The Grey changes peoples’ minds again. It’s the story of Liam Neeson vs. very large wolves.

Ok, it’s more than that. Liam and his co-workers go down in a plane crash in the snows of Alaska. Only seven of them survive. He is the wolf expert, so he becomes the de-facto leader, even if some of them aren’t so happy with that “decision.” The wolves pick the men off one by one as Liam becomes more and more of a badass and, actually, more full of regret and pathos. His mind is constantly on his wife back home. What happened to make him put his shotgun in his mouth just before he got on the plane?

No action movie is this, though. This is a dark action drama where the men are worse enemies to themselves than the wolves are. The infighting is believable and sometimes hard to watch. Even without the infighting, though, nature is stronger than man. This film never lets us forget that. Never…

This is a great film and I really hope that it brings Joe back in favor. He has pulled a performance out of Neeson that very well could be award caliber. Liam is one of my favorite actors currently working and I love that he’s become a thinking man of action. This is one of his best performances.

After this flick, we all piled onto buses and headed for the IMAX theatre down the road.

MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE – GHOST PROTOCOL (2011)

**** (4/5)

Directed by: Brad Bird
Written by: Josh Appelbaum/André Nemec
Based on television show created by: Bruce Geller

Why the fuck can’t I dislike Tom Cruise movies anymore? Why the fuck does he keep making good movies while he, personally, still sucks?

Sigh. Whatever. The Mission: Impossible franchise has become his goto to make more money and, actually…they’ve become pretty goddamn great. After the mediocrity of the first and outright badness of the second, the third was awesome and the fourth is at least its equal. This has become the director’s franchise that Tarantino has always wanted the Bond series to become.

This time out, the IMF have been disbanded because the American government think that they have gone rogue. They were framed by a mysterious man (Michael Nyqvist, the original Mikael Blomkvist in the Swedish Girl Who… trilogy) who wants to start a nuclear war between Russia and the US. In fact, he has made tension run higher than it has since the Cuban Missile Crisis.

After the Secretary (Tom Wilkinson) is killed, Ethan Hunt (Cruise) is forced to go underground with his crew (Paula Patton and Simon Pegg) and the Secretary’s adviser (Jeremy Renner). The four of them become a well-oiled machine…even if their machines aren’t so well-oiled. In fact, that’s kind of a running joke in the film. None of their equipment seems to work quite right.

Funnier than the last film which, if I remember correctly, was a bit dour, Ghost Protocol is non-stop action and a LOT of fun. I’m not sure what made JJ Abrams and Tom Cruise entrust animation/Pixar director Brad Bird (The Iron Giant, The Incredibles, Ratatouille) with their baby, allowing him to cut his live-action teeth on the fourth installment, but it looks like their gamble paid off in spades. He handles the job like a pro and I hope it leads to more action flicks like this: fun, thoughtful and full of actual story.

A lot has been said about Jeremy Renner being a possible replacement for Tom if he ever decides to leave the series. They’ve been denying it, but I would be up for it. Sure, I don’t think Tom is going to leave his cash cow anytime soon. But if he does, they could do worse than Renner. He’s a really good actor and handles the action very well. Honestly, if this was Cruise’s last M:I film, I wouldn’t be sad. Brandt is a good character and could totally hold the franchise up.

By the way, I would totally buy this Saul Bass inspired poster. Why have I never seen it before? One of the best posters I’ve seen in a while.

So, that was it. One of the better lineups for BNAT, I think. Only two movies that really weren’t up to par, but they even had their place in keeping the flow. (Without Ghost Rider 2, when would I have slept?!)

Another Butt Numb-A-Thon down. I’m already ready for next year.

***** (5/5)

Directed by: Martin Scorsese
Written by: John Logan
Based on book by: Brian Selznick

This is the best Christmas ever. A Scorsese movie and TWO Spielberg movies! The Spielberg flicks haven’t come out yet, but I did see a preview for one of ‘em.

THE ADVENTURES OF TINTIN–America knows nothing about this character, but he’s one of the most popular characters in the rest of the world. The trailer doesn’t show us anything to make us feel like this is particularly special…but it’s Spielberg and the movie looks great. The animation is the same sort of motion capture that Zemeckis has been using, but it’s MUCH less creepy because they’re not trying to make them look real. I’m SO freakin’ there.

TITANIC 3D–Wait…didn’t Cameron already do this in a documentary? Oh well. Whatever. He needs more money to make Avatar 2 and 3. As much as I love Titanic (this is an OLD review…keep that in mind if you decide to read it), I’m not too interested in seeing it in 3D.

Now, back to Hugo, already in progress.

There are certain films that make you feel like a kid again. Cinemas used to be filled with them. Now, we have to wait for people like Steven Spielberg to make movies and, really, the last film of his to do that for me was Jurassic Park. Munich was a great movie, but I sure didn’t feel like a kid watching it. (Although Super 8 may as well be a Spielberg film, he wasn’t actually the director, so it doesn’t count.)

Strangely enough, Steven’s old buddy and decidedly NOT childlike director is the next director to release a film of this caliber. Martin Scorsese, director of such kids’ films as Taxi Driver, Goodfellas and The Departed has gone back to the genre he….

Wait. Huh? Scorsese is one of the greatest directors of all time, but he’s never been mistaken as a director who makes movies for kids. Luckily, though, his young daughter bugged him enough to make a movie that she could watch…we all win.

Hugo (the amazing Asa Butterfield who is going to be Ender in Gavin Hood’s adaptation of Ender’s Game), is a young orphan who has been hiding from everyone for months. He’s been living in the clocks of a Paris train station ever since his father (Jude Law) died and his uncle (Ray Winstone) has disappeared. As long as he keeps the clocks running, everything is ok and no one knows that he’s alone.

Unfortunately, he has to go out occasionally. When he does, he needs to stay away from the watchful (read: blundering) eye of the Station Inspector (a slightly toned down, but still very funny Sacha Baron Cohen). Eventually, though, he gets caught by Georges (a stately and dignified Ben Kingsley), the old man who owns the toy shop at the station.

You see, Hugo is a bit of a genius when it comes to mechanical things. He’s currently trying to fix an automaton that his dad found at the museum he worked at just before he died. He needs parts, so he sometimes steals them from the old man. After their encounter, Hugo is light one beloved notebook that his dad had made notes in about the mechanical man. Georges’s niece, Isabelle (Chloe Grace Moretz who just keeps getting better), is going to help him get it back.

From the opening tracking shot to the closing tracking shot, this film is absolutely beautiful through and through. It’s fun, it’s heartbreaking, it’s uplifting and, most importantly, it’s entertaining. Scorsese has, of course, always been one of my favorite directors. This may well be my favorite movie of his.

In a way, his career has been leading to this. Sure, he’s always been known for gangster dramas of violence and strife. First and foremost, though, he’s a film geek. Just about every movie he’s made has had some sort of homage to a film that he loves. (That last shot of Goodfellas? Yep.)  His love affair with film goes back to his childhood, which is exactly where Hugo picks up. Sure, Marty was born after the evens of the movie supposedly took place (somewhere in the 30s), but I imagine that Hugo is Scorsese as a young boy, running from place to place, never sitting still for longer than he needs to and, of course, falling in love with the movies.

Hugo is a film history class with a story. Based on a book by Brian Selznick (relative of David O), it tells the story of silent film from the first one-reelers up through the more intricate set-pieces of Buster Keaton and Harold Lloyd. (Check out the poster.) Many film clips are used to explain the progress of storytelling. (My favorite bit is about the screening of the train coming into the station. Like 3D of our time, it looked like it was going to come right out of the screen to early filmgoers. How very meta.)

Speaking of 3D, Scorsese has used the technology in a way that other filmmakers wish that they could use it. This includes James Cameron, who agrees with me, actually. The depth of sets (some real, some CGI) is shown in nearly every scene. It adds so much to the movie that it’s almost hard to imagine seeing it in 2D. For the first time, the extra $3 was truly worth it. (A certain scene with Cohen was a bit disturbing, but hilarious.)

But it would all be for naught if we didn’t care. Luckily, the writing and the performances make you want the very best for young Hugo. We believe that he could keep those clocks running all by himself. And, best of all, we believe the young love that’s blooming between him and Isabella. And that really is the heart of the film. The relationship between these two kids is strangely adult, but still childlike. It’s absolutely believable and true. When she holds his hand, it doesn’t become an “Awwwww” moment. It becomes an “Of course” moment.

There’s really nothing that I didn’t like about this film. I’ve seen just about all of Scorsese’s films and I love just about all of them. Hugo, though, shows me a new side of a director that I know very well. It’s a side that probably only his parents and his children know. It’s a side that shows us just how deep his love of films goes. And it’s a side that I kind of want to see more of. Hopefully other people want to see it, too. And, hopefully, it makes people (especially youn’uns) get more interested in silent film. There’s some amazing stuff there and not many people know it.

****½ (4.5/5)

Directed by: James Bobin
Written by: Jason Segel/Nicholas Stoller
Based on characters created by: Jim Henson

Tonight, I just saw a group of my old friends on screen and it was just about as comfortable as an old glove.

But first, I want to hit a few previews.

THE PIRATES! BAND OF MISFITS–Aardman is on a roll, at least as far as putting films out. Whether they’re any good, is another question. I’ve heard ok things about Arthur Christmas, but I’m not so sure about this one. A star studded cast (Hugh Grant, Brendan Gleeson, Salma Hayek, Jeremy Piven, Brian Blessed, Imelda Staunton, Martin Freeman, David Tennant, ad infinitum) heads up a crew of silly pirates competing in the Pirate Of The Year competition. Of course, hijinks ensue. I’ll see it because I love Aardman. Just kinda not so sure.

DR SEUSS’ THE LORAX–Another year, another Dr Seuss abomination. It seems that Hollywood can never get this right. Drawing out a 10 page book into a 90 minute movie is rarely ever a good idea. And Dr Seuss has never really made the transition well at all unless it was television. I’m REALLY scared of this one.

BIG MIRACLE–Man, I didn’t want to care about this one at all. It’s about a bunch of whales who are stuck in an ice hole in the Arctic. Drew Barrymore plays the humanitarian who wants to help them. John Krasinski and Stephen Root are along for the ride. It looks like, against all odds, this could be a decent, heartfelt flick. I hate movies like this, though. Tug, tug, tug. Tear, tear, tear. Dammit, Hollywood.

JOURNEY 2: THE MYSTERIOUS ISLAND–Wait…this is a sequel? I’m so confused. OH, it’s a sequel to a movie that no one saw with Brendan Fraser and, sort of, Josh Hutcherson. I guess they couldn’t get Brendan, so they got Dwayne Johnson instead. He and Josh run off to find Michael Caine on the titular island. Special effects ensue. Yeah. Whatever. Didn’t care about the first one, don’t care about this one.

THE SECRET WORLD OF ARRIETY–Studio Ghibli has a reputation for greatness, so I can only hope that this movie is as good as the rest of their films. This is the story of The Borrowers. Honestly, I’m not really sure why they didn’t just call it The Borrowers, but whatever. It’ll be great. Apparently, if we Americans all don’t go see this in theatres, Ghibli is threatening to close up shop. I’m skeptical since they still do amazingly well around the world. Whatever. I’ll do my best to be there.

Ok, it’s time to start the music. It’s time to light the lights.

Back in the mid-70s to mid-80s, the Muppets couldn’t be touched. Kermit was an icon whose sincerity hit all the right chords. Miss Piggy became an unlikely feminist symbol. Fozzie Bear, with his old-fashioned jokes, may have been a throw-back, but he loved what he did. And Gonzo…well, he was just weird. With a hit tv show and a string of movies, these guys were at the height of their powers.

At some point, though, their power kind of fizzled. Sure, they threw a movie out occasionally and people went to see them, but they weren’t a part of the culture anymore. Finally, in 1999, Muppets From Space seemed to be the final nail. It was kind of fun, but missed the spirit of the Muppets by enough to be panned by most fans and just about all critics. The move to Disney soon after didn’t do them any favors and, until now, Disney hasn’t really known what to do with them.

Enter Jason Segal. He’s had this script rolling around in his head for years and, because he’s such a huge fan, he just knew that it had to succeed. Like the Muppets themselves, Jason is a born optimist.

Gary (Segal) and Mary (Amy Adams in super-duper-charming mode) are the happy couple. Walter is Gary’s brother and the biggest Muppet fan in the world. He’s always been short and different from everyone else, but when he saw the Muppets, he knew that he belonged somewhere…even if it was on a tv show.

On Gary and Mary’s tenth anniversary, they all decide to go to LA where the Muppet Studio is. After a town-wide song and dance number, they depart…only to find out that the Muppets haven’t seen each other in years and the studio has been condemned. Walter overhears Waldorf and Statler telling Tex Richman (Chris Cooper) about a clause in the “Standard Rich And Famous” contract that Kermit signed at the end of The Muppet Movie. It seems that the contract is up and, if the Muppets don’t raise ten million dollars by midnight in ten days, the Studio will go to Richman. What they don’t know is that Richman wants to tear down the studio and drill oil.

The rest of the movie is a Blues Brothers style ride to get the band back together, get the theatre in order and stage a telethon to get the studio back. Thin plot, but it really doesn’t matter. Like the Marx Brothers before them, this kind of plot with just the right non-descript romantic leads, makes for a great time.

The Muppets have always been among the most wholesome and non-cynical family entertainment out there. Why, then, are they still perfect family entertainment in this “hard, cynical world”? A big part of it is the fact that they never talk down to kids. As Kermit says (before being bashed in the head with a door), kids are smarter than you think. They see an underdog like Kermit and they will immediately identify with him. They see a weirdo like Gonzo and they will immediately laugh at him, but know how he feels. They see a washed up comic like Fozzie and they will laugh with him and know that, while his jokes are bad, his heart is pure.

All this and they have never devolved into cloying tearjerking. Yes, there are tears in this movie, but they’re smart and happy tears. (Uh…yeah. That sounds right.) There’s really only one other American studio that can do the things that the Muppets have been doing for 40 years. Interestingly, that studio is also under the Disney umbrella…but it ain’t Disney.

Segal and Stoller have written a come-back movie that could only have come this far after the last film. It’s hilarious, absolutely sincere and goes straight for the heart. Even the constant cameos were perfect. From Mickey Rooney to ultimate ironist Jack Black. (Jack’s second entrance is actually perfect for the film’s message of bringing sincerity back.) This was actually my biggest complaint with Muppets From Space: the cameos were pretty awful.

Luckily, Segal and Amy Adams are perfect for those “non-descript” romantic leads. They can both be super-ironic, but they can also be the most sincere and endearing people in the world. You kind of believe that these people would sing and dance in the middle of town…and they might just be able to get the whole town to join them.

Chris Cooper is a great baddy, but I probably could have done without the rap. Mercifully, it was very short.

Finishing this movie was actually kind of bittersweet. I wanted it to go on and on. When it was over, I wanted to immediately watch it again. It was a lot of fun to play “I remember that” when they would reference things from the movies/tv shows and watching for little jokes (the nuts in front of Gonzo’s painting and the smoke coming out of the Electric Mayhem’s were great touches). The songs, mostly written by director Bobin (Flight Of The Conchords) is silly and matches the tone of many of the great Paul Williams songs from the first film.

My only real disappointment was that Gonzo wasn’t used more. I guess they figured that he was the center of the last movie and needed a break…but Dave Goelz is the only Mupper performer who is still doing his original characters. Why not use him? (For the record, Steve Whitmire has also been there since the beginning, but he’s taken over a lot of Jim Henson’s characters since he died in 1990. Steve was a background performer before.)

Basically, though, I loved just about everything about this movie. It was good to see my friends again. I can’t wait to see what they do next!

****½ (4.5/5)

Directed by: George Clooney
Written by: George Clooney/Grant Heslov/Beau Willimon
Based on play by: Beau Willimon

With those above words, unfortunately, a person could barely get elected School Marm these days.

Bugger.

What’s up for previews, these days?

YOUNG ADULT–With every preview, I want to see this movie even more. People hate Diablo Cody these days because she was nominated for an Oscar. That’s the only reason, no matter what they say. Eff ‘em. I still like Juno. (We’ll ignore Jennifer’s Body…if possible.) Charlize Theron looks to be perfect in the role of the girl everyone hates coming back to her hometown to destroy the marriage of her high school sweetheart (Patrick Wilson). And Patton Oswalt, too? Yep. I’m there.

THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO–Once again…with every preview, I want to see this movie even more. David Fincher could have changed everything but the name and I would still go see it, knowing that I was going to see something super-entertaining and pretty goddamn good. I’m all in.

THE GREY–Why is Liam Neeson making all of these revenge flicks lately? (Ok, this isn’t EXACTLY a revenge flick, but it did tell me what’s going on with his decisions these days.) Here, he plays a man mourning the death of his wife. He goes out to Alaska and…lives with the wolves? Something like that. Joe Carnahan has missed before, but I still have faith. And, as long as Liam is mourning his own tragic loss, I’ll be there for him in the theatre…or at least on video. He is damn good at this stuff.

Ok. Back to it.

In the world of politics, nothing is sacred. The folks behind the scenes may tell us that integrity and loyalty rule the day, but they don’t believe it for a second. And they certainly don’t practice it.

Mike Morris (Clooney) is a presidential candidate with hope. Sorry…that’s HOPE. He sees no reason that religion should enter into the political realm, doesn’t understand why wealth is distributed to the rich and will never allow gay marriage to be anything other than a Civil Rights issue. He wants change and he’s going to be the arbiter. He just needs to win the Democratic primary in Ohio against Senator Pullman (Michael Mantell)

His crew is behind him 100%. Paul Zara (Philip Seymour Hoffman) is an old hand at the whole campaigning thing and loyalty is Job One for him. He’s going to get Morris into office no matter what. He may play dirty occasionally (has to talk Morris into it most of the time), but he does it for the good of the candidate.

Stephen Meyers (Ryan Gosling) is the newb. He’s young, idealistic and effing smart. He knows every move to make and when to make it. With Steve and Paul behind him, there’s no way that Morris can lose.

That is, until Pullman’s man, Tom Duffy (Paul Giamatti), starts playing SUPER dirty. And until a young intern named Molly (Evan Rachel Wood…don’t know if she’s ever been better or sexier than she is right here) gets involved with Steve. Will Steve keep with his idealism? Will Paul manage to get dirty Senator Thompson (Jeffery Wright) to back Morris without giving him the world? Will loyalty bite Paul in the ass? And what of intrepid reporter Ida (Marisa Tomei)? What does she know that could blow the whole thing?

A lot of comparisons have been made to The Candidate. Unfortunately, I haven’t seen that movie, so I can’t make those comparisons. I’ll have to rely on my own observations. And those observations tell me that this is one of the best movies I’ve seen this year. Clooney’s directing keeps getting better (although, I haven’t seen Leatherheads…not too sure about that one) and everyone is on the top of their game, standouts being, naturally, Hoffman and Giamatti. These guys are so good at playing these kinds of slimeballs that it’s hard not to like them while you’re trying to figure out if you hate them. Sure, Paul is loyal, but he’s also in politics. He’s not necessarily a good man. Tom, on the other hand, you pretty much hate from the get-go. He’ll do anything it takes to win, even if it means ruining another man’s life.

The only thing that I was a little unsure of was how bad Steve’s transgression really was. There’s one line that he could have fed the press that, I think, would have told the truth about Tom and made Steve out to be an ok guy. Instead, it had to escalate to something worse than it really was.

Oh well. The movie would have been pretty short if he had done that.

One thing that really struck me about this movie was how much of a gangster movie it was. No one, no matter how “good” they are, is untouched by greed and power. Everyone is in danger of being whacked/fired. There’s even an intense scene where a character is called into a suburban and we’re outside during the meeting. Is that person getting killed? What’s going on? Dammit! LET ME IN!!!

The moral of the story is that politics is dirty. Sure, it’s been said before, but rarely so gracefully or tragically. This is a great film from a man who, hopefully, has plenty more great films in him. Hell, between The Descendants, Drive and Crazy, Stupid Love, Clooney and Gosling have had an amazing year.

By the way, Clooney. If you ever ran for President, I would vote for you in a heartbeat. Just sayin’…

****½ (4.5/5) on a What The Fuck? scale

*½ (1.5/5) on a filmmaking scale

Directed by: Shan Hua
Written by: Kuang Ni

In 1954, everything changed in Japan. There was this little movie about a giant lizard (played by a guy in a rubber suit) and, somehow, it was a huge hit all over the world. Yeah, it had the underlying story of the danger of nuclear power and all that…BUT IT HAD A GUY IN A RUBBER SUIT DESTROYING TOKYO!!!

Skip ahead about 20 years and Rubber Suit Fever has hit Hong Kong and the Shaw Brothers. The venerable studio had seen Ultraman one too many times and figured that it was time for China to have their own superhero.

When the ageless Princess Dragon Mom (Terry Liu) attacks the world with her crew of crazy monsters, it’s up to the Science Institute to save us! The Institute’s leader, Professor (Hsieh Wang), needs a hero to put into his new Inframan costume. Why did he choose Rayma (Danny Lee, who completely ignores this part of his filmography)? Meh. He was there. Anyway, Rayma goes through the nuclear change and becomes Inframan.

The rest of the movie is a plotless mess of fight scenes between Inframan and future rejects from both the Power Rangers and Yo-Gabba-Gabba. From giant piles of shit with metal hands to balls of tangled fur, Inframan had his hands full.

There seriously is no plot at all here. What little the writers could come up with is so unobtrusive to the action and incomprehensible that you just kind of let it go after about ten minutes.

Here is the opening scene, basically shot for shot:

A bunch of kids on a bus, singing songs. A giant bird monster falls from the sky onto the road in front of them. The road breaks up. The kids scream and run from the bus. A city is on fire.

Wait…what city? Where…? Why are Professor’s kids so near the danger zone? Why is his 30 year old daughter only 15? Why is that octopus acting like a plant? WHAT THE FUCK?!?!

Ssshhhhhh. It’s ok. It doesn’t concern you. This movie is going to rape your eyeballs. Just lie back and enjoy it.

Inframan is absolutely indescribable. I’m not even sure why I’m writing anymore at this point. For an hour and a half I had no idea what I was looking at on the screen of the Alamo Drafthouse, but I knew that I was loving every insane minute of it. It could only have been made in the mid-70s in Hong Kong.

Strangely enough, I now know where Guillermo del Toro gets his ideas:

Now, run along. And don’t forget your Thunderball Fists! You CAN have such a thing!

Directed by: Steven Spielberg
Written by: Michael Crichton/David Koepp
Based on book by: Michael Crichton

Having seen Jurassic Park an untold number of times on the same VHS tape with the puppy-chewed (that dog’s 12 now) cover, I finally saw it on the bold, glorious silver-screen for the first time since I was four years old. By the stately tone I’m using–and the use at all of “untold”–you’re probably assuming that I love this movie. You’re part right. I love the movie, but I love dinosaurs and I love its ideas as well. It is still my favorite movie.

‎”Dinosaurs are cooler than people.” Coming out of the theater nearly 18 years ago, that was the main idea I took away from the theater. If you ask me today, I might say the same thing–partly about the movie, and partly from my deepest instinct. One of the main criticisms of “Jurassic Park” is its lack of human characterization and lack of human story values and interest. I venture to say that Spielberg instinctively knew, even consciously knew that that the movie was only partly about people, and was also about life.

Life, in this case, means something different than what it usually means in a movie or story. It usually refers to a human life or lives–either its meaning, or its problems, its story, everything. But its always people’s stories; the only kinds of stories we feel are worth telling.

The kind of life that this movie is about is primordial, primitive survival and evolution. The life of the earth, including prehistory. No, the movie doesn’t address the scope and range of life on earth, it has dinosaurs chasing people for the majority of its length. It is entertaining–one of the most entertaining. And it has some less-than-credible characters, a casual glance over its characterization, etc. But I say that is all it needs. We get a handful of understandable (drawn in somewhat broad strokes, but its okay) characters who are, for a day or so, thrown into the mix with some of the most fantastic, horrible, frightening, majestic, dignified, intelligent, dangerous, beautiful and simply awesome creatures that ever existed. We, as humans, can be all of these adjectives, and we often are in the movies. But so can life itself, and so can dinosaurs.

In an equally important way this movie, right from the start, is not just about dinosaurs and their interactions with people, but about mankind’s arrogance, greed and vanity to assume that we, because we CAN do something, like bring a dinosaur to life, know everything we need to know–that we can predict ‘life’ like a toy. We NEVER know everything we need to know. Being wrong, in fact, is the key tenet of science itself. The best answer is only the least wrong by our current knowledge.

I need to demystify what exactly I mean when I say ‘life’ in this thing: Biology, ecology, evolution, adaptation, disease, climate, reproduction…Essentially, I am referring to the continuum of life itself on the planet as we know it; or really, as we estimate it. As events sink deeper into turmoil for the human characters, this force starts to stand and stretch its grasp until it becomes a main character in itself.  The dinosaurs, one by one, are introduced and stagger us with the spectrum they traverse.  The opening scene, in which a hapless gatekeeper is killed by an unrelenting Velociraptor, remains tremendously powerful in the way it causes the humans, with all of their guns and safety and barriers and other conceits, to shudder in fear and anxiety once they truly get close to the animal’s cage.  With life in its power and unbridled glory, awe and terror established as undeniable, it becomes equally difficult not to shun the ‘lack of humility’ toward nature and the frightening assumption that, because we made it, we understand it, we know it, it is our pet and our slave. The wilderness doesn’t behave that way overnight, and definitely not with the virtually spontaneous reconstruction of living, breathing dinosaurs.

Still, the monstrous aspect of nature is not its only element. Spielberg, as director and child, knows this. The sublimity of an animal so long-gone, incredibly successful (they’ve been gone for 65 million years, but were around for 150 mil), adaptable and diverse as the dinosaur simply generates tear-inducing awe. Their very long absence and their sheer majesty make for a sight as incredible, I think, as the shots of the Earth and our solar system in “2001: A Space Odyssey.” Spielberg does not hold back in the truly awesome quality of the dinosaurs as much as some think. I believe that the first scene with a fully visible dinosaur, the Brachiosaurus, and Alan Grant seeing it for the first time, along with John Williams’ restless, mounting stirrings of score, would almost be enough by itself. Its classic Spielberg, and, as I knew and he knew, its a wonderful attempt to bring to life the feeling of what it would be like to see a dinosaur for the first time, especially if you had loved them your entire life. The scene is beautiful, intense, powerful and staggering. It feels, to the audience, almost as much a miracle as if we really WERE seeing real dinosaurs. In a sense, its what cinema was made for.  Wonderful still, is a pair of austere, magnificent scenes of night and morning where those same Brachiosaurs, this time in a calling herd, visit Grant and the two children unconcerned, unthreatened, yet not entirely unthreatening in their sheer size.  The drowsy, awakening smile by Grant as he beholds the approach of the impossibly huge and beautiful animal, is child-like and truly beautiful.  Sam Neil will forever earn my deepest respect for his warm performance.

But don’t even get me started on the T.Rex…

Too late! You got me started on the T.Rex! In all of her terrifying regal dignity, the T.Rex stomps out of her paddock as all power has shut off from the fences. The whole scene begins rather subtly, with the famous ripples in the water glass, the vibrations of the rear-view mirror. Soon, she emerges after unhinging with a casual swing of her head the now useless conceits of restraint previously carrying 10,000 volts of electricity.

There is nothing to stop her.

It is, at this point, clear that the dinosaurs–unstoppable, incredible, sublime and true forces of nature are the real stars of the movie. They steal every scene. This would be a problem with a movie like Gojira or, really, any other monster movie besides King Kong. But here, it isn’t so much that we ignore Alan Grant and Ian Malcolm, but we are fixated by the ever-present control and sheer power that the T.Rex wields. T.Rex, like Harry Lime, almost necessarily steals the show.

Unlike most monster movies, the Tyrannosaurus isn’t demonized or restricted to a “raawr ima monster! somebody stop me!” sideline to the hero’s necessary triumph. It is, for all intents and purposes, as real as can be. Fluid in movement, pulsating with sinew, unbelievably powerful, as loud as any animal ever was, and absolutely unchallenged.  The T.Rex is afforded its realistic, awesome dignity, raw power, and, ultimately, respect–both from the very aware characters, the glued-to-their-seats audience, and by the impeccable camera work directed by Spielberg.

I can see no problem with this. At this point, we care about the characters in a real enough way–they are intelligent, nice and even seem to bond a bit in these awkward, thrown-together situations. Grant and Malcolm in particular seem to like and respect each other as much as first day acquaintances can. We like them.

Thus, we identify directly with their horror when the T.Rex is unleashed in its awesome glory. Otherwise, though I’m sure many still did anyway, we’d just root for the T.Rex to ‘win’ or, in other words, ‘eat everyone it sees.’ Throughout the movie, we still care a good deal what happens to the characters, though the chase/action aspect takes over just a bit too much for my taste towards the end. But this is a relatively minor quibble next to what was accomplished with the first 3/4 of the movie.

Of course, there’s no need to describe every damned scene in the movie. Not all are great, first of all, though a lot are, and that would be tedious besides. I know one major thing more about Jurassic Park and its influence on me and that is this: to enjoy the constantly elevating action of the movie and the accompanying chaos and dissolution of the park is to embrace chaos itself. There is, for me, a profound joy to experience in witnessing mankind being dwarfed by something it cannot hope to contain. In this case, dinosaurs–possibly the most fantastic creatures ever to exist on the planet–take over when technology fails man. As we all know, however, it is not like this is a loss for all mankind; most of the main characters survive and escape and win their own victory on the only grounds that nature sees one: survival itself.

Regardless, we are treated to a chillingly realistic scenario (if you swallow the background) involving a true case where the humans are proven dreadfully wrong–in all of their rationality; there was never an excuse by those at work in Jurassic Park to ignore the power of the irrational, the primeval, the will to survive.  At Jurassic Park, forces of nature get the upper hand on the smarty-pants, know-it-all humans.

I’m fascinated, like many, by hubris. In particular, however, I believe–largely influenced by my love of dinosaurs, this movie and the book it was based on–in a universal hubris of mankind which lies in its desire to know and understand everything. It can be seen in terms as small as claiming to know about birds because you can tell someone their names. In its much larger forms, like in Jurassic Park, it manifests itself in mankind’s sheer arrogance to assume that they know all they need to know, that they’ve really mastered something as profound as the regeneration of a long-extinct, magnificent form of life—that because man created it, man must be its master. I love seeing this bubble burst; and, in this movie, it bursts in possibly the most enjoyably harrowing and awesome way imaginable.

I’ll leave you, if you have a moment, with what’s always stuck with me as one of the most telling moments.  When the T.Rex looms over Grant and Lex, it surveys with its enormous head the obscured food in front of her.  The Tyrannosaur gets so close, it blows off Grant’s hat with just the outward breath of its snout.  It must be true that the scientists would have had more to say about what they were marketing had they had their own hats blown off by the breath of the behemoth they cynically birthed.  Hubris, thy name is Tyrannosaurus Rex.

Aaron J Brian