Link me up Scotty!

Its been a while since we've had some current movie news here, so today's post is just going to be a bunch of news and rumors you may or may not find interesting. Enjoy.

News: Straight from the news desk of Ron Burgundy, Adam McKay announced over his twitter account that Anchorman 2 seems all but dead thanks to budget concerns. LINK

RA's Take: Twitter is far from the most reliable news source, but this certainly could be credible. It would have been hard to recapture the magic of the first one though, and Anchorman already had a psuedo-sequel anyway.

News: Richard Gere and Topher Grace will star in the new spy thriller The Double. LINK

RA's Take: Intriguing news, but those two are hardly a can't miss team, so I have a feeling the film will not belong in that category either.

News: Sean Bean's new movie Black Death, a movie about knights and witchcraft during the bubonic plague, just released a trailer. LINK

RA's Take: I'm a sucker for Mr. Bean and the trailer looks intense.

News: A brief Mickey Rourke interview on his upcoming Genghis Khan biopic. LINK

RA's Take: Rourke has always been a bit of an odd duck, but everything else I've heard about the movie sounds very cool.

News: Sharlto Copley has dropped hints about the possibility of a sequel to District 9. It sounds like he and director Neill Blomkamp consider this to be almost an eventuality. LINK

RA's Take: If you are like me and loved District 9, then this should be exciting news. If you aren't, well then you probably don't care.

News: Katherine Heigl's new film has been picked up by Lionsgate for distribution. LINK

RA's Take: While I tend to think the majority of Heigl's films are as predictable as they come, she is starting to assert her box office draw. I don't think Ms. Heigl will be fading into obscurity anytime soon.

News: Not news so much. This link is a clip of NY Times film critic, A.O. Scott, reviewing an old David Mamet movie, Glengarry Glen Ross. LINK

RA's Take: It is a terrific movie and a nice succinct breakdown of the film. Watch the clip and especially the film, if only to see that rarest of movie phenomena... a restrained Al Pacino performance.

RA Profile: Ellen Chenoweth

New feature time here at Routinely Average. Ben and I are going to start profiling some people in the movie industry, either that we have a unique take on, or maybe that don't get the media coverage they deserve. I thought I would kick things off with Hollywood's premier casting director, Ellen Chenoweth.

Casting directors are a key part of any film making process. They recommend and audition actors and actresses for every non-extra role in the film. While the final decision is usually made by a combination of the casting director, director and producer, the casting directors have tremendous influence, and some choices can completely change the way a film is created. They are also often forced to deal with both the business and artistic side of a film when considering who to hire. Not only must they find the right actor, but there is always a budget within which they have to operate. This gives them a unique and important role in the movie business.

Ellen Chenoweth has one of those names that will seem familiar to film goers that stay through the credits. Her filmography is wildly impressive including several features with the Coen Brothers, Clint Eastwood, and Barry Levinson. After casting her first film (the 1981 prehistoric adventure Quest for Fire), Chenoweth cast the Levinson classic Diner and her career took off. One of the amazing things about her career is the number of young actors she casts in small roles, who go on to have tremendous careers of their own. Chenoweth is known to have a preference for stage actors, and has given numerous actors their start or their break-through role. Mickey Rourke, Will Smith, Kevin Bacon, Scarlett Johansson and many others were cast in career making parts by Chenoweth. Some of her more impressive ensembles include the No Country for Old Men, Doubt, Wag the Dog, The Natural, and Broadcast News, and that is just a small portion.

I know the Academy Awards are not the be all, end all measure of critical success, but in general they are a pretty good standard. If you want the clearest example of the size of the mark Ellen Chenoweth has left on the film industry, that would be the fact that she has cast an astounding 30 different Oscar nominated roles. How's that for critical success.

Clash of the Titans

The dialogue in this movie really could have been boiled down to one line and retained nearly all its significance. The only piece of plot development that matters in this film, as they remind us repeatedly, is illustrated by the oft-shown trailer clip of Liam Neeson bellowing, "Release the Kraken." This movie barrels along at breakneck speeds, skipping over such pointless things like character development and making sense. From jump street its clear that if the makers of this movie could have just shown us a 5 minute movie starring the Kraken, they would have.

Louis Leterrier's Clash of the Titans is a remake of a 1981 film by the same name. I have not seen the original, but the fact that it is not highly rated should have been a sign. The film deals with the tale of the demi-god Perseus. After a few traumatic events, including realizing he is the son of Zeus, Perseus and the rest of mankind decide they've had about enough of the Gods and want to teach them a lesson. The Gods, miffed at their creations' lack of respect, decide to conk a few heads together to remind everyone who is in charge. To do that, they turn to Hades, the God of the Underworld. Hades plans to unleash his "pet" the Kraken upon the humans and Perseus and Co. must figure out how to stop it.

The cast is actually a surprisingly talented one with little to nothing to do. The red hot Sam Worthington (Avatar, Terminator Salvation) displays his increasingly trademarked stoicism as Perseus. Its not exactly a bad performance. It is just that this might be the first movie I've ever seen where no character has any development, including the hero. Every few scenes Perseus is presented with a choice between being human or divine, but he never appears troubled or changes his mind. This also introduces the confusing side story about which side the Gods are on. For most of the film Perseus is at odds with them yet they keep helping him. In any case, Perseus' character arc is about as flat as they come. Alexa Davalos and Gemma Arterton are fine enough as the damsels in distress and resident eye candy. Liam Neeson's absurdly shiny Zeus and Ralph Fiennes' oddly bleary eyed Hades are the only two Gods who really get in on the act. Mads Mikkelsen and Pete Postlethwaite are both notable in small roles.

The mythology is sparse and wildly inaccurate (from what little I know). There is no real plot. The characters are numerous and uninteresting. The story is wildly paced as it jumps from action scene to action scene and even rushes those in a desperate attempt to get the Kraken up on screen before the audience loses interest. This finally brings us to the Kraken. The film's focal point fails to really deliver the goods. The beasty is clearly CG, and we never really get a good look at what he fully is, I suspect this is because we would burst out laughing. Even the final fight scene is rushed along and consists of little more than some dodging.

In spite of everything I just typed, there were a couple of moments where the action had me on the edge of my seat, despite not caring about anybody. Mads Mikkelsen's warrior companion to Perseus had some nice moments, and it was mildly entertaining to watch Neeson cavort around as Zeus. If you are going to subject yourself, do it quickly while it is still in theaters. Otherwise, I wouldn't bother.

13/30

The Jurassic Showdown

Adam and I have had a long standing disagreement over the last two Jurassic Park movies.  I'm not exactly sure where it stems from, or when it was first brought up.  All I know is I can't stand Jurassic Park 3, and he detests Jurassic Park 2.  So what better place to start the inaugural entry in our (hopefully) long-running yet-to-be-named point/counterpoint series?  A quick warning, some spoilers follow.


Adam:  Ok, before we begin I'd like to clear the air. I do not think JP3 is a good movie. It is a mindless, clichéd monster movie with few redeeming qualities. And yet it is still better for a few reasons. First of all Alan Grant is the superior leading man to Ian Malcolm. I suppose that’s a good a place to start as any. Grant is a more intelligent, better acted, and better written character (not to mention more believable) than Malcolm's over the top mathematician.

Ben:  I agree that Grant is the better leading man; however I do not that think that makes JP3 a better movie.  Malcolm does a fine job leading JP2, and he has a great supporting cast helping him out, including Julianne Moore, Vince Vaughn, and Richard Schiff.  JP3 has William H. Macy and Tea Leoni in poorly written roles and with nowhere to go with them, and a few other no-name actors that are easily forgotten.

Adam:  Ok, we come to our first point of disagreement. The supporting cast in JP2 stunk. Malcolm is admittedly fine, but Julianne Moore and Vince Vaughn's characters are moronic. They go through every bad cliché in the book. While supposedly being experienced about wild animals, they still manage to piss off dinosaurs at every possible turn, which leads to the death of the only other sympathetic character in the film in Schiff's Eddie. JP3, on the other hand, had William H. Macy (with a ridiculous mustache) put in a solid turn as a dad looking for his kid. No awards deserved to be sure, but his character was at least on the level.

Ben:  You raise a good point about Julianne Moore.  I agree that her character was stupid, that whole business with the baby T-Rex was absurd.  However, I believe her general charisma as an actress overpowers the scenes where she comes off as moronic.  As for Vince Vaughn, I remember him as a generally smart character, even if he wasn't played for anything more than some light comic relief.  While I generally enjoyed William H. Macy, I just couldn't take him as the incompetent father searching for his son.  Too many stupid moves between him and Tea lead me to hate their characters, along with dumbass Billy and the shaggy haired kid.  Grant was the only likable one, and it made me wonder why he would hang out with a crowd of such nitwits.

Adam:  I like Julianne Moore but I really feel like she fell flat. And Malcolm's daughter in JP2 is at least as annoying as the kid in JP3. But let’s move on here before we start repeating ourselves. JP3 is a more original film than JP2. Yup, you heard me. JP3 is not an original movie, but they came up with a new (albeit mediocre) story and added new characters and even some new dinosaurs to the mix. JP2 not only slaughtered the excellent Crichton book of the same name, it copied King Kong almost point for point. Adventurous crew heads to an exotic island, come across a mythical giant awe inspiring beasty (T-Rex), capture it and bring it back to civilization, it escapes and rampages all over a metropolitan area before being put down. I half expected him to climb up the tallest building in the area and start swatting planes.

Ben:  I'll take entertainment over originality any day.  Top of the list of things I wanted to see before I die?  A T-Rex rampaging through San Diego, killing innocent people trying to rent a movie at Blockbuster.  I can remember nearly every plot point in JP2, no matter how rehashed it all is, and I enjoyed almost all of it.  The raptors in the high grass?  Awesome and tense as all get-out.  Two Rexes battering the trailers off a cliff?  Yes please.  I can barely even remember JP3, and I've seen it multiple times.  Something about a Spinosaurus, a pterodactyl stealing poor ol' Billy, and an annoying ringing phone?  Ugh.  I'll watch the T-Rex bowling with 76 ball, thanks.

Adam:  I will grant you two scenes. The high grass and T-Rexes vs. Trailers were really entertaining scenes. Two scenes does not a good movie make. The scene in San Diego is atrocious. It’s campy and feels completely out of place (besides making very little sense). And if you are looking for set pieces, JP3 has a couple of good ones featuring some brand new (and very impressive looking) dinosaurs. The Spinosaurus is much cooler looking than anything in JP2. The scene on the boat floating down the river during the Spinosaurus attack comes immediately to mind.

Ben:  I think we have a fundamental difference here that will never be resolved.  I find the whole San Diego sequence entertaining mostly BECAUSE of its camp.  There are too many jokes in it for it to be taken seriously.  While tonally it is a little out of sync with the rest of the film, I enjoyed the turn, and almost think of the beginning and end of JP2 as two separate movies (which I enjoy equally).  JP3 is just one big crapfest.

Adam:  OK, conclusion time. JP3 is one cohesive movie that knows exactly what it’s trying to do. It is trying to show off some darn cool dinos. It succeeds and provides just enough plot and character development to keep it interesting. It’s exciting, well paced and simple. JP2, on the other hand, cannot figure out what it wants to be. At times it tries to match the pathos of the original while staying true to the book, sometimes its simple action-adventure like the sequel, and at times is almost a comedy steeped in camp. I like all three options in three different movies. JP2 suffers from an acute case of identity crisis and along with its lack of originality it proves fatal. JP3 pounds JP2 almost as hard as I pounded Ben in this debate. Game, set, match.

Ben:  I disagree with you so much.  A movie doesn't need to "decide" what to be.  As long as all the pieces work well together it can do whatever it damn well pleases.  JP2 has two "parts" that both work equally well as popcorn entertainment.  JP3 has a bunch of generic crap that doesn't work as anything.  It is full of boring characters that are interchangeable and disposable, set pieces that aren't nearly iconic as those in JP2, and forgettable action.  JP2 was fun the whole way through.  Watching the two movies, it is obvious which is made by Steven Spielberg and which is made by Joe Johnston.

Adam’s Ratings: JP2: 15/30     JP3: 18/30

Ben’s Ratings: JP2: 19/30     JP3 12/30

How To Train Your Dragon

The first time I saw How To Train Your Dragon was pretty neat. I went by myself, and the theater was completely empty. So there I sat, in the very center of the theater with my 3D glasses on, watching the crappy previews and wondering what I was in for.

Turns out, something pretty special. How To Train Your Dragon is about Hiccup (voiced by Jay Baruchel), a runt Viking of sorts. In his village, life revolves around dragons. Killing one means respect from his fellow Vikings, but, because of his small size, Hiccup is unable to slay heroically like his kinsmen. Hiccup is a pretty decent inventor, however, and he creates a machine that allows him to ensnare a dragon. A-ha! Will Hiccup kill the dragon he captures in cold blood, thus winning his father's praise? Probably not, since this is a kids movie.

The first thing I noticed about Dragon was its visuals. This movie is like looking into God's beautiful blue eyes. The characters are stylized so they don't fall into the creepy part of the uncanny valley (a smart move most animation studios are going for now), while still being incredibly detailed. It's very easy to connect with the characters when you can practically see what they're thinking. The animators also worked wonders on the main dragon, Toothless, a simultaneously ultra-cool and extremely cute little guy. The voice actors do great work lending humor and realism to the film. Watching the trailers, I was skeptical of Jay Baruchel's sardonic portrayal of the main character, but it works well in the context of the movie: Hiccup is very likable, and his understated sarcasm is a nice change of pace from most animated characters. The supporting characters are terrific as well, particularly Gerald Butler as Hiccup's father and Craig Ferguson as the maimed Viking Gobber. The plot doesn't try to hard to do the unexpected, but it doesn't need to. How to Train Your Dragon is simply a pleasure to watch.

24/30

Jurassic Park Chat

What follows is the transcript of a chat the Routinely Average bloggers had about Jurassic Park, a movie we both love.

Some quick facts.

• Directed by Steven Spielberg
• Made in 1993
• Won 3 Oscars
• Stars Sam Neil, Jeff Goldblum, Laura Dern, Richard Attenborough, and Dinosaurs

Beware! Raw and only somewhat-edited emotion follows! Also some spoilers if you've never seen the movie.

Adam: First things first. I love Sam Neil as Dr. Alan Grant. I know everybody prefers Malcolm but Dr. Grant is the shit.

Ben: Grant is great. I don't know who I prefer between Grant and Malcolm, but Grant is a great protagonist. I like his calm demeanor.

Adam: He kind of keeps the film sane. He brings a sense of wonder and science to the film. When Grant looks at the dinosaurs you feel his awe. I love that scene when they first see the dinos mostly because of Grant and Sattler's reaction.

Ben: I love his amazement that these things he's been studying for years are alive.

Adam: The whole film, even though Grant is being chased and almost killed and eaten, he never loses that amazement. When Grant watches the T-Rex munch on some other dino, he talks about how incredible the T-Rex is. Everyone else is either too scared (kids), conceited (Hammond), or uninterested (Malcolm, Muldoon) to ever recognize the dinosaurs for the wonder they create. I feel like that’s the thing that keeps this above a common monster movie – the dinosaurs aren’t demonized.

Ben: I especially like how movie ends with the whole "look at the dinosaurs ruling the island, isn't it beautiful?" which I think is great. It's such a good ending, and so much better than the book.

Adam: Perfect moment. Exactly what I am talking about.

Ben: Another thing that sets it apart is it that, as an action/thriller film, it performs flawlessly. It is just extremely well made. There is nothing extraneous, but they also make sure you care about everyone in the movie. The kids are actually good characters, and not too annoying. And yet the whole time you're almost rooting for the dinosaurs too.

Adam: I agree about all the characters being great, but the little boy kind of annoyed me actually. I disliked how scene with the electric fence was handled. I don't buy that a small boy could have 10,000 volts of electricity course through his body, and come out none the worse for wear. Everything about the movie is at least somewhat plausible and based in science except for that scene.

Ben: I disagree about that scene. I think it's pretty intense. Although there are some logical problems with how they go about the scene, it's very tense the whole way though. Usually a scene like that would annoy me too, but it's so entertaining that I don't care. If it's good enough I can ignore logical problems. I mean, there are dinosaurs walking around after all.

Adam: But each movie sets its own standard of reality. This one decided to abide by the laws of science (even if they took a couple of liberties). They have such a great explanation for the science behind the dinosaurs in both the book and the movie. I guess I'm nitpicking, but I love the science of this movie so much that to see it busted a little was frustrating.

Ben: How great is the scene outside the T-Rex paddock?

Adam: One of my all time favorite action scenes. That scene and the scene in the kitchen are just unbelievably exciting.

Ben: Yeah. Perfect set pieces. Or how about the scene in the Jeep with the T-Rex chasing them? It’s incredible.

Adam: "Objects in mirror..." I love that.

Ben: Spielberg is great at putting little jokes into his movies.

Adam: I like when Malcolm is sitting hurt in the jeep talking to himself and the impact tremors start. "I'm fairly alarmed here."

Ben: Yeah, that part is perfect.

Adam: Any thoughts on the science vs. nature aspect of the movie?

Ben: Well, I like the theme. It's very subtly done, which is nice. And I think it just lends something to think about other than the cool monster effects.

Adam: So do you think the real life version of JP could work... or are you a subscriber to chaos theory?

Ben: I don't think a real life JP would work. I don't think I'd even want to see it built. I don't mind scientists experimenting and trying to make our lives better, but I don't want tickets being sold over it.

Adam: Messing around under carefully controlled circumstances, I don't have too much of a problem with. Commercializing may be a mistake; I’ll grant you that.

Ben: Any closing thoughts?

Adam: This movie really introduced me to epic large scale films. I will always remember my childhood love of dinos and the awe on Dr. Grant's face in that scene mirrored my own the first time I saw it. Its smart, well acted, paced, and directed. One of my favorites. How about you?

Ben: Well, it was the first PG-13 film I ever saw, and it scared me for weeks afterwards. I loved dinosaurs as a kid too, but the raptors were too much for me.

Adam: The scene in the woods got to me too, but the T-Rex eating the lawyer scared me more than anything else actually.

Ben: Remember the big controversy about him taking a crap? I remember having those debates in school.

Adam: I do, vaguely.

Ben: No matter what you want to say about Spielberg's movies, technically they're always amazing. He really knows how to make a movie like nobody's business. But I've never really looked at JP technically because it was always such a big part of my childhood.

But I think as far as history goes, it'll always be a movie that studios will try to duplicate.

Adam: It spawned a generation of monster movies. A classic.

Tune in sometime next week for.... BLUG FEST! ... We need a better name for that.

26/30

Blog Slug Fest.... or Blug Fest!

Alright, Ben and I are throwing a new wrinkle in here at Routinely Average. Sometime in the next couple of days we will publish a joint review of Jurassic Park. Then all bets are off as Ben and I will slug it out (see above) to determine which movie is more watchable.... Jurassic Park 2: The Lost World, or Jurassic Park 3. In the words of Sam Jackson... "Hold on to your butts!"

Here are some links to tide you over.

1. The (quicktime) trailer for the new Will Ferrell movie The Other Guys. Looks pretty funny.

2. Interesting article about an old Kubrick script.

3. Viola Davis and Emma Stone might be working together in The Help.

4. Brad Pitt talks about the new Terence Malick movie, The Tree of Life.

5. Cannes film festival Line-up for 2010 is announced.

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre

Truly great acting performances are rare. It requires so much more than a capable actor to play the role. The character must be well written, the director must pace the performance appropriately and choose the right takes, and of course the actor must inhabit the person they are playing completely. When all these factors come together it is a wonder to watch. When you get two great performances in the same movie, well, now you're talking classic. Such is the case with the 1948 film The Treasure of the Sierra Madre. This John Huston directed masterpiece is the tale of a search for gold. It has gunfights, brawls, distant exotic lands, bandidos, Indians and of course treasure. All the trappings of an adventure film. Yet under Huston's Oscar winning direction (and screenplay) it becomes so much more.

In Tampico, Mexico we find two down on their luck American men. After running into an old prospector and putting together a little money, the three decide to head off in search of gold. The three pals strike it rich and everything seems to be looking up. Then gold begins to cast its spell. The three former friends become suspicious and violent in the pursuit of wealth. Can they hold together long enough to keep from killing each other?

Humphrey Bogart, Tim Holt, and John Huston's dad Walter Huston play the three treasure hunters. Holt, a relative unknown, holds up well against two career defining performances by all-time screen legends. Holt plays Curtin, a young American who is seduced by gold, but has a strong moral center. Walter Huston won his only Oscar for this performance as the wise old prospector named Howard. Huston's Howard has been down this path before and pulls out every trick in the book to keep his younger companions on the straight and narrow. His grounded, realistic, and funny performance provide both the reality and the levity needed for this film to work.

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre benefits from wonderful work by all involved, including the best performance of Walter Huston's career, and yet this film belongs to Bogie. From the opening moments to his final scene, he captures the viewer. His slow migration from sanity and morality to madness is a pleasure to watch. Bogie plays Fred C. Dobbs, a man desperate for a break who insists that he would only take what he needs. Bogart has played mad men before, but Dobbs is more than just a crazy. He is a man being driven to insanity, and all the peaks and valleys that accompany that. Dobbs has to be funny, scary, greedy, proud, ashamed, honorable, dishonorable, and most of all tragic at different moments in the film. Bogart lays it all out there and then John Huston spliced it together into one of the most fascinating characters ever put up on the silver screen.



This movie is one of my all-time favorites. The theme of greed is timeless and well done here, there are some iconic movie moments (including one of the most frequently misquoted lines in history), and the spectacular Bogart performance make it a must see.

27/30

Crappy rom coms remind me of America

When people think of Ben Keedy, they usually think “danger.” If you were to drop in at a random time, chances are I’d be doing something exciting, like eating spicy foods, chugging gallons of Surge, or racing off on a new adventure. I guess that’s why they call me the Bry-man.

Four years ago, I experienced my grandest adventure to date. Sibling Jenna and I kicked the Haslett dust off our boots and escaped to exotic Italy to visit middle child Megan. It was a time of whimsy and excess, as we feasted on the finest pasta and traveled to the most remote locals imaginable. The devil was our guide as the three Keedy children lived it up in a land with no laws and high quality healthcare. I shan’t go into any further detail, lest this blog be used as evidence in court.

However, even the most rugged individuals can feel a twinge when away from their home country for an extended period of time. One of possibly only three Americans in an alien land, I became a tad bit homesick. I was having a blast, but missed the familiar comforts of the land of the free.

Luckily, there was a theater near Meg’s apartment that showed American movies (complete with Italian subtitles). So, the three Keedy children hitched up the wagon and traveled three blocks over to see the much hyped film by auteur director Tom Dey (perhaps best known for his tour de force Shanghai Noon, and for helming the upcoming Marmaduke), Failure to Launch.

Dispensing with the smarminess, Failure to Launch is not a good film. However, it was an extremely comforting experience watching it. For a while I felt home again, watching a world of familiar clichés, archetypes, and plot lines. Had I seen Failure to Launch in the USA, I probably would have forgotten it immediately. But because I saw at a particularly susceptible time in Italy, I have forged this strange connection with it. Seeing it was like getting a hug from Mom during the middle of a tough day at elementary school, or rooming with your best friend during your first year at college.

Failure to Launch illustrated, for me, one of my favorite things about films: their ability to connect with you on a deeper level than “that looked cool.” I’ll probably never watch Failure to Launch again (I don’t want to, really), but I’ll never forget seeing it in Italy.

The Artist Formerly Known as Cage

Nicolas Cage is nothing if not eclectic. In 2006 Cage was a major Hollywood A-lister coming off a run of terrific movies that included Lord of War, Matchstick Men, and Adaptation. He had already won an Oscar in 1996 for Leaving Las Vegas, proving he could do drama to critical acclaim. He was an established action star thanks to Con Air and The Rock. Cage had even cut his comedic teeth with the Coen Brothers in the 1987 film Raising Arizona. As a member of the Coppola family, Cage is practically film royalty and by the mid 2000s he seemed to have it all figured out.

Now it is 2010. Films like Next, Knowing, Bangkok Dangerous, Ghost Rider, National Treasure 2, and The Wicker Man have all bombed both financially and critically. Two films in development that his name has been associated with are Ghost Rider 2 and National Treasure 3. I don't hold particularly high hopes for either of those. The two or three movies he releases a year have become a parade of the bizarre and the uninteresting. Always appearing a bit off kilter, Nic Cage seems to have turned into his own caricature. What happened to the original and fascinating actor who was one of the most popular stars in the world during the '90s and early 2000s?

In November of 2009 Cage underwent a very public humiliation when he tried to sue his business manager for leading him into financial ruin. It was speculated that his epically bad stretch of movies was an effort to earn some money by taking scripts based on the money he was offered instead of their artistic potential. His two new movies, the intriguing Kick-Ass and the less intriguing The Sorcerer's Apprentice might provide a bounce back. Whatever ends up happening with the rest of his career, it is important to remember what a fine filmography Cage has and the collection of meaningful performances he created. Here is one blogger rooting for him to figure it all out again.

Here are some links for your enjoyment.

1. Cinematical interview with Nicolas Cage on his film Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans.

2. A trailer and post on Tony Jaa's Ong Bak 3.

3. Logan Lerman might be the new Spiderman in the series reboot.

4. Great article on Dennis Hopper's career from the NY Times. Be warned, there are some spoilers if you haven't seen Easy Rider.

5. Interesting piece from the BBC about the potential ramifications of Kathryn Bigelow's historic Oscar win.

Princess Mononoke

Spirited Away is one of my favorite movies. After seeing it for the first time, I asked for a bunch of Hayao Miyazaki movies for Christmas, and recieved four: Spirited Away, Howl's Moving Castle, Castle in the Sky, and Princess Mononoke. Despite my love for Spirited Away, I hesitated watching the other three. I'm not really sure why. Maybe I didn't want to be let down after my expectations had been raised so high. Maybe it was my general wariness of Japanese anime, which I'd had mixed experiences with. But I'm getting off track; my psychoses are only a partial subject of this blog. I finally saw Howl's Moving Castle around a year after that Christmas, and it met my expectations without overwhelming me the way Spirited Away did. I was relieved, and only a little let down.

My recent viewing of Princess Mononoke raised my Miyazaki expectations back to Spirited Away levels. Mononoke opens with a young prince named Ashitaka (voiced excellently by Billy Crudup) defending his peaceful village from a crazed boar demon (sounds pretty good already, right?). During the struggle, Ashitaka is cursed, and forced into exile. On his travels, Ashitaka attempts to find a cure for his ailment while simultaniously fighting both sides of a battle between forest-destroying humans and the gods of nature.

One of the most interesting aspects of Mononoke is how multi-faceted it is. The nature gods are not just harmonious creatures that prance around in loin clothes crying crocodile tears as their perfect forest world is destroyed (coughavatarcough). Instead, they are ugly, quarrelsome beasts with frightening tendancies and an interesting hierarchy that causes them to fight amongst themselves. The human leader, while selfish and murderous, also possesses virtuous qualities, such as her care for the outcasts of society. The only "pure" character is Ashitaka, whose inner calm and confidence is put at odds with the hate-filled curse that is slowly taking over his body.

The most entertaining part of Mononoke, however, is its sheer beauty. The opening sequence is breathtaking. Watching Ashitaka perform simple tasks like calling his mount, adjusting his bowstring, and taking off in persuit of the boar demon is a pleasure. The animators think of the little twitches in human motion that you ordinarily never notice, but bring a realism and depth to the film. Scenes are allowed to play out as the score (always a strong point in Miyazaki films) swells behind it.

Mononoke treads a perilous line. Its message against globalization could be hit on too strongly (as I felt was occasionally the case in WALL-E), but the subtle and very real characters help bring the epic stakes down to a relatable level. Princess Mononoke hasn't supplanted Spirited Away as my favorite Miyazaki film, but I sure wish I hadn't waited so long to watch it.

27/30

Smokin' Aces

After reviewing several films I liked or loved, I figured it was about time to go negative. I really did not like this movie. Smokin' Aces was made in 2006, written and directed by Joe Carnahan. Carnahan created the excellent cop movie Narc back in 2002, and had assembled a huge cast for this picture. The personnel behind it, combined with a good marketing campaign had me revved up for it right on through the trailers in the movie theater. And then I actually watched the film.

Buddy "Aces" Israel (Jeremy Piven) is a small time Vegas performer who has inside info on a big time mob boss and is going to rat him out. The FBI is placing him under witness protection when the hit gets put out on Israel. Plenty of hitmen line up to take a crack at Israel, all on the same day, as the FBI tries frantically to keep him alive. Not exactly the most original plot, but one I could stand if it was accompanied by the appropriate amounts of comedy and action. This film had neither.

Carnahan fails to strike up any real humor, Piven plays Israel like a coked-out Ari Gold, and the host of otherworldly hitmen merely come off as bizarre. The giant cast is mostly adequate, but there are a few swing and misses. Nobody really deserves special mention. The only two people with even moderately watchable moments are the rapper Common as Israel's bodyguard, and Ryan Reynolds as one of the FBI agents. Even they only do enough to get by.

With sparse action this film feels a lot longer than its 109 minutes, and never really finds itself. I won't spoil it for those of you who wish to subject yourselves, but the conclusion is especially botched as it essentially negates the purpose of the entire film. All things considered it is mostly unoriginal, boring, and actually pretty depressing despite the fact that I didn't care about anybody the entire film. Bad things for a comic book movie.

By the way, in case your interested a sequel was just released this year called Smokin' Aces 2: Assassins' Ball. I will leave you to draw your own conclusions there as I probably won't be seeing it.

8/30

Barton Fink

If you're going to watch a Coen Brothers movie, you have to know what you're in for. Unless you're watching one of their more mainstream films, preparing yourself for a bizarre, metaphorical, and perhaps inconclusive ride is a good idea. If you're not expecting the typical exposition, conflict, and resolution of most movies, a Coen Brothers film can be an extremely refreshing break from the usual fare. Barton Fink is no different.

Barton Fink's story starts out simply enough. Fink (John Turturro) is a Broadway play write in New York who has just released a critically and commercially admired play. He then receives an offer he can't refuse: to make gobs of money in L.A. writing for the pictures. The transition isn't easy on Fink. There's his gregarious neighbor, Charlie (John Goodman), new bosses with strange business mentalities, and Fink's inconvenient case of writers block. The end of the film turns into a bizarre, abstract look inside a confused writer's head.

It has been suggested that Barton Fink is the Coen Brother's most personal film (though A Serious Man may have supplanted it). It provides an interesting take on the process of writing, and the delusions it places on a man who clearly has a skewed vision of himself. Barton Fink certainly has the Coen's pedigree: a meticulous script, beautiful cinematography courtesy of Roger Deakins, and terrific acting. The scenes between Turturro and Goodman are both engaging and hilarious; providing wonderful insight into the characters. The film's end doesn't resolve much at first glance, however I still found it extremely satisfying. As reality blends with the surreal, the powerful final scenes give you much to think about after the credits roll.

26/30

Sausage LINKS anyone?

First of all, a big thank you for the great shout out from my friend Dan over at The Goal Posters. They are a brand new sports blog with lots of potential. I will also be contributing over there from time to time if you should happen to be interested.

Now, back to business of movies. Just a few quick links tonight. Should have another review either tomorrow or Thursday.

1. According to Jerry Bruckheimer, the third installment in the National Treasure series is a go.

2. Interesting NY Times article on the new Steve Carell, Tina Fey movie "Date Night" and others of its kind.

3. "Tron Legacy" hasn't even come out yet and they are already talking sequel. Apparently some writers from the TV show "Lost" will be involved.

4. Blasphemy! The Val Kilmer emblematic 1980s flick "Real Genius" is in talks for a remake.