X-Men (an old 2010 post never posted)

One of the podcasts I listen to is doing a re-watch of the X-Men movies and weaving those in with the comic books, so I'm watching X2 this evening.

The X-Men movies have that sort of glossy blockbuster patina all over them, despite the attempt to go darker and more serious with black leather outfits and some serious heavy-duty casting. Famke Janssen has never been warmer or more approachable than in X2 as Jean Grey; Hugh Jackman has really never been manlier or more ironically humorous than as Wolverine (and that's saying something because he's both extremely manly and very funny). While Anna Paquin doesn't knock my socks off as Rogue, I love her character's big brother/little sister relationship with Wolverine. And you've got Ian McKellan, Patrick Stewart, Halle Berry on top of it all. This is not a low-budget flick by any stretch.

But it's not a thinking movie by any stretch either. You're to sit back and enjoy the special effects and the pretty people in the leather catsuits. Sure, it's fun, but that's about it.

I got to thinking about the premise as well. Sure, we've all dreamt of discovering we had special powers and finding others like us - I'd lay money that as a little kid, you wished you could fly, or you read a Harry Potter book and thought the idea sounded really cool. So the idea of the X-Men as a premise isn't new, but the way it's been handled feels fresh. I'm saying this, of course, not having read the comic books. I would be interested in reading them if someone had them in book format - as my attention span gets annoyed by having to wait a month to read more - and if I could get past the way the women are drawn - sex kittens with tiny waists and ginormous breasts, never in need of a good sports bra for fighting evil. I was poking around on the Marvel website to read more about the comic book characters, and, while I like the drawing style used in many of these types of comics (see Rogue or Jean Grey and ignore the boobs), I was more than a little put off by the way the women are portrayed. Of course, these books aren't made for me. They're aimed at young men, so double-Ds perfectly hung in Spandex makes sense.

Anyway, as a writer I'm curious about the powers the comic writers have assigned and the way the characters have been created. And while I think it would be really cool to have a comic-esque character drawn of me some day, she'd have to have more realistic proportions and far less skin showing than is de rigeur.

Movie Review: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

Note: This review assumes you've either read the book or seen the movie; contains spoilers.

Harry Potter is all grown up and the girls like him for it. Half-Blood Prince, the sixth movie/book of the series, focuses on a more mature Harry and friends Ron (who looks like he's been lifting weights) and Hermione (charmingly attractive). The petulant teenager from Order of the Phoenix is gone, and a more goal-oriented Harry is in his place, listening to his mentor Albus Dumbledore with increasing clarity.

The book focuses thoroughly on the sixth year of school - potions classes, Quidditch matches, and most importantly, hormones. Teenagers are goopily in love throughout the entire book, and the movie has seen fit to milk this for all its worth. Hermione fends off the arrogant Cormac MacLeggen and moons at Ron with far more ardor than is ever displayed in the book; Ron snogs Lavender Brown with just as much enthusiasm as in the pages. Also clear to us is Harry's crush on Ginny, Ron's kid sister, again touted much more heavily in the film than the book, sometimes to awkward effect. This probably pleases the teen audience, but when they finally do kiss it lacks the surprise and emotion of the printed moment, as well as Ron's reaction, which I was looking forward to.

The movie does make significant changes from the book in ways that didn't make a lot of sense. I get that it doesn't work to have Harry running around under the invisibility cloak much in the film - because obviously you can't see him - but his inaction in the final action sequence (you know the one) comes across as much more cowardly than had he been frozen with the Petrificus Totalus spell under his cloak, unseen to anyone and unable to move.

Voldemort is a menacing background presence but it's the Death Eaters who are front and center - Severus Snape, Bellatrix LeStrange, Fenrir Greyback, who is never fully introduced in the movie. You have to know who he is to understand his role. We are also denied the final battle at the base of the astronomy tower. Bill and LeFleur don't make any appearances, but we are treated to a scene or two not in the book, including at the Burrow - a move I'm not quite sure I understand the need for. We don't get the funeral, which I was also looking forward to, nor Harry's speech to Ginny at the end, which I think is an important one. It shows where Harry has chosen to go in the seventh book and why he's chosen the path that aims to spare her and the other people he loves from harm. I would have included that speech, however heartbreaking, because of its impact. He gives a small snippet of something similar to Hermione.

One thing the movie does is make sure the same students come back to play familiar roles. I was pleased to see Neville, Seamus, Crabbe and Goyle among the familiar faces, Neville especially having grown exceedingly tall and looking quite grown up. It's too bad they couldn't give these guys more lines but it's nice to see them all the same. Nice, too, to see in limited roles Tonks and Lupin; however, some of Tonks' scenes are given to Luna Lovegood (ditzy as usual) which made very little sense. Even though I rather like that dipsy Luna and her spectrespecs, I would have preferred sticking to the book.

That's not to say this is a bad movie, only that I made what could be considered a mistake for reading the book just before seeing the movie. In fact, many lines, especially early on, come straight from the book, which is refreshingly fun. I also think that not having read the books leaves you at a bit of a disadvantage. You're missing the supporting characters (for example, you don't know what a full prat Cormac is, you only get a hint of it) and some of the subtext (Ron threatening to kill for snogging his sister, unaware his best friend wants to do exactly that but would choose his best mate anyday). You miss the real struggle Harry underwent to get the memory from Slughorn or how he continued to excel at potions thanks to his potions book. Still, they can't do everything. Even at 2 1/2 hours or so the movie moves quickly and there's barely a still moment, especially if you know what's coming up. And as usual the visuals are stunning - a ring of fire has never looked so incredibly grand and powerful and awe-inspiring. And I still nurse a strong crush on Hogwarts itself - its Gothic arches, its dark passageways, and the touches of magic that make it so alive and unique.

Jim Broadbent does an admirable job at Horace Slughorn, who I had pictured as fatter and with a large blonde mustache - but the crystallized pineapple, which sounds delicious, does make an appearance. Then again, when does Jim Broadbent give a bad performance? Alan Rickman continues to bite off the ends of his words with a crisp relish, and Tom Felton as Malfoy (again, all grown up) gets a lot to do in this film. Knowing how his arc turns out enriches this movie, I think and his performance in it. I hope after this he gets to do some roles where he smiles instead of sneers. He'll have the girls falling all over him too, not just Pansy Parkinson.

Animals: A small bird dies.

Overall: I freely admit I need to see this one again, not immediately after having read the book. I was waiting for what I knew was coming, not settling down to enjoy it as it ran. I give it an initial 3/12 roses out of five for what it cut from the book. A second viewing will likely improve that rating.

DVD Review: The Matrix Trilogy

Full disclosure: I saw The Matrix on video, Reloaded in the theater and Revolutions on DVD. It wasn't until recently that I saw all three of them fairly close together.

But let's back up. When I first saw the Matrix, I was blown away by the concept but not just that - by the visuals. Forget bullet time. Sure, that's cool. But what I love about these movies is the glossy sharply defined Matrix world, filled with martial arts, sassy clothing, and a patina of richness in the color that seems almost far too real. It's overlaid with a green gloss that sharpens and defines every frame of film. And there's a fantasy element to it. Who do you want to be? What would you learn if it was only as easy as downloading it straight into your brain? How would you live if you could create your own view of yourself? It's a thinker's ass-kicking movie. Sure, some of the computer stuff passed me by, but I could really follow the film's plot.

By the time I saw Reloaded, I was excited to see what happened next. But Reloaded left me befuddled. Who was the Architect and what was he talking about? If the Ghost Brothers are programs and so is the Merovingian, how exactly do they work? What was the point of Perseophone wanting to liplock Neo? (Keanu Reeves is attractive, but he does nothing for me.) What's this about Zion and the people and ... huh??? (But I will take some of that special cake the Merovingian made.) Other than that I felt like I'd gotten left behind by some deeply philosophical computer geek's dream.

So I didn't go see Revolutions when it came out a few months later. I was just too lost. Even though people raved about the whole series, I wasn't sure I wanted to bother. After much persuasion, I finally sat down to see all three, and with the help of Wikipedia, it all began to make a lot more sense. I still don't get all the details, but I don't feel like I'm missing as much as before.

The Matrix, obviously, was meant to stand alone, and in that way it's the crown jewel of all three films because it's a complete story, even if the humans aren't freed from the Matrix as yet. Reloaded is a likeable, even though confusing, middle story that further expands upon the gloss. Revolutions spends far too much time - of necessity - in the drab real world, infested by these machines that are a cross between a spider and a malevolent octopus that just give me the heebie-jeebies. Everybody wears hand knitted sweaters and eats goo. Give me the leather body suits, fast cars, and ass-kicking maneuvers of the Matrix anyday. So I found the third installment a necessary piece but not nearly as visually pleasing as the first two.

The highlight of all three films, in terms of action sequences, has to be the freeway chase scene in Reloaded. What an amazing achievement, and if you watch the DVD extras, it's even more incredible for what WASN'T computer generated. Hydraulics launching cars, stunt doubles leaping motorcycles off semis, you name it. That's edge of your seat action. I could watch that scene over and over and marvel at the mastery involved.

Let's say a few things about the casting: Keanu Reeves is good for these roles, but he's just not much for emoting. Still, his fight scenes are well done and he looks good doing them. Carrie Anne Moss is quietly understated but rock solid, and the only time she's overlooked is when she's next to Monica Belluci's Persephone, who is far sexier than Moss's earthy beauty. Laurence Fishburne was the only choice, in my opinion, for Morpheus. He not only rocks the gear (those nose-pinching round lensed sunglasses - awesome!), but he's got that voice that both whispers and roars with authority. (Plus he looks good bald.) Jada Pinkett Smith is fun as the pilot Niobe. And Hugo Weaving is just brilliant as Agent Smith. We knew the guy could act, but seriously, he's the shit. (Plus the guy who plays Bane does a dead-on Agent Smith in Revolutions and it's really well done and creepy as hell.) The entire supporting cast is really well done and diverse too, which is a nice change from most blockbusters.

I realize this isn't really a 'review' per se, just some thoughts about this movie trilogy. I still like the original the best, and I could watch that one over and over. I could watch parts of Reloaded, but probably wouldn't sit through Revolutions again. I liked it well enough, but I'd rather hang out in the Matrix, where everybody is cool.

DVD: There are tons of extras. I couldn't even get into them all. Leave yourself an extra viewing day for each movie's extras.

Animals: None. I don't even think there are animals in the real world. I think the only one we see is the deja vu cat in the Matrix at the Oracle's apartment.

Overall: The best part of the films is the visual effects, hands down. As an overarching story, I give all three films together three and a half roses out of five, carried by the visuals and the first movie's storyline.

Movie Review: The Good Shepherd

Pay attention. Brush up on your history. Take notes. Whatever you have to do to unravel this complicated plot, do it.

I like movies that don't pander to the lowest common denominator in the audience, and I like having to pay attention. And this movie definitely requires that level of concentration. With a running time of nearly three hours, flashbacks and historical references, it's difficult to follow what's going on without stopping the DVD and discussing the plot with your friends. You'll even want to dig out Wikipedia to get a historical brush up on WWII, Bay of Pigs, Cuba and other historical happenings that figure prominently into the plot.

Matt Damon stars as Edward Wilson. We see him performing in 'HMS Pinafore' before being inducted into Yale's Skull and Bones society, where he meets up with the slightly malevolent Richard Hayes (Lee Pace from TV's Pushing Daisies). They'll run into each other several times
over the next few years, as Wilson is pushed into a loveless marriage, loses the woman he does love, and ends up as a spy overseas. The whole movie is based on his rise into the CIA and how his duty to his country and the path he seems to have fallen into affect his life, his decisions and ultimately his happiness.

Damon plays this role without color. I suppose that's the point, but eventually you want to see him emote, show something, do anything. When he does unleash his giant boyish smile, it seems far too warm for the character. He's good at what he does, of course, but it's hard to feel anything for Edward, since he doesn't seem to feel anything for anyone else.

Angelina Jolie plays Clover (which, if you ask me, is a cow's name) the sister of a friend, and she comes on to Edward with very little subtlety. But I'm still not sure if we're supposed to see her as fast, too intrigued by Edward to be careful, or merely naive and reckless. You don't, after all, cast Jolie to be a virginal prude. That said, Jolie is a better actress than the material or her sex-bomb reputation have allowed her. But she doesn't have a lot to work with here. Despite that, she seems to age better than many actresses her actual chronological age do, and she wears the years with a heavy weariness that Damon's aging character can't match.

The cast is stellar - Michael Gambon, William Hurt, Billy Crudup, Robert De Niro, Joe Pesci, Alec Baldwin, Timothy Hutton, John Sessions and many more. That alone would make the movie interesting, if you could only figure out how they're all connected to Edward and the plot. That takes some real doing. It's nice to see all those familiar faces (although I didn't recognize Crudup at all) but getting their actual role in the film is easier said than done with many of them, especially since Edward meets up with some of them both socially and professionally. Hayes lurks, for example, in both realms, and it isn't until the end that you know for sure where he stands.

Among other notable characters, Tammy Blanchard plays Laura, Edwards' first love who has severe hearing loss. She drifts into and out of the story over the years, and Edward pines for her, we suppose, but he doesn't really show it much. Instead, we see time and time again how his job is the ultimate focal point of his life - less so, his family and friends, because he can no longer trust anyone. He doesn't trust women or treat any of them particularly well, and his fellow Skull-and-Bones friends seem not to affect him in any way, even when he's in his early years and supposed to be good friends with these men. In fact, he shows the most life while acting in drag, whatever that's supposed to tell us. When he's with Blanchard, the color comes from her; she blossoms under his affections.

And Tommy Nelson and Eddie Redmayne play Edward Jr. as both a boy and a young man, and both roles require him to be something of an odd duck. Both actors do well with that role; in particular young Tommy is actually rather creepy as he plays Edward Junior, that awkwardness due to his father's neglect.

This movie is at least 45 minutes too long. Some subplots could be excised; others take far too long to pay off; long before then I was fidgeting on the sofa, sleepy but wanting to figure out how it all ties together. When it was over, it was hard to say if I liked it. I'm still not really sure. I think it could have been brilliant, had somebody told Director De Niro that the story is bloated and hard to follow.

Animals: None that I recall.

Overall: An interesting complex plot becomes too complex, with far too many characters and threads to come to a conclusion that answers questions before it wears out the viewer. Because of the stellar cast and the intelligence the film assumes from the viewer, I give it three roses out of five.

Movie Review: Wall E

A cartoon should be goofy, larger than life, and full of chattery characters, right? The latest Pixar creation, Wall E, is none of these, and yet it's a deeply enjoyable layered ride.

You could subtitle this film "Robots In Love". There's a lot I don't want to say about the plot so that you're not spoiled, but I can tell you this: Wall E - Waste Allocation Load Lifter Earth-Class - appears to be the lone occupant of a wasted planet. Like a good worker, he takes his lunch cooler out to the piles and mounds of trash, and accompanied by his cockroach friend, uses his compactor insides to crush the trash into usable cubes. From there he builds skyscrapers of junk. He also keeps some of the treasures he finds - rubber duckies, light bulbs, a spork - and he happily cannibalizes other Wall Es that have stopped working to supplement his parts. He hardly makes any noises, but you understand him perfectly. The dialogue comes solely from a videotape of 'Hello Dolly' that Wall E is fascinated with.

Suffice it to say he meets other robots and has adventures. That may sound simplistic - on one level the story really is very simple - but it's better for you to come into the story like Wall E goes through his life and his adventures - with a sense of newness and wonder.

Wall E's beginnings on the wasted planet are drawn so intricately, with such detail, that you forget you're watching a cartoon. Wall E has so many human traits and movements (and occasionally he mimics a turtle, to funny effect) that you quickly pick up on the fact that he's just no ordinary robot. It may seem slow to the kiddies, but it takes its time to tell its story, while it gives you a chance to absorb Wall E's world and feel for him as strongly as if he was human.

The first half of the film is based on this home planet (our home planet as a matter of fact), and it feels incredibly different than any other Pixar film. It's quiet, introspective, detailed, calm, and funny. You will find yourself laughing at the robot pratfalls as though you'd never seen them before. You'll wince when he hits his head, 'aw' at his attempts to dance, feel sad with him when he feels alone.

The second half of the film is more typically Pixar - the action picks up and there is actual dialogue, but it's no less funny. Without spoiling too much, I can tell you that Fred Willard plays the President (yes, real live people in a Pixar film!), consumerism has taken over the world, and we've gotten so attached to our video screens that we forget everything else. I'll leave all the details out - you need to see it for yourself. I can say, however, that the adage about the eyes being the window to the soul is absolutely true, and a pair of blue eyes in this film tell us so much that I was just amazed at what we're able to learn from this simple device.

And this is one of those movies where there's a lot going on in the background, so I need to see it again to see everything I might have missed. So much is happening in the second half of the film that there are probably a ton of inside jokes and funny moments happening behind the action, and you'll only catch them on future viewings. That said, the kids will like the second half of the movie better, while adults will adore the first half. But everybody will go home happy.

This movie is proceeded by a hilarious short, 'Presto' that left me laughing so hard I was in tears. Just remember to feed your rabbit.

Animals: That cockroach is well-nigh indestructible, but no animals are harmed in the film. And after the movie's over, you'll feel like getting out to walk the dog, run a marathon, anything other than sit in front of a screen.

Overall: This introspective film with the eco-sensitive bent is gorgeous and makes you want to consider hugging your toaster. I give it four roses out of five.

TV Land is a Small Place

If you were to learn everything you wanted to know about the US from television and movies, you'd think the country is made up of three cities: New York, Los Angeles, and Miami.

You might suspect there's a place called 'Vegas' and a place called 'Chicago' but you wouldn't see them very often. Occasionally you'd see a small town, unnamed and unplaced on any map. And if you watched the Simpsons, you'd know about Springfield, but you wouldn't know where to find it.

You would be shocked to learn there are so many other cities and places in the United States, which you never hear about. Let's not even get into Canada.

Which is why I was tickled to hear that the new USA series, "In Plain Sight" is going to be set in Albuquerque NM. How refreshing! There's a unique culture in New Mexico, and although I haven't seen the show yet, I'm excited about the idea of working that in to the series. It provides so many opportunities to show the world things it may have never seen.

I get why it's easy to set shows in NYC and LA. Filming is de rigeur there so everybody's used to it. The tax breaks are probably big. And that's where the actors are.

The actors are also in Vancouver, another big filming spot - but how many of the shows filmed there are actually set there? Why is there this assumption that we're only interested in how New Yorkers and Californians live their lives? Is it because they're more glamorous, exciting, rich?

I've been to NYC, and while I enjoyed it, it's far too crowded for me. Too many people and buildings and cars and noise. So I honestly don't get the passionate love affair people have with the city. I've never been to Vegas or LA or Miami, but I like Chicago and think more could be filmed there. I'd like to see a show filmed in Detroit (the state is working to attract filmmakers even as I write) so that people stop thinking of the city as a crime-infested rat hole. Maybe life would follow art, then.

In short, we're missing a lot of opportunities for diversity. Let's show the world that the country is made up of more than three whole cities, and work in fresh cultures and viewpoints and scenery.

Heck, even setting a show in Vancouver would be a good start.