JustStone Reviews

Oppenheimer (I) (2023)

I Wish I Could Say I Had A Blast

[7/10 · 22 July 2023]

I think I will be in the minority here when I say, I think Christopher Nolan missed the mark with this film. Let's first talk about what worked: "Oppenheimer" is no doubt a treat for the ears and eyes. I watched it in IMAX 70mm, the crispness of detail in the 70mm film stock was superb, and the 5.1 DTS-HD master audio surround sound was impactful, sometimes even shaking the seats. The acting was outstanding and there are some really memorable moments and tense scenes between actors. I also don't think I need to say anything further about Nolan as a filmmaker; he's like Martin Scorsese in the way you know exactly what you're going to get from a Nolan film, in terms of style and tone.

Now onto the problems: Nolan's films tend to be very dialogue-heavy, and this film was no different. Having not done any earlier research on Oppenheimer's life purposefully, so I can go into the film with a blank slate and let Nolan do the work for me, I felt disappointed that I had to look up people's names and backstories during the movie. Nolan throws you right into the plot without a whole lot of exposition or background of each real historical figure portrayed. Normally I don't like a lot of exposition, but for a 3-hour long film, it would be great if we could fill in the blanks for some of the real-life figures' motivations and aspirations, to get a better feel on why they either supported or denied helping Oppenheimer on the Manhattan Project.

My other major gripe was the absence of any real emotional arch. The film is somewhat of a straightforward retelling of events, no better than watching a three-hour documentary about Oppenheimer's work on the Manhattan Project, but without extensive exposition as mentioned earlier. Yes, it's edited in a non-linear fashion, but if one were to re-edit the film chronologically, you'd get a straightforward and somewhat dry narrative. One of the goals of a filmmaker is to help you empathize with the characters, especially the protagonist. Although Nolan perhaps wanted us to feel ambivalent about Oppenheimer's ambiguous morality, it still would have been nice to get a little bit of a better perspective as to why Oppenheimer decided to move forward with the Manhattan Project beyond the obvious reason of wanting recognition as a premiere theoretical physicist.

This is also true for moments in the film that I wish were included that would have left more of a lasting impact on the audience if added in. The actual dropping of both bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not included, merely mentioned over a radio broadcast. So in my opinion the emotional weight of the dropping of those two bombs, and witnessing the sheer horror of their impact is totally lost on the audience beyond Oppenheimer's waking nightmares that he has throughout the film. For films of this stature, sometimes I imagine scenic moments in my head before watching the film, which can taint the experience if you have these types of high expectations for potentially emotionally impactful scenes. I tried not to let it dampen my experience, but once I realized these moments were not included in the film, I felt that there was much more left to the imagination.

Lastly, the sound design was much better than "Interstellar" or Nolan's previous films where the score overpowers the dialogue. I could hear the dialogue in "Oppenheimer" for most of the film, but there were still a handful of times when I couldn't hear people speaking over the orchestral score. That's not to say it holds the film back in any substantive way, I just wanted to mention it still seems to be a minor issue in Nolan's filmography.

This film will no doubt be regarded as a classic, and in the Nolan pantheon, it will most likely rank amongst "The Prestige", "The Dark Knight", "Inception" and "Interstellar", as some of Nolan's greatest works. But I can't help but feel like Nolan is also a bit on autopilot, in terms of his filmmaker prowess. Much like P. T. Anderson with "Licorice Pizza", and Wes Anderson for "Astroid City", these powerful filmmakers have found their sweet spot and are sticking to it. Nolan I feel is leaning into his strengths as well with "Oppenheimer", but in my opinion, is no longer challenging himself as a filmmaker. This is not necessarily a bad thing; he is one of our best living directors. But as a fan of Steven Spielberg, Stanley Kubrick, David Lynch, and Ridley Scott who are versatile directors that can tackle different genres and tones, I feel Nolan will stick to his guns (and, well, explosions), and keep giving us intelligent character studies, that unfortunately occasionally lack in catharsis or heightened emotional depth.

Chasing Amy (1997)

A review from the year 2013

[3/10 · 19 August 2013]

I wouldn't consider myself a huge Kevin Smith fan, but I do enjoy his films. I like Mallrats, Clerks, Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back, in particular because they establish a common thread with Jay & Silent Bob, and they don't take themselves too seriously. Kevin Smith is a master of dirty, lewd, crude and downright offensive dialogue, I get that and for the most part I can appreciate it. When he was first making his films in the 90's, this was a somewhat controversial, as he was paving the way for the "nerd comedy" and doing so with vulgar dialogue, gay jokes, and touchy subject matter. Back in the 90's there really were no films about the comic-con sub culture, and serious gay themed films were rare and far and few between. However its 2013, and the comic book culture has risen to the mainstream. You can't go to a theater these days without seeing a superhero movie in the marquee, gays rights have been more accepted and gay characters are everywhere in the media. Kevin Smith type films are par for the course, and his subject matter is no longer as controversial because so much has changed. I mean you can thank Smith for some of this change, he helped push both comic book films into the mainstream, and in a way, made a film about a lesbian before its was as socially and widely acceptable. So kudos to him.

Where am I going with this? Well, as someone who gets Kevin Smith's comedy and dialogue, watching Chasing Amy for the first time in 2013 was really a let down. For some reason out of all the Smith films I've seen, I never got to Chasing Amy, so I was kind of saving it for a rainy day. I knew it is his most critically acclaimed, and coming out right after Mallrats it was his first real dramatic film that wasn't just suppose to be strictly comedic. This films takes its self serious because its about serious subject matter. Maybe I had built it up a bit in my head because of all this, I don't know, but when the rainy day finally came and I sat down to watch it, I wasn't impressed. The first thing I noticed is how much Kevin Smith films don't age well when the subject matter is serious in tone. First because of what I said before, its 2013, these topics are no longer controversial or risqué in any way. Making a film about trying to make a lesbian straight, is no longer new or revelatory. The second thing I notice is how much Smith is trying to prove himself as a relevant and hip writer/director in this film. I think this was the film he wanted to be taken seriously for, and for the most part he did get noticed and recognized at the time, but now its just seems kind of like he was trying too hard. The dialogue seems too hip, too self aware, that it kind of takes away from the plot. Every character has to have a snappy comeback or a clever line of dialogue, it kind of gets annoying after the first half an hour. I mean people always praise Smith for how "real" his characters are or how clever his dialogue is, but all I kept thinking was how nobody I know talks like this. Its just seems pretty well, pre-written.

Lastly, the plot itself I hate to say was pretty mediocre, and in my opinion not very fleshed out. Like I said, Smith was really trying to prove himself as a writer/director here, and it shows. It almost seems this was Smith's way of learning how to make a proper three act "Hollywood" mainstream film, and because he wasn't a seasoned writer/director at this point, it seems like he was learning as he went along. Joey Lauren Adams as Alyssa is somewhat annoying, and although she has that I-know-I'm-clever smirk and dialogue throughout, I don't really see the attraction. Ben Affleck and Jason Lee as Holden and Banky are fine, but they are just the two typical guy buddies who throw out gay jokes every second that seem to be in every Smith movie. I'm OK with how Holden and Alyssa fall for each other, but by the time we get to third act and we find out about Alyssa's past, and Holden's "final solution" it just falls apart, and to me made very little sense. I think Smith needed more experience as a screen writer at this point, and this was his experiment with a serious and mainstream film. For the most part he succeeded, as it was critically acclaimed at the time, but I think it had more to do with the then touchy subject matter which is now dated, and the way he wrote scripts, which is now just a Kevin Smith film. I like Kevin Smith, but this is a flawed film.

Tron: Legacy (2010)

Shouldn't this have been called Flynn Legacy?

[7/10 · 21 December 2010]

When walking out of the theater from "Tron Legacy", I overheard someone say, "The movie was beautiful looking, if only it had 25% more plot". This pretty much sums its up.

"Tron Legacy" is so pretty, so extravagant of a CGI film, that the plot had no choice but to take a back seat. This is for good reason; the Tron franchise has never been about plot, it's always been about the wonder of computer technology and its seemingly limitless possibilities. Tron is an ode to the computer; a nerd's nerd movie. Without it, computer graphics and animation as we know it might have not advanced as quickly as they did.

When the first "Tron" premiered in 1982, a movie "inside" a computer was a unique, yet silly, concept. 28 years later it couldn't be more relevant. "Tron Legacy" took this idea to its next logical step, making the film a CGI eye candy extravaganza, and in this vein Legacy does its job wonderfully. For this reason, like "Avatar", Legacy is meant to be seen in IMAX 3D, and although it wasn't executed quite as well as the former, it still stands high above the rest.

I'm jaded by an industry of remakes, reimagining, reboots, sequels and prequels. I'm tired of recycled plots and re-branded ideas and believe we need a return to originality in Hollywood. But the first "Tron" was

such a compelling concept -- so original and a major technological achievement, it was hard to look away at what they could do with it now. Unlike so many other sequels and remakes, this film had a legitimate purpose: to justify and pay tribute to computer special effects in film, as well as preserve its legacy through its forefather. For this, "Tron Legacy" succeeds. Unfortunately, it doesn't almost everywhere else.

Again, Tron is not about plot. The people behind this film wanted to get to the CGI Disney light show so fast, they probably left behind any real dramatic tension somewhere in a long lost first draft. The characters are so poorly developed, it's like the writers read "screenwriting for dummies" and then patched in ideas and concepts from other movies, as well as just plain rehashing the original film. Unintentionally ironic, the characters, like the film itself, are cold and lifeless, artificial and synthetic. They acted robotic even before entering the computer. Jeff Bridges return as Kevin Flynn is a nice touch, but he couldn't escape his "Dude" persona, which was distracting. But more importantly, the science and logic behind the film was loosely explained and conceptualized which seems to be a pretty big hole not to fill, considering it's a film about computer science. Not even Daft Punk's stellar soundtrack could fix this.

I really hate saying it, but this is another film that has the looks but not the brains. It's all right for a movie like "Tron Legacy", but not for other soulless sequels/remakes movie studios keep churning out. Like many things these days, it's instantly gratifying, with no longevity. Maybe it's a sign of the times, or maybe my expectations were too high, but can we please have a Hollywood blockbuster with a little heart, even if that heart is inside a computer?

The Social Network (2010)

10% inspiration and 90% perspiration

[8/10 · 5 October 2010]

I've been hearing the phrase "It's only a movie" probably before I even began watching movies. When I was younger it was to make sure a film didn't scare the sh*t out of me before going to bed. Now more so in reference to fact checking, especially if the film is based off a true story. "The Social Network" is one of those films where I had to tell myself "its only a movie" before going in, having some prior knowledge of the true events.

In knowing this "The Social Network" being based on a true events, embellishes and manufactures certain aspects of the plot and changes character traits/motivations in order to achieve the best cinematic experience possible. It's a good study on how a film can take a basic, somewhat mundane story and tweak it until it's a perfectly structured, neat little package. The movie, partially-based on the book, "The Accidental Billionaires" by Ben Mezrich, is supposedly itself part fabrication because Mezrich never interviewed the film's protagonist and founder of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, as well as most of the book being debunked by other Facebook insiders. The film's Zuckerberg, played by Jesse Eisenberg, is a brilliant but angry, egotistical, arrogant asshole who comes off as knowing he would be a billionaire even before writing the first line of code for Facebook.

Anyone who knows the real Mark Zuckerberg says he's actually a nice guy who rarely gets angry. David Kirkpatrick, author of "The Facebook Effect", said "Zuckerberg is one of the least-angry people I've ever met." This might be the most glaring disparity between the film's story and the actual one. And although it is an obvious Hollywoodizing device, using it was a wise choice, considering how well this movie performs under the skewed, yet perfectly executed screenplay. Screenwriter Aaron Sorkin never met with Mark Zuckerberg either — purposefully. He knew transforming him into a cruel and unrelentingly ambitious prick was the unapologetic direction needed to fuel the plot. Sorkin said, "I don't want my fidelity to be to the truth; I want it to be to storytelling." And even in the script he admits every "creation myths need a devil". So with that in mind, Sorkin's Zuckerberg became an ambivalent anti-hero - an emotionless machine only driven by success.

Machine being the operative word, and most obvious and cliché parallel; Sorkin and director David Fincher make it clear that Zuckerberg is so talented on his machine because he thinks and acts like one. There were a couple of times where I couldn't help but compare Zuckerberg to Bill Gates, not only because there is a direct reference to him in the film, but if you've seen "The Pirates of Silicon Valley" there are more than a couple similarities between the two, especially in their cutthroat methods in empire building. But I suppose this is true for any genius/inventor who knows when it's there time to strike the iron. Thomas Edison, one of the most cutthroat inventors of them all said it best: "Success is 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration." The real Zuckerberg might have done it cleaner than the rest, but it doesn't mean he can escape being dragged through the dirt for it

My First Wedding (2006)

This movie is as bad as the DVD cover.

[2/10 · 27 June 2010]

I watched this film for Rachel Leigh Cook, she is beautiful. I get lost in her eyes. But even the stunning beauty of Rachel Leigh Cook could not distract me enough from the this train wreck of a film. Besides the fact the film lacks any real humor, the root of why its so bad is because the main character Nick (Kenny Doughty) does not deserve to be with Vanessa (Rachel Leigh Cook), for many reasons. There is not one redeemable factor about this guy, and by the end of the film he just looks desperate and pathetic. In the real world Vanessa would have gotten a restraining order against Nick and got married to the good guy. And I stress "good guy" because the man she was suppose to marry is as altruistic as they come. The whole movie we're shown how great Vanessa's soon to be husband is and how much she loves him, and then she leaves him for some guy that pretends to be a priest just so he can hook up with her? Wrong on so many levels. How am I suppose to root for a guy who's selfish, boring, manipulative and morally corrupt? And to top it all off we're not even given a clear explanation why they love each other, mostly I just saw a sIut who couldn't control her sexual urges, and a selfish douche-bag. Come to think of it, maybe they do deserve each other. Avoid this garbage at all costs.

The Incredible Hulk (2008)

Hey at least there weren't any mutated gamma poodles.

[7/10 · 8 April 2010]

When does a good premised film go bad? Is it the creation of a convoluted back-story involving a bitter, straggly Nick Nolte? Or could it be having an antagonist that out of nowhere becomes a mutated electro-absorbing thingy? Or maybe it was just that massive gamma poodle....Most people would say all of those things were reason enough to explain why Marvel Studios disowned and retconed the first "Hulk" movie made back in 2003 starring Eric Bana and the luscious Jennifer Connelly. And although director Ang Lee tried as he could, even with his unique and artistically clever editing style, the source material and script were just too derivative of a story that's essentially about a guy turning into a big green monster.

Five years later, Marvel who've essentially said "our bad" has completely forgone the first Hulk, "rebooting" the franchise with "The Incredible Hulk". This film looks to achieve what the first film should have; going with what the audience knows (aka the comics and the old television series). So much so Edward Norton (who plays the Hulk) took the liberty in re-tweaking the entire script to bring back the familiarity of the 70's TV show, which he was, obviously, a big fan of. The rest of the film indeed does play out like a long episode from the TV show; Bruce Banner hiding in South America to control his rage, trying to find a cure to his disease, and the Hulk remaining a tragic hero (even at one part having the TV's tragic hulk theme playing).

At some point during post-production, Marvel decisively stepped in to shorten and tighten Ed Norton's cut, which eventually led to Norton not receiving any writing credit on the film. I'm not sure what was left out (besides an hour worth of story) but the final cut is definitely more superhero-filmy. Its never been an easy task to relate the Hulk to an audience (unless they've all attended anger management classes) but here perhaps the footage left on the cutting room floor was extra story needed to identify with the Hulk, which is kind of essential unless you're a teenager who purely enjoys watching CGI monsters smash and fight. And most of the audience was that, so in that way, the film succeeds, but I'm guessing the DVD will have Norton's extended cut, and maybe a better film with it.

The Dark Knight (2008)

Finally a good sequel to Catwomen.

[8/10 · 8 April 2010]

Since everyone and their grandmother has an opinion/review on this film, I'm not going to reiterate what you probably already know. Nonetheless, the facts are 1) This film beat every weekend box office record 2) This is Heath Ledger's last completed performance, and his best 3) This was one of the most highly anticipated movies in film history 4) It was the #1 film of all time according to IMDb when it premiered.

Hmmm, well I think the populace is in agreement; this movie sucks. Ha, just kidding there, but OK, yes this is a very, very, good film. It's hard to properly judge how good it is, considering the hype is still overwhelming, and ousting the film has pretty much become blasphemous. Yet the film isn't perfection, and while I'm not trying to say it wasn't good because everyone else is saying it is, I'm not going to idolize the film either.

Heath Ledger will always be the main topic of conversation when this movie is brought up. His performance is extraordinary, yet you have to wonder if the same grandiose praise would be given to him if it wasn't for his unfortunate departure. The camera almost exclusive films him in close up, as if over confidently stressing Ledger's dramatic importance. And although now it's more than appropriate, some might have said it was a bit over the top. Christian Bale's Batman on the other hand is played down, making him feel like a prop while all the supporting characters around him are provided much more emotional depth. This depth is played enormously well by Aaron Eckhart as district attorney Harvey Dent, but I wasn't so much sold on Maggie Gyllenhaal replacing Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes.

The real performance however is the one provided by Christopher Nolan and his brother Jonathan Nolan for creating a script that takes all the best elements from the Batman comics and adapting them into a magnificent morality play. The film exceeds 2 and 1/2 hours, has an exceptionally difficult stuffed plot which needs at least two viewings to sink in, and is a tedious cat and mouse game between the Joker and the Bats. Yet it's all held together by the tightly woven script that asks the soul searching question; when under duress, do we always make the honorable choice or the one best suited for ourselves? This is the wavering question that is played out between Batman, the Joker, and Harvey Dent. The Joker is convinced there is no order in a chaotic world, while his antithesis Batman is the unfaltering symbol for it. Harvey Dent becomes the struggle between this ying and yang, constantly being tugged like a rag doll back and forth until he finally decides between the two sides. This duality is not only the embodiment of the Two-Face character, but is the everyday struggle we all must face in our own lives. This at its core is what makes this film succeed. So by the end of the film whether you've answered this question for yourself or not, Batman remains the beacon of hope to help remind us what side to choose.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008)

Just like Forest Gump's life, only backwards.

[8/10 · 8 April 2010]

One question remained unanswered for me while coming out from seeing "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button"; why did Benjamin Button age backwards? This was the question that drew hyped audiences into theaters to find out. With such an interesting concept surely the revelation of the supernatural mystery of Button's life was going to be epic, if not at least somewhat revelatory. Yet what we got instead (spoilers) was a man's scenic journey through life, and that's it. There was no twist, no Dues ex machina, just a man living his life in backwards order. This was, to say the least, disappointing. Even though director David Fincher created yet another breathtaking film in scope, cinematography, and nostalgia for American history, I felt that for a film with such an astonishing premise, it was somewhat squandered.

Maybe the one to blame is writer Eric Rothe, who also scripted Forest Gump, and there are more than a couple similarities between the two films. This connection is what frustrated me this most. The Benjamin Button catchphrase "You never know what's comin' for ya," is too similar to "life is like a box of chocolates" and often shares the-one man-living-an-extraordinary-life-without-knowing-it thing. But the difference is Forest Gump doesn't realize his extra-ordinariness, which makes it that much more enjoyable for the viewer, where Benjamin Button becomes fully aware, and very involved in his forthcoming maturity. The film hints at why Benjamin's life occurs this way, and does offer a fulfilling story about human frailty, relationships, and sacrifice, but besides that there was no clear answer (to me anyway) why he was a man living life in reverse. Maybe it was meant to be this way, and maybe I need to see it again, but I was left unanswered and unsatisfied to what could have been a near perfect film.

500 Days of Summer (2009)

John Cusack eat your broken heart out.

[6/10 · 8 April 2010]

Have you ever seen Say Anything? Or for the matter any John Cusack movie from the 80's? Let me give you a short summery: boy is a kindhearted, hopeless romantic that believes in love, and the "one in a million girl" he falls for is cute (bangs for bonus points) cool, quirky, yet passive, icy heart breaker. Well if you've seen those, then you're familiar with 500 Days of Summer a romantic comedy, that's a "story of boy meets girl...but not a love story" yeah that was said by the narrator of the film, and yeah its has crappy narration.

A year ago an article in the onion pinpointed a certain kind of female archetypical character named "The Manic Pixie Dream Girl". Basically it explains a style of film about a live-in-the-moment hyperactive super cute girl that a dopey guy falls in love with not only for her charm and vitality, but for the ride of unexpected spur of the moment events she brings him on that helps remind him what its like to feel alive. 500 days of Summer falls right dab in the middle of this category because the main character, Summer (Zooey Deschanel), is the epitome of the Manic Pixie Dream Girl.

Then there is the indie namedropping, ohh, the indie namedropping. This movie tries so hard to appeal to the alternative crowd it makes Juno look innocent. From its role-call of indie fav's from yesterday and today (The Smiths, The Pixies, Regina Spektor...Ringo) to its too cute, schmaltzy, over endearing quality, this movie wants to be Garden State without the sincerity or Natalie Portman. Its as if the film tries to convince you a quirky relationship never existed before these two got together and did "crazy" stuff like go into IKEA's living room section and pretend to be a married couple watching TV. Or rent a porno together and try some of the positions, because, you know, regular girls just aren't weird enough for something that zany. This film should become the mad libs template for the hopeless romantic guy falling for the too cool alt. girl (including the two best guy friends and a wise beyond her years little girl) its nothing more, nothing less. John Cusack eat your broken heart out.

Oh, if you're still reading this, there is one other gripe I have about these types of films, and it's about the nature of these kinds of relationships. Listen guys, here is a tip if you identify with Tom (Joseph Gordan-Levitt) plight: it's not going to work. Any time (in any sort of relationship) if one person is more in love with the other then the other is with them, then it will be one sided and unbalanced. Plus obsessing over a girl is an unattractive quality. Show some backbone and don't fall for the sentiment of these types of films. There is nothing wrong with being romantic, but being an obsessive whiner isn't going to get you anywhere, even if you're holding a boom box over your head...unless you're Ben Gibbard, but you're not.

Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007)

Another Burton Gothic masterpiece.

[8/10 · 8 April 2010]

There's a hole in the world like a great black pit, and the vermin of the world inhabit it, and it's morals aren't worth what a pin can spit". - Sweeney Todd

I couldn't have said it any better, or any worse. This lyric, sung by Sweeney Todd during his intro to the film, not only sets the theme of the movie, but also offers insight into a man beaten, jaded and tormented by societies' ill will. Sweeney Todd (Johnny Depp) is such a man--one who's back-story is so horrifying that it dares you to not empathize with him, begging the question: How far will one go in the name of revenge?

On a lighter note, there is a lot of spirited singing. Based on the musical of the same name, "Sweeney Todd; The Demon Barber of Fleet Street" is the most recent vision of Tim Burton--a director who's been fascinated by the musicals' macabre sensibilities since the early 80's. And no one does macabre like Tim Burton. Much like Hitchcock films were branded "Hitchcokian" for their uniquely brilliant style, this film is undoubtedly Burton's most "burtonesque". So, as a huge fan of Burton's Gothic masterpieces {Edward Scissorhands, Batman, Sleepy Hollow}, and having no problem with his uh, burtonesqueity, this film is more than a welcomed return to his dark morose side after his slight deviation from it over the last 8 years.

This in mind, Burton, in his Gothic element, does not fail to deliver. But, given the fact that world of the original play was such a perfect fit for Burton, re-creating the gloomy universe seemed less of a case of inspiration, as much as it was an exercise in humble restraint and modest eccentric touches. Thankfully, Burton makes a wise choice to take somewhat of back seat to an actor's film. And, rest assured, "Sweeney Todd" is an actors film. As for the major players, Johnny Deep once again proves he can do anything by singing all his songs while giving another top notch performance. Sasha Baron Cohen and Helen Bonham Carter also do an amazing job of balancing their singing an acting. Yet the most impressive thing about the film is the pacing and maintenance of the original play's story line.

Indeed, the storyline, much like Todd himself, maintains a thematic-focus on the old adage: "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind". It reveals the cyclical nature of corruption; moralistically asking to refrain from apathetically disregarding others, but more importantly, it reveals the 'black pit' that humanity is capable of creating...which makes serving human meat pies a just desert. Get it?....No? Fine.

Cloverfield (2008)

Motion sickness with a twist

[7/10 · 8 April 2010]

After coming out from seeing this movie me and a friend had a small debate about whether there would ever be a newly invented stylized genre of film, and if not will films always be pigeonholed in the same exhausted genres we constantly see rehashed now? I kept asking myself "in a hundred years will audiences still be watching updated versions on the same old concepts?" I was always taught, "don't mess with genre" and in today's market this regrettably holds true....

Obviously Cloverfield is a "updated version" in a classic film genre; the monster movie. Also obvious is how this bothers me, mostly because of the hype that was built around this film, or rather the viral marketing campaign that sent fanboys everywhere racing to their online message boards in nerdy excitement. Producer J.J Abrams sent the Internet in a tizzy (yeah I said tizzy) with clever viral marketing tactics, never hinting on what the film was actually about until the ominous teaser poster with a decapitated Statue of Liberty entitled "1.18.08." With this much mystery-laden buildup a big payoff was certainly expected, yet behind all of this hype was just another variation of yes, a monster movie. Now at this point you're either thinking I'm being cynical or I just have high expectations, but you'd be right because yeah, I am and I do.

See I was really rooting Cloverfield wouldn't just be another monster movie, that it be more clever, something no one has ever seen before. But maybe I'm just gonna have to just accept the fact that genre films will live a lot longer than I ever will and I should just get over it.... but not today friend, because, in fact, there really wasn't anything clever about this film at all, its basically Godzilla meets Blair Witch Project. The convention of telling the story in first person perspective through a shaky consumer camera was built for and attends to the iGeneration, and although commendable is still a cheap trick. However (and this is big however) under the guise of this marketing ploy, there is a really good film. The way the film's writer Drew Goddard establishes the lead characters in the first act is really involving, and I did actually kinda care for their outcome when the monster (eventually) attacks Manhattan.

As good as the movie's cinema verite style is there is still a lot of questionable motivation throughout the film (They all go back to where the monster is, really?) and you also really have to use your suspension of disbelief to believe some of the um, logistics (the handicam has night vision, a built in light, can record over an hour and a half of footage, and can survive a 100 foot drop?) But forgoing all my negativity (as you should), this film ultimately achieves its goal of allowing the audience to experience first hand what the characters are experiencing. And even if it's in a hackneyed monster movie genre, as a native New Yorker I was at the edge of my seat, eating up every second of it, call me cliché.

Iron Man (2008)

Not all superhero films are just for geeks

[9/10 · 8 April 2010]

Lets face it. Spider Man 3 was a horrible mess. It was supposes to break summer box office records, but instead it broke audience's expectations of what was considered the last flawless superhero film franchise (excluding Nolan's Batman). Spidy's lackluster sales could have been a sign that superhero films had become super-over-hyped, perhaps reaching its plateau. But not according to Marvel Studios, the comic book company that's now a comic film production company. Marvel's first venture as a film studio; Iron Man, you know the guy in the metal suit? Well, maybe you don't. Unlike Marvel's big household names (Spider Man, X-Men, Hulk, Fantastic Four), Iron Man is considered a minor character in the Marvel universe, yet a major risk for Marvel to unveil as their opening act for the summer movie season, especially when last years fail-safe Spider Man 3 was such a train-wreck. Still, Marvel decisively put their trust in the hands of up and coming director Jon Favreau, and unlike Marvel's other minor characters (Daredevil, Punisher, Ghost Rider) they gave Iron Man a big budget with a Grade A cast and unlimited unrestraint. Fortunately Marvel's gamble paid off, because Iron Man may be the best comic book film since, well the first Spider Man.

2007's comic-con offered the first glimpses of Iron Man through an exclusive trailer with an introduction by Favreau to appease the comic character's loyal fanbase. When the trailer leaked on the Internet however, the clip's merger of Iron Man footage with Black Sabbath's ubiquitous song "Iron Man" was for lack of a better word, tacky. Thankfully the trailer is the only tacky thing about Iron Man, as the film is the complete opposite, proving in spades Favreau's strength as a dramatic action film director. The story of Iron Man is the story of Tony Stark; the son of a rich industrialist tycoon who grew up not only with a silver spoon but a wit and intellect that made him a child prodigy. Zipping through school Tony became an expert in engineering and electronics; finishing MIT summa-cum-laude and helping create new technological advances, as well as becoming the natural heir to his fathers company, Stark Industries.

Now of course, Tony's knack for technology will later help him in the area of armored robotic suits, but the real appeal of Tony Stark in the film is his richly sophisticated persona. Comic book Tony Stark is a stern and straightforward character, who, much like Bruce Wayne, leans towards the extravagant but is more business than pleasure. However, Stark, as played with exuberance by Robert Downy Jr., fully embraces the capitalistic side of the industrialist CEO and infuses Stark with his patented Downy Jr. charm and swagger that ultimately fits the decadent mogul to a tee. This is where Downy Jr. and Favreau shine in developing Stark; as Downy Jr. is practically the embodiment of this character in real life, while Favreau has perfected (a la Vince Vaughn in Swingers) the carefree capitalist who enjoys and revels in his capital.

Although the audience revels in Stark's playboy lifestyle as well, we almost forget there is consequence behind his blithe. Stark Enterprises just so happens to be the U.S. Governments leading weapon's manufacturer and Stark's lavish empire is built on the creation of weapons of mass destruction. As Stark says "I be out of a job if there was peace"; a statement that normally would make him a corporate villain in today's world of corrupt politics and zero militant accountability, but Stark however is a CEO with a heart, (if that exists). A heart that eventually gets filled with shrapnel after nearly being blown up when he is captured by Afghani terrorists who order him to replicate a new and deadly Stark Industries missile. Confined in a cave, Stark does what any billionaire industrials would do: builds himself an armored suit and literally smashes his way out, thus, Iron Man is born. Upon recovery and return to the US, with the help of his friend, army pilot Jim Rhodes (Terrance Howard), and his beautiful and sharp personal assistant Pepper Pots (Gwent Paltrow), Stark decides to stop creating weapons for the government; a move that is defied and opposed by his corporate partner Obadiah Stane (Jeff Bridges). Stark instead invests his time in making a new and advanced armor suit that he hopes will be better than any missile system.

Besides the skin deep morality of over excess and not taking one's life for granted, there's much more depth in Tony Stark's plight in becoming Iron Man. Even though Stark is the embodiment of capitalism we root him not for his riches but for his sincerity. The audience cheered when Iron Man returns to the Middle East and simply becomes a one man army, literally hurling the terrorists around. In year five of the Iraq War more so than ever, America is looking for peace and solace to the problems overseas, and when watching Iron Man solve these problems in one fall swoop, it was a cathartic release of elation. In doing so, Iron Man is a superhero akin to Superman, because he lives for that old altruistic American dream that's seems so easily forgotten in today's cynical and materialistic world. Not only is this theme executed with perfection, but is also executed perfectly through the films roller-coaster superhero action tension with well balanced comic relief. All the actors are superbly cast in their roles and the chemistry between Paltrow and Downy Jr. is irresistible. Where a year ago Spider Man 3, had become too entangled in its own web, Iron Man surely has cleared those cobwebs, reminding us why superhero films are so much fun, and proving with the right intention and direction they are truly worth the hype.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)

Go ahead, nuke the fridge.

[5/10 · 8 April 2010]

It was about an hour and 20 minutes into "Indiana Jones & the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" that I officially gave up on it. Prior I had tolerated the film's, how do you say... extreme implausibilitys, but it wasn't until Shia LaBeouf started swinging around on jungle vines with CGI monkeys that I rose my fists in anger and cursed the man once known as George Lucas for destroying my last fond childhood memories from his films. And I say the man once known as George Lucas because I'm convinced the man we see today isn't him, but a George Lucas android that killed and replaced the real Lucas probably around 1996.

I had such (unrealistically) high hopes for this film even though it should never have been made. There is a reason why the last film was called "Indiana Jones & the Last Crusade", because it was suppose to be his last freakin' crusade. And the original trilogy in my mind is near perfect, why mess with it? Yet Hollywood and nostalgia ignored this and collectively cried out, "we want one more"... even if one more was a bad idea. But for a film that yielded over 10 rejected screenplay drafts, countless writers/rewriters, and needed the approval of Lucas, Spielberg and Harrison Ford, it should have held somewhat of a candle to the originals. Mind you Lucas is an android, but I expected Spielberg and Ford wouldn't jump on board unless it was something worth both their prestigious careers and the legacy of the Indiana Jones Trilogy. But not even the director of Shindler's List could save this film from falling in the traps of George Lucas's last ego crusade.

Right from the beginning of the film you realize what this film was really made and built for; nostalgia. Its like George Lucas and writer David Koepp took a syringe, borrowed the DNA of the original films and cloned it wrong (just like Jurassic Park, irony!). There is nothing new to be found here that we already haven't seen in the originals, and its like looking through a picture album by revisiting old scenes and scenarios (the secret relic warehouse anyone?). This also plays true with Indy himself; once he appears on screen for the first time in 19 years, it seems as if he's been risen from the dead. This is partially due to the generic storyline, but mostly because Indiana Jones is so out of place as an adventurer in his early 60's in the 1950's, you can almost sense how forced Harrison feels playing him. Lets get something straight; what made the originals so classic were not only the daring adventures Indy went on in 1930's, but his irresistible charm and charisma with the leading lady. Instead Indy gets stuck with Shia "Mutt Williams" LaBeouf, who doesn't even get a chance to be half as charming as his father (whoops don't read that), and can't compete with saucy dialogs of a young Indy with a dame. To compensate for this they make Indiana near invincible, which makes no sense since he should be much more brittle in his old age.

Oh and then there is the whole element and the storyline of the aliens, which is a cop out in itself, because Indiana Jones usually deals with the spiritual, not the supernatural. I guess its fine when you have a script thrown together with references and reliance on the previous films, doesn't expect you to take any of the scenes seriously, and plays out its drama in a haphazardly inconsequential way, what's the difference if aliens exist or not in the Indiana Jones universe? Maybe George Lucas had all this planned out (like he usually claims he does) and Indiana is actually Han Solo's great great grandfather, and the Indiana Jones films is the pre-prequels to the Star Wars prequels. Ah ha, it's all adding up. You can't fool me android George Lucas.

Superbad (2007)

For the love of McLovin

[7/10 · 8 April 2010]

Superbad is the gold nugget of teen high school comedies that has sorely been missed since the American Pie days of the late 90's. I was anticipating this movie during the last couple weeks, having seen hilarious bits and pieces from the trailers and online ads, but I had no idea it was going to be the definitive high school movie of this generation.

What makes Superbad so super-badass is it never for a second relents on its brash and lewd mentality and humor. Written by Seth Rogen (The Knocked Up dude) and Evan Goldberg, who supposedly been writing this semi autobiographical yarn since their high school days let their inner teens pour out in all its uncensored glory. The script is written in such crudeness, its almost ridiculous that they got away with it, yet not once while sitting in the theater did I get offended or feel it was ever unnecessary. Probably because this kind of language does exist in today's high school world, and even if it's a bit exaggerated, coming out the mouth of lead actors Johah Hill and Micheal Cera its sounds almost sophisticated.

Even though it was only produced by Judd Apatow (Director 40 year old Virgin, Knocked Up) he seems to be the iGeneration's/millennial's John Hughes; recently standing behind hit after hit of teen and adult comedic movies. His device of choice; the realism and awkwardness of the coming of age (or in 40 year old virgin's case, the awkwardness of never have came of age). Apatow, who started this type of writing during his tenure on "freaks and geeks" and "undeclared", has discovered that some of our most hilarious moments come through the nervous and awkward situations of our adolescence. Seth Rogan and Evan Golberg continue in this vein as their lead characters (named after them) suffer through the utter painful events of trying to hookup with their dream girls at a party and be recognized as somebody's before high school is out.

It is so straightforward in its motives, and dialogue so disgustingly witty that you hardly notice the absurdity (and immorality) behind its non stop hilarity. I mean Evan and Seth's whole motive is to get two girls drunk enough so they can hook up with them. Not to mention two cops who offer a horrifying portrayal of what being an officer of the law is truly about. Handled incorrectly this movie could have set off a lot of bad reaction, yet this movie is so unfalteringly funny with such endearing characters its hard to take it all to serious. It excusable cause at its core it is a movie about the value of friendship and how it is as important as any other relationship you may have in your life. So see it with a good bud, and don't be afraid to tell him/her you love 'em, even if their name is already McLovin'.

The Simpsons Movie (2007)

Still better than Family Guy

[7/10 · 8 April 2010]

Before I say anything, this is the friggin Simpsons movie, go see it. A movie 18 years in the making is alone worth price of admission. But (sigh..) I hate to say anything even remotely bad about The Simpsons; the original animated show that is above and beyond funnier than any other sitcom styled series imitators (ahem, Family Guy), and has brought me so much laughter over the years without resorting to using a gimmick (*loud cough* Family Guy)...the movie still, isn't, ah, erm, perfect. Although I went in with very high expectations being a super nerdy lame-o Simpsons fan, I was a little bit disappointed because its seems like they used all their funny segments for their trailer and advertising. But the biggest problem seemed to be that the writers were overextending themselves to make this a movie with the Simpsons, instead of an actual Simpsons movie. The Simpson family seemed very out of their element because of a big moralistic crafted center, weird awkward jokes made to attend to a broader audience, and side characters and scenarios that didn't quite match their shows counterparts. Maybe I'm just saying all this because I am just to big of a fan of the show and nothing in my mind will ever match the series genius, but that's what happens when you a super critical bitter nerd like me who gets offended if someone doesn't know what "In Rod we trust" means. But don't worry I'm sure you do, and if you don't then go watch Family Guy, I hear its still funny.

Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer (2007)

All I ask for is gigantic godlike purple and blue planet destroyer

[6/10 · 8 April 2010]

No Galactus? I mean c'mon. I sat through a movie for an hour and a half, waiting for an awesome gigantic godlike purple and blue planet destroyer, and all I get is a big CGI cloud? Shenanigans I say, shenanigans. Whatever, this movie is ten times better than Ghost Rider, Punisher and dare I say Spider Man 3? Well I think so. The cool thing about director Tim Story is that he actually reads comic books, so he might have actually had some insight on how a comic book can be translated to film rather than pretending like he does (ahhmmm Mark Steven Johnson). Regardless this movie is both entertaining and funny (like the comic) and it actually tells the story of the Silver Surfer pretty well. My only complaint is that we didn't see enough planet devouring; the best part of Galactus is watching him traverse the cosmos endlessly in eternal conquest to relinquish his unfathomable hunger that must be quenched by feeding on energy rich planets with his colossal death machine draining all life energy from each unwilling planet mercilessly killing billions of extra terrestrial beings & causing unimaginable suffering in the Universe.....especially if you're high. But I wasn't, cause I don't do that crazy stuff

Spider-Man 3 (2007)

Over stuffed and over cooked

[5/10 · 8 April 2010]

'll tell you what's wrong with SM3 in one word; clutter. There is too much director Sam Ramini is trying to cram into this movie. There is Sandman's connection with Peter's Uncles killing, Harry Osbourn's revenge, Peter struggling with the alien suit, Eddie Brock turning into Venom, love triangle of Peter, Mary Jane & Gwen Stacy, Peter keeping up with rent.....ahh, I can go on forever baby. Sandman could have been dropped from the film all together and I wouldn't have noticed. As Ramani plays this juggling act he forgets to treat the most important part of the film with care; the black suit. Ramani doesn't even take the black suit seriously when Peter puts it on, even though it was advertised in the commercials as Peter having a dark, brooding struggle with his dark side. This is what the main focus of the movie should have been, but got lost in the shuffle. Anyway, this movie is fun to watch on the big screen, but don't expect it to age well over time.

Avatar (2009)

James Cameron and his "little space movie"

[8/10 · 8 April 2010]

If a director takes almost 12 years to make a film, the usual response is that there better be a good reason for it, especially if that film is a follow up to "Titanic". Add to that, the Internet, which sometimes seems like it solely exists to generate outlandish over-hype, even managing to develop a backlash before "Avatar" had a trailer. It then represented something totally different then its original intent; judged unevenly, with its reputation preceding it. And if the film didn't exceed or match its over-hype, it was doomed to fail.

This inability to live up to tremendous hype has happened before, of course. Axl Rose took 15 years to make "Chinese Democracy", which barely made a dent in the charts when finally released because by then no one cared. And lest we forget George Lucas' "Star Wars: The Phantom Menace"; that bomb was 16 years in the making. Unfortunately the parallels don't end there for George Lucas and director of "Avatar" James Cameron. They both came into Hollywood as young, burgeoning independent filmmakers. Both taking bold risks in story and genre to achieve their extravagant visions. Both have taken on roles of writer, producer, director, and editor of their films. And lastly, both have taken huge leaps in creating new computer technologies to see their visions fully realized. There is however one big difference between the two; George Lucas lost his Midas touch years ago, James Cameron did not.

I got worried for awhile; Cameron was pumping up this baby like he had an earpiece with Fox executives whispering through it. The trailers were all over TV and plastered on billboards, graphics would pop up during sport games with "Avatar" sponsored halftime reports. They crossed over onto your cellphones, made a shitty video game, and the toys were in McDonald's. Even Cameron said "let everybody in the world know this movie exists and think it sucks is a better condition than having a few people think the movie's great before it comes out". Were they attempting to compensate for a bad movie? This had the same symptoms of failure Phantom Menace had. My friends rooted against it joining in on the backlash. Even South Park had a poke at it, claiming it was nothing more than a rip off of the Smurfs. Could this film be judged without its Stigma? No, but it was worth a try.

I didn't see the IMAX showing which is really the only way to see it. I instead got stuck in a regular movie theater with crap smudgy "3D" glasses, that I had to take off several times because my eyes hurt. What I did see though was the unrestrained vision of a highly imaginative director who had the know how, insight, and gall to create a film as grandiose as Avatar. The planet Pandora inhabited by the alien creatures called the "The Na'vi" is beautifully detailed in rich blue and purple hues as if inspired from a Jeremy Blake interactive art exhibit. And the film's message is pretty straight forward and clear when the lead character Jake Sully says in reference to humans effect on earth "they killed their mother (earth) long ago". OK, so the film is a little...eco friendly and New Age right down to the Papyrus subtitled font and Native American flute soundtrack, but is there really anything wrong with that? Cameron doesn't hit you over the head with this message, he subtly suggests it. Its a warning, much like Wall-E was, that if we continue to be destructive to the planet, its will only worsen its condition. Although this is the heart of the film, the real draw is the spectacle, which is (when seen in IMAX) well worth 2 hours and 45 minutes of your time. This is what took 12 years to painstakingly perfect, and what took so long to create. So yes Cameron not only trumped the hype, he proved that a purely CGI driven film can succeed if steered correctly, and can be great without relying on a franchise. So suck it Lucas.

Greenberg (2010)

You, Me, And Everyone Greenberg Knows.

[8/10 · 4 April 2010]

Some might argue that Noah Baumbach isn't the best example of a storyteller with wide range, considering his films are for the most part autobiographical, but he's still able to reach an emotional core reminiscent of Woody Allen's early films. This is especially true for "Greenberg", a film that could have been written by Allen in his prime during the 70's, and in a way, Baumbach pays homage to that easy going time through the film's sun drenched lens.

The title character is Roger Greenberg (Ben Stiller), a neurotic 40-something who has just come out of a mental hospital in New York City to take some time off by house-sitting his brother's expensive Los Angeles home. Greenberg has a barrel of issues he still has to plow through, and in almost every scene you can feel his nervousness and frustration at the world seep through him. This is in part due to the succinct screen writing by Baumbach and his wife Jennifer Jason Leigh, but mainly due to Ben Stiller's stellar performance making us remember he a terrific actor who doesn't need to do comedy all the time.

Greta Gerwig plays Florence, another lost soul who even though only in her young 20's, understands Greenberg better then any of his adult contemporaries. She's an assistant to Greenberg's brother and also helps take care of the dog. Greenberg tries to seeks relaxation in L.A. by building a doghouse, but he gets distracted by his past coming back to haunt him as its revealed he broke up his band that nearly signed a record deal. Greenberg still believes it was a good idea, although his other L.A.-based band mates don't, and resent him for it. Greenberg think he's being earnest and helpful to others, but he mostly comes off cynical and selfish, and has carried that weight around with him his whole life. Florence tries to see through this, as someone who can relate to his world-weariness, but mostly Greenberg shrugs her off, as he still has to battle with himself.

"Greenberg" worked so well because it's so brutally honest. Baumbach and Leigh, find a realness and depth within their characters that's rarely seen on screen. These are real people that exist in our everyday lives; they are nervous and jerky, erratic and bumbling. They're not perfect, but rather fragile and vulnerable. Both Stiller and Gerwig awkwardly bounce dialogue off each other, as if they've lived these character's lives their entire life, and their haphazard love story feels fresher than anything I've seen in awhile. Although set in the supposedly superficial city of L.A., Baumbach and Leigh show the human side of the city, as Greenberg weaves through and makes commentary on all the phoniness he sees around him. Yes, you can argue this type of storytelling has a tinge of white-collar pretension, or even that Baumbach is trying to appeal to an "indie" mumblecore demographic, but mostly this is a heartfelt story told by heartfelt people. Its about regret, heartbreak, reconnecting with your past, generation gaps, mood swings, trying to find yourself, loosing loved ones, gaining loved ones, and the dramatic moments in between. You know, all the things we deal with everyday.

Clash of the Titans (2010)

Sam Worthington is no Harry Hamlin

[3/10 · 4 April 2010]

In Roger Ebert's review of the original 1981 "Clash of the Titans," he praised the film saying it had "faith in a story-telling tradition that sometimes seems almost forgotten, a tradition depending upon legends and myths." This makes sense considering both film versions of "Clash of the Titans" is loosely based off the Greek myth of Perseus (Greek for "Avenger" apparently) a myth that has been passed down and kicking around since roughly 490 BC. There is no definitive version of the story, and like all good myths and legends, the best parts get added as the story get passed on from generation to generation. When Ebert praised the original 1981 "Clash of the Titans" he was referring to the same mythic storied tradition that the film seemed to be able to maintain with the help of a well developed script and crafty special effects work from Ray Harryhausen, who was one of the best around before computer CGI took care of everything.

But now CGI does take care of everything, so much so that we've also almost forgotten how hard it is to create special effects like the original "Clash of the Titans" did without the aid of computers. You would think then that a film like "Clash of the Titans," which relies so heavily on SFX and mythical gods and creatures, would be perfect to remake in the age of CGI. But in its remake, Hollywood forgot that it's not just about how much CGI you can throw on the screen, but how you use it. It's always ironic when we have the power to visually create whatever our imaginations can dream up, yet once we have this ability we're less creative with how we use it. We treat the technique as the be all and end all, forgetting that, no matter what, the quality and depth of the story should always be the film's foundation. The two things that made the myth of Perseus work so well throughout time were its strong narrative structure and the fantastical nature of the story. Actually, come to think of it, this is true with all storytelling; it's what makes you root for the protagonist, hate the villains, and get swept up in the emotions of the characters. The Greeks knew about this, and it seemed that Hollywood did, too, for a while – but the new version of this film is so befuddled with questionable character motivations and derivative plot twists that the epic tale of Perseus seemed to have gotten lost in a CGI mess.

In the classic Greek myth of Perseus, the son of Zeus (half god, half man) grows up while his mother is exiled on an island after his bastard grandfather sent them away after hearing a prophecy predicting Perseus will one day kill him. Perseus grows up knowing he is half god (demigod) and yearns to become an adult so he can begin his own heroic adventures. In the original myth, Perseus has a single motivation: to seek the adventure and excitement of becoming a hero. In the 1981 film, Perseus does not know he is a demigod until he is an adult, and it is not until he sees the princess Andromeda that he decides his ultimate quest is not for the sake of heroism, but love. In the new film, Perseus' motivation changes one last, complicated time; his adoptive parents are killed by God of the Underworld Hades, and Perseus' sole motivation becomes revenge. I call this the "Gladiator effect," which worked well for Maximus, but not so well for Perseus. This is also the first variation in which Perseus doesn't agree with his real father Zeus, and wants to win his battles not as a god, but as a man. But the problem here isn't Perseus' daddy issues, it's that he becomes a man fueled by revenge against the gods and completely resistant to using his divine abilities. Using these gifts is what makes him so lovable in the original myth and movie, so why abandon it? As far as acting goes, Sam Worthington as Perseus is no Harry Hamlin, and comes across more as an angry Maximus/Russel Crowe archetype rather than an altruistic hero. This combined with the problem of superfluous supporting characters, deus ex machina love interests, and no mechanical owl, this movie is mostly for kids and tweens who will love the computer graphics, but ultimately doesn't leave a lasting impression or has the imagination of a truly epic tale, one that relies on story-telling anyway.

Oh and it wasn't shot in 3D, so don't waste your money seeing it this way.

Beowulf (2007)

Beowulf is an epic of a movie as epic of a poem

[8/10 · 30 November 2007]

So we've all read Beowulf in school at some point, and whether you loved it or hated it I think we can all agree it was given to us to read for its historical significance. It is the definitive hero's tale that is just as importantly about its anonym...(read more)ous authorship as its classic action/adventure arch-typical story. The fact that it is author-less gives strong support it is a myth that has echoed through the ages and passed on through oral tradition. In this way Beowulf is held sacred for its straightforward and rudimentary mythology, not for having an elaborate plot.

The movie holds onto this logic, yet drastically improves on it, and if I seem like I am gloating, it's because I am; this movie is great. Although I strongly recommend seeing this movie in IMAX 3D, its overall impact should serve the same in a regular theater (just not in 3D). Now it seems that there are two major arguments against the film; 1) the complete and exclusive reliance on CGI. 2) The adaptation and deviation from the poem. I can strongly say the CGI doesn't for a second take anything away from the film, and if anything it gains momentum from it. Robert Zemeckis's action sequences are breathtaking, and perfectly fitting for the epic nature of the story, and although I am in no way an advocate for entirely CGI films ("Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within" anyone?), it seems this time they really did get it right.

The adaptation from epic poem to epic film was no different, and Beowulf the film was going to need a stronger narrative backbone to work, which thankfully the script successfully gave it. The problem of course is when you have a story as prolific as Beowulf there will always be purists and literary historians that expect it to stay loyal to its origins. However what writers Neil Gaiman and Roger Avery had done was provide a new emotional depth and a stronger moralistic center that the original Beowulf had only hinted at. The major themes in Beowulf have always been about pride and reputation, and the ability to rise above them. These were problems Beowulf discreetly dealt with in the original poem, but in the movie everything is extremely focused around them. In doing so Gaiman and Avery deemed it necessary to change Beowulf persona from fearless hero, to flawed boaster, who although is still heroic, is now exclusively ruled by pride and recognition. This also changed the role of Beowulf three villains, who instead of being basic foes become metaphoric specters of a hero's heavy conscious. Every change made was done with delicacy and appreciation for the original tale, and I applaud Gaiman's and Avery's writing depth and ability.

However what is most important to note about the films CGI and deviated narrative structure is it carries on the oral tradition that supposedly birthed Beowulf in the first place. If it really is true that Beowulf was passed on orally from generation to generation as all ancient myth's had, then Gaiman and Avery script is just another addition to the extension of this tradition, and the CGI was another way of emphasizing the epic proportions that once could only be imagined through spoken word. This movie not only succeeds in doing this, but does so in gigantic strides. It is a great achievement, and a milestone in our tradition of inspired moralistic storytelling.