Serenity

  Spoiler alert! I discuss important plot details, if you haven’t seen this decade old movie based on a failed TV show and don’t want to know what happens then go watch it before you read my review. The movie is good, you’ll enjoy it.
  Outlaw Mal Reynolds and his crew of intergalactic bandits pick up a new passenger, a psychic named River Tam. River is being hunted by an operative of the Alliance, the chief government of the galaxy. Can Mal protect River and his crew while exposing the hidden crimes of the Alliance?
  While I’ve never seen the TV series that preceded it, for some reason I ended up watching Serenity in theaters during its release in 2005. I enjoyed the movie at the time, and years later I bought the DVD on a whim. Watching it recently, I was initially puzzled why I owned this movie, but by the time the film was over I was reminded why I liked it.
  Firefly is a cult TV show, and while I don’t fully understand all of the appeal, as a fan of weird things and sci-fi in general it’s hard not to like it at least a little. A sci-fi Western where all of the characters curse in Chinese? Sure, why not. I find it kind of strange that this movie even exists given that the show was cancelled during its first season due to poor ratings. I know Twin Peaks had a movie after it was cancelled, but that series was initially popular and had a lot of buzz around it, it also had a second season. I’m assuming Serenity was made due to the then growing power of creator Joss Whedon, who wrote and directed it. Whedon’s influence has only continued to gain momentum, as he has transformed from a TV writer to a director of huge blockbusters. If the man had just created Buffy the Vampire Slayer that would be enough to make him a geek legend, but giving nerds a live action Avengers movie ensures that his name will live on in internet chat rooms and comic conventions forever. He also wrote The Cabin in the Woods, which is a fucking awesome horror movie. Joss Whedon is the man.
  Like I said before, while I was watching the beginning of this movie I was wondering why I had purchased it given that I had never seen the TV show. The short answer is the story and the characters. The heroes in Serenity are a little more fleshed out then your average sci-fi characters, and Whedon is known for infusing his dialogue with wit and charm. Some of the protagonists are killed off, and the movie is good at making these deaths feel genuinely sad. A lot of movies slaughter cardboard characters left and right and nobody gives a damn, but seeing some of the people in Serenity get the axe was moving. I don’t think this is an easy thing to accomplish, but Whedon does it here and the movie is more compelling for that reason.
  The ideas in this are also something I found interesting. The movie explores the theme of control, and the pressures to conform to a society that manipulates individuals to no end. Anyone with adult responsibilities can probably relate to what the movie is talking about, I know I’m frequently stressed out by a system that often seems inhuman. Mal and the crew of Serenity oppose the overwhelming control of the Alliance, they are individualists trying to make their own way in a universe torn apart by power struggles. Later on in the film the good guys discover a planet where something killed the population in the midst of their daily routines, with the few that survived becoming the violently insane, space cannibals known as Reavers. It was the Alliance that caused all of this misery, they were trying to chemically control the population with a calming gas, with disastrous results. Control is not always a good thing, the movie is arguing, and too much control can be harmful.
  Characters and story aside, I thought Serenity had a good protagonist and villain. Nathan Fillion plays a square jawed anti-hero to good effect, he isn’t amazing but you like him enough and I found his back story intriguing as he is essentially a Confederate soldier living in the aftermath of a war his side lost. Chiwetel Ejiofor is frightening as the Operative because of the calm, collected way he murders innocent people. He is an idealist who thinks that the end justifies the means. At one point this villain admits to Mal that he knows he is a monster, and that he will not have a place in the world he is trying to create.
  One thing that is worth noting about Serenity is that while the movie does contain a climactic battle between the hero and villain, the hero does not kill the villain. After Mal beats up the Operative he forces him to watch video evidence proving that the Alliance wiped out that planet I mentioned earlier. After seeing this the Operative changes his position, and agrees with Mal. In 99% of these things the hero and villain can’t agree on anything, and one of them uses violence to take out the other. To see a movie where the bad guy actually learns the error of his ways was refreshing, and it felt natural to the story. Kudos to Joss for achieving this without it feeling forced in any way.
  If the Reavers are insane cannibals then how are they able to pilot and maintain space ships? And why don’t they wipe each other out? I understand this movie is a Western and the Reavers are the stand in for indians/Native Americans, but if you think about it they’re basically savage astronauts, which doesn’t really make any sense.  
  I don’t think you need to be a fan of the Firefly TV show to enjoy Serenity, the movie explains enough of the lore to give newcomers an idea of what’s going on. I’m sure fans of the show will get more out of this film, but I would recommend Serenity to anyone who likes good science fiction.
 

Starship Troopers: Invasion

  An Arachnid Queen has commandeered a Federation starship headed for Earth and it is up to the brave soldiers of the Mobile Infantry to stop her.
  Like most people, my introduction to the Starship Troopers universe began with the 1997 live action movie directed by Paul Verhoeven. While not as good as his film Robocop, Verhoeven’s take on the influential sci-fi novel, complete with humorous jabs at a fascist society, was a lot of fun and successful enough to produce a series of direct to video sequels. Invasion is the third sequel, and is a CG cartoon movie that is basically a video game cutscene but without the game part. If what I just wrote didn’t scare you away, then you might like Invasion.
  As much fun as the original ST movie was, the biggest problem I had with it was how it completely removed the powered armor mech suits that were in Heinlein’s novel. Starship Troopers is an influential book that helped inspire mecha anime like Mobile Suit Gundam, Robotech and countless other mech based properties from Japan and elsewhere, so an adaptation that lacked one of the chief elements was a bit frustrating to fans of the source material. I mention this because Invasion is based more on the Starship Troopers film franchise then it is the original book, which means that the power armor again gets mostly omitted. Towards the climax of this movie power armor does show up, but for the rest of the run time it’s standard gunplay, which was slightly disappointing for me. I still had fun watching the action in Invasion, don’t get me wrong, I’ll take a war between a bunch of Master Chief look a likes and an army of giant insects any day of the week, I just think robot suits would’ve made the proceedings considerably more enjoyable.
  The film mixes in a group of new troopers among the previously established ones such as Johnny Rico (who is now a general) and his starship pilot, love interest Carmen Ibanez. Carl Jenkins, the psychic played by Neil Patrick Harris in the original, also shows up, but is portrayed as more of a villain this time, at least in the sense that it was his psychic experiments that led to the crisis the troopers are facing. The newer characters are pretty forgettable and mostly serve to give the film an enjoyable body count ala a Friday the 13th film or any horror movie you can think of. By the time the movie is over, most of these new recruits are dead, and that was just fine with me and probably anyone who bothers to watch this.
  Actor Caspar Van Dien and screenwriter Edward Neumeier from the first Starship Troopers movie are listed as producers on this, but as Van Dien doesn’t voice Johnny Rico and I doubt Neumeier had much to do with Invasion’s script their involvement seems like a meaningless gesture designed to attract fans of the Verhoeven film. Other then this, there is no creative talent from the original movie involved in the making of this film, so if you were hoping to hear Neil Patrick Harris or Denise Richards in this then you are out of luck.
  In terms of expanding the lore Invasion adds almost nothing, the most interesting thing in the movie for me was seeing Carl Jenkins use his psychic powers to control some of the bugs, using a few of the Queen’s own drones against her, this was neat but it terms of story innovation this was Invasion’s only contribution, making the rest of the film a somewhat pointless excuse to see sci-fi guys shoot big bugs.
  If you like some of the CG animated features coming from Japan, like the Appleseed movies or Halo: Legends, then you might possibly be interested in Invasion, but this movie was really made for fans of the original film/novel. If you’ve never read the novel, or didn’t care for the 1997 movie, then I wouldn’t bother watching this. Even for die hard Starship Troopers fans the most I can give this is a mild recommendation, Invasion is fine but you might be better off checking out the first CG cartoon based on Heinlein’s book, the TV show Roughnecks: Starship Troopers Chronicles.

Watchmen

  A team of disbanded superheroes known as the Watchmen are being picked off one by one, as the murders continue it’s up to the hero Rorschach to discover who is behind the slayings. But can Rorschach solve the mystery before World War 3 breaks out?
  In my review of X-Men: Days of Future Past I said that I used to be huge into comic books, so it will not be surprising to anyone paying attention that I was a big fan of the Watchmen graphic novel, which is considered by many to be the best superhero yarn ever put to paper. I actually didn’t read Watchmen until I was in my early 20s, but it was quite a treat. My room-mate bought it for my birthday, he also gave me The Dark Knight Returns on that same birthday, essentially giving me the two most critically acclaimed superhero comics ever. Thanks room-mate. :)
  Some people think that Watchmen is unfilmable, a story so epic and hard to adapt that one would be better off not even trying. Alan Moore, the author of the comic, said that a Watchmen movie was a bad idea because he designed his stories to be comic books, and that they wouldn’t translate to the big screen. This movie sparked a lot of debate when it came out, some people loved it, lots of people hated it with a passion. I am one of the former. I’ve seen the film three or four times now, and for the purpose of this review I popped in my director’s cut DVD and sat through all 3 hours and 6 minutes. I still enjoy this movie, and I think it actually holds up quite well to this day.
  Anyone who’s read the trade paperback and seen the movie know that it changes one big part of the climax, but other then that it is a slavish reproduction of the graphic novel, too faithful some would say. I understand that comic books and movies are different, and that changes are a part of the adaptation process, but I am also of the opinion that the closer a movie is to the spirit of the source material the more likely it is to be good. If you’re going to make a movie loosely based on Watchmen then why even call it Watchmen in the first place? People love this story and these characters, and if any comic to film adaptation deserves an obsession with detail it is this one.    
  My favorite film critic, Roger Ebert, gave Watchmen a four star review when it came out. While I don’t think I would give it that high of a rating, I believe Ebert wasn’t far off. Love it or hate it, you have to admit that the movie sure is something. Even if you think Snyder failed at making a good movie out of the comic, you have to respect him for giving it one hell of a try. Watching it again last night, I was continually impressed by how visually striking the movie is, it really is a feast for the eyes, the kind of movie one can have muted and still be engrossed in.
  When Watchmen came out in 2009, I remember a conversation I had with a fellow comic fan who hadn’t yet seen it. He asked me if the movie lived up to the comic, and I told him that I wasn’t sure. I said that the best person to judge if Watchmen was a great movie would be someone who hadn’t read the graphic novel, and I still think that’s true today, but in the years that have followed, I must admit I have grown a fondness and admiration for this movie, it is a massive undertaking, one that I think achieves most of its goals. You want a Watchmen movie? You’ve got one, thanks to Zack Snyder and some especially brave executives at Warner Brothers. A big budget, R rated superhero movie? What were they thinking?
  While I did see it in theaters it was some time before I bought it on home video and watched it again, so I can’t say for sure all of what was added in the director’s cut. The movie is probably more violent, and I’m pretty sure that love scene in Nite Owl’s aircraft is a little longer and more intense on the DVD, other then that I’m not sure what more is included. If you know what the changes are and wouldn’t mind leaving a comment, I would appreciate it.
  Flawed or not, Snyder’s movie is a high quality cinematic experience that successfully carries over most of the charm of the comic. I think this movie is worth not only seeing once, but multiple times. I love the violence, the dark nature, the over the top elements, the courage required to tackle such a unique story, and the love it exhibits for the source material with an almost tender attention to detail. It may not be perfect, but it does justice to the graphic novel, and at the end of the day that is all that is required.

Gone Girl

  Amy Dunne is missing and presumed dead, and her husband Nick is the prime suspect in her murder. Did Nick kill his wife, and if he didn’t then who did?
  Let me just start off by saying that I loved the initial trailer for this movie. Something about the sadness of it was moving to me, and I was excited to see the film based on the trailer alone, although the fact that it was directed by David Fincher (Se7en, Fight Club, Zodiac) didn’t hurt. I liked the trailer so much I added it to my favorites playlist on YouTube, and have watched it multiple times. To my great surprise the movie glimpsed in the trailer is not what you get when you see the final film, the difference is night and day. While I was a little disappointed that the movie wasn’t that first trailer stretched out to feature length, I was happy to be surprised. I only watched the first trailer for Gone Girl, I don’t know if the other trailers revealed more of the story, but if they didn’t then that is a great thing. Too many trailers hand the entire plot to the viewer, making seeing the actual film somewhat pointless. I’m happy this movie wasn’t spoiled for me.
  Rosamund Pike plays Amy, and her character is the heart of the movie. I’ve seen Pike in a few other films, while she is quite beautiful I never remember being particularly impressed by her acting, but she does great as Amy, showing off an intelligence and intensity that is frightening. I am a big fan of Ben Affleck’s career as a director, but not so much his skills as an actor, but I have to say here he does pretty good work. The relationship between him and his wife is crucial to the film’s success, and the chemistry achieved by the two actors is sufficient to hook the audience. There are some other quality performances in this, but due must be given to Tyler Perry as his scene stealing, Johnnie Cochran like lawyer. I’m not a fan of Perry’s movies, but he is great as this character.
  I’ve been a casual supporter of David Fincher for years, but that may have to change. With the possible exceptions of Panic Room and Alien 3, all of Fincher’s films have been worth seeing, and he is continuously proving his chops with every subsequent release. I didn’t enjoy Gone Girl as much as some of his other movies, but that is no insult to be sure. Zodiac is probably my favorite thing he’s ever done, but I’ll take Gone Girl over most other studio releases any day.
  While I was sold on the film’s gloomy trailer, the tone of the piece is all over the place, this movie is many things, frequently thrilling, funny and shocking. I want to say more about the plot but I think doing so would be a disservice to the reader, so instead I will tell you that you should see this movie and discover it’s surprises for yourself.

Night Moves

  Kelly Reichardt might be my favorite director, I’ve enjoyed all of her movies that I’ve seen, and I’ve watched them all save one. It was the film Wendy and Lucy that first brought her to my attention. After reading Ebert’s review of the film, I had to check it out, and it became one of my favorite films. I’ve said before that I love realism in movies, and that is why I adore Wendy and Lucy and Reichardt’s films in general. Her movies are ultra realistic, and contain nuanced characters. This is subtle film-making, without the stupidity and cheese that dominates everything playing at the multiplex. Last year when I heard about her latest movie Night Moves, I was very excited. I finally got to see the film a few weeks ago and I have to say I wasn't disappointed, I don’t think this is her finest work, but it’s damn good.
  The story revolves around three eco terrorists who plot to blow up a dam. Once their scheme comes to fruition, the three are met with unexpected consequences that result in conflict and tragedy.  
  Jesse Eisenberg plays the lead terrorist, with Dakota Fanning and Peter Sarsgaard as the other two. These are accomplished, big name actors, and Reichardt uses them to their grittiest. Eisenberg plays the usual neurotic loner that he does in all of his movies, but with a slightly sinister edge and he gives this character a sub current of anger appropriate of someone plotting a bombing. Dakota Fanning is the one who pays for the boat (which she names Night Moves) and the fertilizer needed to fashion the explosive, the other two write her off as a spoiled brat for this reason. Peter Sarsgaard is the bomb maker and most frightening of the three, as we learn that he has military training and has spent time in prison. What unites these characters is their passion for environmentalism and open hostility for the greedy, destructive culture they live in. While they start off friendly, as the movie progresses relationships are strained between them as the pressure from the ensuing manhunt tests them in ways they were not prepared for.
  I watched this movie with a conservative friend of mine, and she told me during the film that this was Hollywood’s usual environmentalist propaganda, a notion that I quickly dismissed. The three environmentalists are not portrayed as heroic or noble, and their destruction of the dam is questioned openly. A background character at one point voices the opinion that whoever blew up the dam has achieved nothing, and that multiple dams would have to be destroyed simultaneously to create any lasting impact.
  The movie played with my expectations during a pivotal scene. As the plot moves forward you’re expecting one character to do something, and when that something is done by a different character I was surprised, though others may have seen it coming.
  This is perhaps Reichardt’s darkest film to date, Meek’s Cutoff had characters brandishing guns but I don’t remember much, if any, actual bloodshed. This film has a bomb going off (though we never see the explosion, we do hear it) and a small body count, this isn’t Friday the 13th but compared to her earlier movies this is pretty gruesome stuff.
  If this movie sounds interesting to you, or if you’ve never heard of Kelly Reichardt, I would highly recommend you seek out Night Moves or any of the director’s other titles. This is one I will be adding to the collection. I await Ms. Reichardt’s next film with great anticipation.

Joe

  Nicolas Cage plays Joe, an honest, hard working man trying to go straight after spending time in prison. When he hires an abused teen named Gary, Joe finds himself getting back into trouble as Gary’s problems become his own.
  Despite all the horrible stuff he makes, I am still a fan of Nicolas Cage. When he isn’t turning out shit like Left Behind or terrible movies about Ghost Rider, he occasionally shows audiences why he is a star. Say what you will about Bangkok Dangerous or National Treasure parts one and two, the man can act. If you’ve never seen him in a good movie, I would highly recommend Leaving Las Vegas, his performance as a guy drinking himself to death is heart breaking. Adaptation is another fine performance, in which he plays twins, giving each their own distinct personality.
  Joe isn’t a great movie, but it’s a solid film and as a fan of Nicolas Cage I was happy to see him in something good. Joe is a character on the razor’s edge, he has been through an awful lot and his pain is raw. He is trying hard to survive and follow the rules, but life is constantly testing him. When he takes in Gary, a good kid with his own problems, things go into overdrive. Gary’s abusive father and a local thug with a grudge against Joe team up to put him to the final test.
  The movie is quite dark and violent, but it does have some positive scenes. Joe’s relationship with Gary is touching, the two seem to really appreciate each other. Joe at first does not want to get involved in Gary’s problems, but by the end of the movie he cannot resist himself as he seems to genuinely care for the youth.
  Cage doesn’t completely pull off the character of Joe, at least not the pure machismo that Joe requires. This character is a hardened bad-ass, a violent man that can barely contain his pain and rage. Cage nails the pain, but I wasn’t fully convinced that Cage was the violent force of nature Joe is supposed to be. I like this movie but it might have been better to cast an actor who is more physically imposing, like Tom Hardy or one of the Wayans brothers. I’m just kidding, fuck the Wayans brothers.
  This movie has two good villains, Gary’s father Wade is a lazy, despicable monster who is capable of horrifying acts. In one scene we see him follow another drunk around, until he eventually strikes up a conversation with the man, before casually murdering him for his wallet and booze. The other bad guy is Willie Russell, a maniac with a scarred face that oozes sleaze. Watching the movie, I was eager to see Joe’s righteous fury consume these two creeps, the tension built was palpable.
  Joe was directed by David Gordon Green, who started off his career by making critically acclaimed, low budget dramas. Since then Green has moved onto more audience friendly films like Pineapple Express and Your Highness. I liked Pineapple Express but I’m glad to see the director go back to his roots, stoner movies are good in small doses but I know I’m more interested in movies like Joe.
  There’s a subplot about Joe’s love interest, a young woman who’s staying with him, but it doesn’t really go anywhere. Joe’s a pretty damaged character, and at this point it’s probably too late for romance to save him.
  I am giving Joe a recommendation, it’s not Earth shattering, but it is good stuff, and one of the better entries from Cage’s growing filmography of awful films. I had fun mentioning some of the shit movies the man has starred in, so to end this review I will mention some more. The Rock. Con Air. Face/Off. Windtalkers. The Wicker Man remake. Next. Season of the Witch. Drive Angry. The Sorcerer’s Apprentice.
  Jesus Christ, they’re making a National Treasure 3? Who watches this shit?

Whitewash

  After accidentally killing a man with his snow plow, unemployed widower Bruce drives it deep into the woods where he becomes stranded. With the authorities looking for him and the man he hit, Bruce must battle the freezing cold and his own sense of guilt. Is there redemption in the forest, or just ice and snow?
  This is one of those artsy fartsy type of movies that a large percentage of moviegoers will hate, but I usually love. Smaller stories are more interesting to me, they feel less like movies and more like glimpses into a person’s everyday life. As someone who just gave X-Men: Days of Future Past a favorable review, I can safely say that I love stupid, big budget schlock as much as the next guy, but it is movies like this that increasingly interest me as I get older.
  The highlight of this film is definitely Thomas Haden Church’s performance as Bruce. This is Church’s show, and he gives a compelling performance as a guy in some pretty bizarre and miserable circumstances. Bruce is alone for most of the movie, so we get to see him struggle to survive the elements while battling his own demons. We observe Bruce rehearse the lies he will tell the police if he is caught, as well as witness instances of him lashing out at his surroundings. This movie probably isn’t as good as Church’s performance in Sideways, but it sure as hell beats what he did in six seasons of Wings and that awful, third Spider-Man movie.
  As the film continues, we learn that Bruce and the man he killed were connected, a relationship that definitely seems to haunt Bruce. The movie also subtly suggests that the main character is an alcoholic who misses his wife, who we learn died of cancer some time ago.
  One thing I must mention is that this is one of those movies that just stops, something I don’t mind at all but I know can bother a lot of people. If you hate it when movies don’t wrap up everything in a neat little package, then look elsewhere.
  Like I said before, this is a small story, more of a character study then your usual action movie nonsense. If watching a movie about an internally conflicted snow plow driver sounds appealing to you, then check this out. Anyone who likes Thomas Haden Church and wants to see him conduct odd conversations with himself while freezing his ass off is in for a treat. Recommended.