Primer (2004)

What if... you could build a time machine? Would you go back in time and turn your dad into a badass? Would you invent the frisbee? Maybe you'd save the whales? I'd buy a lot of real estate. That's what I would do. I remember reading something in a Discover magazine that said that you could build a time machine if you had a black hole laying around. Unlikely I propose a second scenario. What if... you made a movie about a time machine? Would you make it as confusing as possible and completely ignore characterization and tension? That's what the guys that made Primer did.

The entire movie is riddled with technobabble and cryptic dialogue, but the first half is especially bad. It's like watching an hour of Geordi and Data working on the Starship Enterprise but without knowing that they're trying to get away from the Klingons or whatever. The folks I watched this with said that they liked it as a sort of puzzle to crack, but that wasn't enough for me.

I can imagine that Primer's twisting time-travel plot might be more interesting on a second viewing if the movie is as tightly plotted as the various internet nerds that recommend it say, but Primer offers very little characterization or any sort of tension to get the viewer through their first viewing. A movie can only be so demanding without giving anything in return.

It's too bad, because for a movie that was made on a $7000 budget, it has some really excellent photography and editing, even if their style is mostly stolen from Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg's movies and TV show. It's a rip off, but it's a really impressive ripoff that might lead to a better personal style eventually. The root of my problem with Primer is that it is a movie made by, about and apparently for engineers and other math/science folk. If director Shane Carruth ever manages a follow up, I hope he keeps the technical excellence but adds a little humanity, romance or humor; anything to appeal to us poor souls with liberal arts degrees.

Cost/Benefit analysis: I got it from Netflix, and initially I was really disappointed that I'd wasted two hours of my life. Now that a month or so has passed, I consider it a deeply flawed movie, but each of those flaws is filled with the blood and sweat of a talented and ambitious filmmaker, one that I hope goes on to create bigger and better things. That is enough to recommend the movie. Rent if it you're curious and want to join the conversation, but be aware of what you're getting into.

The Living Daylights (1987) & License to Kill (1989)

Pompous Thomas Presents: A Timothy Dalton/James Bond Double Review

In my review of The American, I ragged on Timothy Dalton, lumping him with faux-James Bonds Austin Powers and Vin Diesel's XXX. This was a cheap shot and I apologize. When I wrote that, I had only seen parts of one of his Bond Movies. It's not that I am averse to the lesser Bond actors. After all, my favorite Bond movie is On Her Majesty's Secret Service, the only Bond to star this kilt-wearing weirdo:

When you get right down to it, I actually really like Dalton. Well, he was so great in Hot Fuzz that I'll give him a lifetime pass. So, in the interest of sharing and learning and growing here's a pair of reviews of Dalton's twin Bond movies: The Living Daylights and License to Kill

The Living Daylights
The Living Daylights is a mostly bad movie. It's about as good as A View to a Kill, the crappy Roger Moore movie that preceded it, but where Moore played the part with effortlessness that comes from playing a part for about 15 years, Dalton is awkward as Bond. He doesn't have the charm and he almost seems too smart. He has no chemistry with his cello-playing Soviet assassin/lover, but he does well in the action sequences, especially a fight scene set on and behind a cargo plane.

The plot is mostly garbage; something about Russians and American Arms dealers and I really don't know what else. The Mujaheddin show up towards the end and help Bond out a bit, so this might make a good "White guys help out the Mujaheddin" double feature with Rambo 3. The bit in the middle where Bond and Bondgirl sled down a mountain in a cello case is probably a low point for the entire series, easily eclipsing the moon buggy chase in Diamonds are Forever.

License to Kill
This is much better. The plot is still silly, but so packed to the gills with shark attacks, eel attacks, weddings, semi trucks, golf carts, iguanas, skydiving and Wayne Newton that you don't have time to notice. Bond is written to better suit Dalton's strengths; a bit harder and meaner than before, but he still doesn't have much chemistry with either of the female leads. Bond's quartermaster, Q, has a larger role in this movie than ever before or after, including a scene where he wears a fake mustache and a real sombero. This alone makes the movie worth seeing. The chase scene at the finale is excellent and is up there with The Road Warrior for best pre-CGI chase scenes involving semi trucks.

Cost/Benefit Analysis: These are on Netflix, but are disc-only, so the only cost (other than subscription fees) was the time it took for the mailman to bring my my movies. Totally worth it! ...for License to Kill. I would even take the time to leave my house, drive in my car to a rental place and pay actual dollars for that movie (If I lived in a world where netflix didn't exist). I wouldn't go that far for The Living Daylights though. It's only worth the time of a Bond completionist or the truly bored.

Fun Notes: In The Living Daylights Joe Don Baker plays a character that is probably the bad guy (since he's the last to die), and then he play's Bond's CIA friend with the busted Beetle in Goldeneye! I don't know if that's actually a fun fact or not, but I always thought it was weird.

Faster (2010)

The problem with Faster is the name. It's not a fast movie. No, no, no. It crams in far too many side plots, and side plots for its side plots for that. It could have been saved if the movie had a script to match talent present in the cast. Billy Bob Thorton, Dwayne Johnson, Carla Gugino and more are all completely wasted in this humorless Kill Bill ripoff.

Cost/Benefit Analysis: I was actually paid to see this movie (though at time of writing, I haven't gotten the check quite yet) as a screening audience reporter for a PR firm. Don't think that I'm letting that sway my review.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1 (2010)

I'm not really sure that I should be reviewing a Harry Potter movie. Being a big fan of the books, I've dutifully seen each movie in theater without hesitation. While I usually mostly enjoy them, I always have to remind myself to not be a pedantic nerd about everything. There's always something that the filmmakers changed from the way it "really happened," and it takes me out of the movie. Is this silly? Probably. Can I change? No! I've had it up to here with the fact that the movies don't do the patronuses right! Why is this so hard?!

Quibbling aside, this was a pretty good movie, which surprised me. The story eschews the standard Hogwarts setting in favor of a series of wizarding and real world locales that Harry P. and the gang visit while searching for the horcruxes that must be destroyed to kill that awful Voldemort. The book has a reputation for being nothing but camping, camping, camping, but I thought the change of setting was a good way to reduce Hogwarts fatigue.

I don't know if it is enjoyable for Non Potter-fans. The flying-around, wand-waving wizard stuff is exciting and the cast is as engaging and wonderful as ever. However, I think those that haven't immersed themselves in Potter lore might find themselves a bit lost. The horcruxes weren't explained (or re-explained since their introduction in The Half-Blood Prince), certain actions and things happened and weren't really explained, but The Deathly Hallows were explained through a nice animated sequence. Mundungus, who was cut out of The Order of the Pheonix, was awkwardly introduced here in an early scene so that he could fulfill his plot-given duties and will probably never be heard of again. Oh wow, I just realized that I'm being a pedantic nerd again.

Cost/Benefit analysis: I paid full price, like every good HP fan should. I got to see the nice special effects on a big screen and got to laugh at the awkward dancing along with the rest of the audience. Worth it.

The American (2010)

Every spy movie must be compared to James Bond. I didn't invent this rule and I don't like it much either, but that's just the way it is. Whether you're Jason Bourne, XXX, Austin Powers or Timothy Dalton, the people are inevitably compare to you the supposed gold(finger) standard of Sean Connery's classic portrayal of 007. Now that this rule has been firmly established I can say that The American is nothing like a James Bond movie.

For one, it is slow, slow, slow. But that's not a fault by any measure. And it's not really slow, it's calculated. It's geologic. And it's probably much more like being a spy than anything in a Bond movie. Clooney's character is a bit of a wierdo (he's obsessed with butterflies), the kind of wierdo that you become when you're spending lots of time by yourself doing intricate, secretive spy work. However, that's not to say that the movie doesn't have a few exciting action sequences or that Clooney doesn't make a special lady friend (I mean, come on, he's George Clooney) or anything like that. The movie takes these tropes on from a different perspective than usual.

The movie's biggest fault is also a matter of perspective. The bulk of the action is viewed from George Clooney's point of view, with only a few scenes towards the end breaking it up. These scenes steer it all back towards standard action movie land, which is pretty disappointing. I would love to see a version of this movie where I never know anything that Clooney doesn't also know.

Cost/Benefit analysis: Saw it at full price, which it was worth.

Nerdy injoke: G.C., the lone American in a sea of Italians, steps into a diner playing Serio Leone's Once Upon a Time in the West. Get it? Hint: in this movie, the Italians aren't supposed to be Mexicans.

The A-Team (2010)

From the Pompous Thomas 2010 Review Backlog!

Oh boy does this movie suck. It really wants to be a fun, irreverent action movie like Shoot 'Em Up with an ensemble cast like Ocean's 11, but it lacks the inventiveness of the one and the chemistry of the other. Bradley Cooper in particular is a black hole of charisma that sucks any bit of goodness and light that drifts by. Liam Neeson is ok and so is the other white guy but the Mr. T impersonator sucks too. The group lacks the cohesiveness you need for this kind of movie to succeed and in the end it just feels like 4 actors playing different parts. AND YES, I know that most movies have actors playing parts, but you don't usually notice as much as you do here.

Cost benefit analysis: I paid $5 for a mid-week show and I want my money back. I don't even recommend it to fans of the show. Just watch your DVDs of the show, you weirdos.

Inception (2010)

From the Pompous Thomas 2010 Review Backlog!

Inception. Everyone saw this movie and mostly it was awesome. I was super-hyped on it for about two weeks right after it came out. I don't think much about it now. I guess it now seems really empty, especially compared to something like Winter's Bone, or even The American, now that it's been 3 months or whatever since I saw it.

Yeah, the effects were mostly pretty cool and I enjoyed the ride immensely. It was fun to talk about with people and read about on the internet and I even spent an hour at work drawing up a little dream level map. Tommy from Third Rock from the Sun was a baller (per usual), the guy from Titanic squinted a lot and it was fun to see the actors that Nolan brought in from his previous movies (this is my favorite thing, especially when the Coen Bros. do it). Ellen Page may or may not be a 12 year old boy, especially compared to Marion Cotillard.

The notes I wrote immediately after seeing Inception are as follows: "So awesome. Broke Kurt's mind. A movieto talk about, but still fun (sorry Blade Runner) Amazing cast. Amazing imagination." I don't know why I've cooled off on it so much. Maybe it's an Avatar-style hype burnout factor? Maybe writing a completely fawning review this far after the fact would seem completely redundant?

Cost/Benefit Analysis: Definitely benefits from big-screen viewing so if you can find it and are interested, go see it. To prevent this from being a completely negative/apathetic review I'll say that Cotillard was great and so was Tom Hardy. This'll probably be seen as a break-out role for him. The snow fortress/On Her Majesty's Secret Service dream level was great and if Nolan wants to do the next Bond movie, he'll have my permission. It is a good movie, but

Winter's Bone (2010)

From the Pompous Thomas 2010 Review Backlog!

Winter's Bone is one of those movies that deserves a lot more attention than it received when it was first in theaters. It was without a doubt the best movie I saw this summer (including that flashy one about all the dreams and everything) and I'm sure that come Oscar season it will be nominated for (but ultimately ignored for) a number of awards that it totally deserves.

I'm not sure why, but this one reminds me of last year's An Education. They certainly have nothing in common in terms of setting or plot, but they both rock some hardcore awesome acting, especially from a young unknown female lead. Set amidst hillbilly gangsters of the Ozarks, this is a detective thriller that would be far too much for the likes of Nancy Drew. These hillbillies are a suspicious and cowardly lot, and as our young heroine traverses the Ozarks searching for her missing father, she meets a fantastic collection of scoundrels and ne'er-do-wells. These are portrayed in an ambiguous way such that you never can tell if they're going to help or harm the poor girl. Oftentimes they do both.

Cost/Benefit Analysis: Worth full price. It's a beautiful, brutal movie that deserves every dollar and minute it asks of you.

Nerdy post script: Two actors from Deadwood! Always a good thing.

Obvious porn parody titles: Wiener Bone, Win Her Bone Her and Winner's Bone.

Iron Man 2 (2010)

From the Pompous Thomas 2010 Review Backlog!

Iron Man 2 is a nearly perfect summer movie. It's funny, exciting and ultimately kind of forgettable. I'm writing this review two months after I saw the movie and I can't remember much about it other than the basics: Robert Downey Jr. is funny, he flirts with Gwyneth, ScarJo looks super good but doesn't really do anything, Sam Jackson comes around and glares at people and then there's a big fight against Sam Rockwell (who plays a nerdier version of Tony Stark) and Mickey Rourke's evil super robots. At the end Gwyneth and Robert Downey finally give into their love just like Peter Parker and Mary Jane at the end of Spider-Man 2.

Like the above suggests, there are a ton of characters in the movie. I actually left out a couple: Jon Favreau as a butler or whatever and Don Cheadle plays Tony Stark's eventual sidekick. It's such a good cast that I enjoyed the non-action sequences better than the super hero stuff even though that was all really good. As packed as it is, the only parts that sagged were the Sam Jackson bits in the middle. But, I really like this grand Avengers project of Marvel's, so I'll allow it.

Cost/Benefit Analysis: I paid 5 bucks to see this one on a weekday, but would have been happy paying full price. It's full of fun and spectacle with a huge cast of stars having a good time. Get a big loud bucket of popcorn when you watch this one.

The Warlords (2007)

From the Pompous Thomas 2010 Review Backlog!

The Warlords is a Chinese historical epic from a couple years ago that was released in the States a couple months ago. It stars Andy Lau and Jet Li, a couple of big names that have been in awesome historical epics before, so I was expecting great things. Instead, what you got here is an awkward movie that feels like it was cut down from a much longer movie... but it wasn't. Ugh.

The movie lacks substance. There's one pretty brutal action scene in the Jason Bourne shaky cam-style that takes place about a third of the way into the movie but the rest of the movie is exposition, narration, and other boring stuff. Jet Li's army conquers city after city, but we only get to see the before and after. First the generals arguing about something, then when there should be another big battle (or at least a montage!) some on-screen text will say "They captured the city" or whatever and it's back to arguing.

I guess some people will get into the betrayals and love triangle between Lau, Li and Female Love Interest (I'm pretty sure that's the character's actual name), but it wasn't enough for me. I was pretty bored the entire time.

Cost/Benefit analysis: I paid 9 bucks to see this movie and... it wasn't worth it. It might be worth 2 or 3 if you're sick of Hero and The House of Flying Daggers and need an Asian action fix, but this isn't an essential movie by any means.

Fun Note: Wikipedia says that the movie had a 40 million dollar budget. It also says that 15 million of that went to Jet Li. I wonder if that's part of the problem...

Exit Through the Gift Shop (2010)

From the Pompous Thomas 2010 Review Backlog!

Exit Through the Gift Shop: Fun and games with the street art underground or revenge documentary? How about both! This movie has two distinct halves. The first half of this super-low budget documentary is pure fun and games with our POV into the thrilling world of street art; the one and only Theirry.

Theirry films everything he does. EVERYTHING. Cooking, sleeping, walking, talking, working, playing. He's a goofy and lovable guy and the artists he meets through his street artist cousin are like Robin Hood and coolest kids in school rolled into one. The time we spend marveling at their cleverness and laughing at their hijinks is some of the most fun I've had watching a movie. The second half is a lot different.

In the second half, Theirry stops hanging out with famous street artists like Banksy and Shepard Fairey and becomes the engineer of an elaborate industrial/commercial street art machine. Theirry stops being the goofy guy holding the camera and becomes an object of scorn. It's hard to see the movie and street artists like Banksy turn on our hero like this, even if he does seem to deserve it. But then you remember that Banksy directed this movie. You have to wonder if we're really getting both sides of the story or if this is just Banksy's way of getting back at Theirry for being such a huge sell-out, man.

Cost/Benefit Analysis: I saw this movie for free, but I was planning on paying full price to see it. The movie's truthiness is a bit suspect, but it's still a good story, no matter what actually happened.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2009)

When you think of Sweden you think of large, bulky people; the bland, colorless food they eat; and the flat, frozen expanse of barren wasteland that they call home. But I ask you, when a man takes the time to ruminate on this land of golden-haired giants, how often does he think of taut mystery/thrillers starring petite bisexual goth computer hackers? Probably never. Truly I say to you, maybe this ruminating man should pull his head out of the sand and watch The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo. Not just because it is made by Swedish people and they speak a funny language, because it is an awesome movie

I like seeing movies that I know next to nothing about. In the worst case scenario I see something new without the burden of my preconceptions; In the best case scenario I am completely blown away by the reality that such an amazing thing exists in the world. I imagine it's much the same way Christopher Columbus felt when he discovered America. The greatest discovery made in Dragon is the girl with the dragon tatoo herself. as a bisexual goth computer hacker, she is about as unique a character as I've ever seen. She makes her co-star seem about as exciting as a boiled potato. The character could have turned into a miserable Matrix-parody if it hadn't been played by an actor as capable as Noomi Rapace, who is surely destined to be remembered as one the greatest movie hackers in Swedish, if not world, history.

Dragon starts with two disconnected story lines that twist and turn unpredictably, even though I did manage to guess one of the mysteries. At times the movie is hard to watch and I'm not talking about the numerous computer research montages. It gets into subject matter that I don't think American movies touch on much. I was definitely uncomfortable, but that added to the experience rather than taking away.

Cost/Benefit Analysis: I paid full price and don't regret a thing about it. I positively recommend this movie. Special bonus: It's part of a trilogy! That means more to love. Extra-special bonus: there will probably be an American remake. That means that if you see this movie, you can be all pretentious and tell people that the remake could NEVER be as good as the original Swedish version. "Didn't you see it? Oh, you simply must. It's DIVINE!"

Green Zone (2010)

Green Zone is not Jason Bourne movie it was advertised as, so forget about that right away. Yeah, it's directed by Paul Greengrass and stars Matt Damon and Matt Damon plays a military action guy but that's where the similarities end. See, where Bourne was a gritty espionage action thriller, Green Zone is a gritty military political espionage action thriller. It's TOTALLY DIFFERENT. In Bourne, Matt Damon saves the day by beating a guy up with a rolled-up magazine. In Green Zone, he saves the day by sending a girl an email.

It's a good movie, and it challenges your assumptions quite a bit. It's the first Middle Eastern war movie that actually portrays the Middle Eastern-ers as real people (see Black Hawk Down for the opposite). A person could probably conduct an interesting study with this movie, examining the effects a person's political orientation has on their reaction to the movie and who they find sympathetic: the Iraqis, the members of the Bush Administration, or the CIA agents and journalists stuck somewhere in the middle of everything.

It's a complicated movie and a complicated subject that the cast and script do a great job of making accessible. Particularly excellent is Brenden Gleeson as the CIA agent in charge of Iraq or whatever. It's clear that he's playing a part here; his worn-in, rough at the edges character contrasts a little too easily with the slick Bushie character played by Greg Kinnear but dang it all if I care one bit. Also impressive: Amy Ryan is as Wall Street Journal writer and Khalid Abdalla as the one-legged Freddie.

Cost/Benefit analysis: Go see it, or maybe just rent it. It's good and might reopen a few old wounds. Personally it brought me back to the third hour art class I was in in 2003 when the war started. It might also spark and make you want to learn more about this war we're in, so watch at your own risk.

Crazy Heart (2009)

When life gets so bad that the only thing you can do to make yourself feel better is violently puke into your toilet, the way to turn everything around is to write a nice country song about it; so says Crazy Heart. Despite being an obvious Oscar-grab on Jeff Bridges's part, this flick about a down-and-out country singer is another that manages to be pretty good despite having not having the most original story ever; thanks to good acting and a few catchy tunes.

It's a story that could make for a darn good country song itself:

I lost my wife
and flipped my truck
Broke up my ankle
I don't give a fuck

Cause I got this cra-aa-zy heart
Oh darlin', it burns when we're apart
Oh yeah, this cra-aa-zy heart
It beats and bumps and turns deep in the dark

I drink all day
and all night too
I lost my son
and yours! Boo-hoo!

But I still got this cra-aa-zy heart
I wish I had the bite to match your bark
Instead I got this cra-aa-zy heart
Oh darn this cra-aa-zy heart

(harmonica solo that transitions into a slide guitar solo with a big finish)

So you get standard drama/music bio-pic stuff: drugs, alcohol, romances that start hot and burn out quickly, neglect due to chemical abuse, etc, etc, etc. But you know what? It doesn't really matter. Jeff Bridges can make anything watchable and the supporting cast of Robert Duvall, Colin Farrel and Maggie Gyllenhaal is great. I was never sold on the relationship between Bridges and Gyllenhaal (It was totally gross), but that was only a mild creepiness that I managed to overlook just like I do with the make up in a Star Trek movie.

Cost/Benefit analysis: Saw it for free with my family. I wouldn't pay full price for it though. Worth a rental or a ticket in the cheap theaters. I'm going to wait for Tron Legacy and True Grit later this year to pay up for the Dude.

Sherlock Holmes (2009)

Now, Sherlock Holmes was a sweet movie. Guy Ritchie's film has a great cast, a solid story and an utterly fantastic setting I seriously cannot emphasize that enough. If I could travel back in time and slightly to the left to live in this grungily-elegant London, I would probably vacation there at least. To say nothing else, this is a polished and attractive movie. Don't worry though, I've got a lot more to say. Look down a bit. See? There it is!

Turning Holmes and Watson comic book action heroes is a move that mirrors the badassening of Star Trek and Batman, but it is also a return to badassery for a pair of classic badasses that have long been ninny-fied by stuffy slope-nosed men in tweed suits. True, Holmes taking on a fight with three men, armed only with a electric cattle prod is a bit over the top. After all, Arthur Conan Doyle's original version of the detective, was only an expert of singlestick, pistolry and "baritsu." And yes, Holmes' film love interest Irene Adler only shows up in one of the original stories. The liberties taken only take the movie into the realm of action-greats like Raiders of the Lost Ark (while actually staying closer to reality in some respects).

Cost/benefit analysis: I think I paid matinee for this one, but I would totally see it again and pay full price. If you want to be entertained, see this movie. Just don't think that they're not setting up a sequel. That would be immensely silly of you.

Avatar

Avatar is interesting because of all of hype surrounding it and the ten years it spent in development hell while James Cameron waited for technology to catch up with his vision. It's hard to talk about this movie without getting into crazy 3D technology or the motion capture technology that turned a Sigorney Weaver into a crazy blue alien, so I'm not going to.

In some ways the movie feels like a demonstration of Cameron's mo-cap and 3D technology. There are rumors that the movie's original script was more complicated with heavier Sci Fi concepts that were scaled back to turn it into a more accessible action flick. While this isn't necessarily a bad thing, it seems like they over-did it. The story is almost exactly the same as Pocahontas or Dances with Wolves with black and white morality that makes all blue people good and all white people outside of the hero group bad. Other than that, it's a slick action flick some some exciting moments and cool stuff to ooh and ahh at; exactly what one expects from the director of The Terminator.

The supposedly ground-breaking 3D didn't really do much for me other than put an ache in my bad eye, but I'll admit that I saw it on a standard-size screen and sat to the far left of the screen. From my experience there wasn't much that the 3D made better, but the computer animation and motion capture was impressive. There were times when I forgot that I was watching computer creatures all together, something that I never got over with Gollum.

Cost/Benefit analysis: I was lucky to have a coupon that brought my movie ticket down to 3 bucks from 13. The 3 dollar "3D handling fee" the theaters throw on is stupid. Now that I've seen a 3D movie, I never want to pay it again. That said, if I could go back in time and see the movie again for the first time, I would go all out and pay 15 at a true Imax theater. I wonder how much my experience would have been different, but I'll never know.

An Education (2009)

I think that a movie's quality is like a bridge supported by three pillars: cast, direction and script. When one of the pillars is weaker than the others, the bridge stands if they others are strong enough. When all of the pillars are weak, the bridge is washed away and no one misses it.

An Education is very nearly washed away; the plot is unsurprising and direction is unnoticeable. However, the cast is so strong that it turns An Education into a bridge that is so strong that you can jump up and down on it and yell to your friends, "HEY! THIS IS AN AWESOME BRIDGE, COME AND SEE IT FOR YOURSELVES!"

While old standbys like Alfred Molina and Emma Thompson are excellent in their roles as an upwardly ambitious father and an uptight schoolmaster, the movie belongs to Peter Sarsgaard and especially Carey Mulligan. As a bright young student, groomed for success at Oxford, she feels incredibly authentic in a way that characters in coming-of-age stories rarely do. As the English gentleman that seduces Mulligan and her family, Peter Sarsgaard turns the charm up so high that the audience, like the characters in play, can ignore the fact that hey, he's a total creep.

Cost/Benefit Analysis: I payed a full $10 for this one and regret nothing. It is definitely worth a rent at least.