Author: Darren Goodhart

It’s December 23rd in an unspecified year (though the setting is obviously contemporary), and we discover that God has had it with the way humans are running the planet and decides that it’s now time for a cleansing and time to start all over. He sends an army of angels led by Gabriel to enact his wish, but one angel, Michael rebels against God and is willing to help humanity make it’s last stand, in particular setting his sights on the people that work and own a remote diner/garage, especially and seemingly a waitress who’s about to give birth to a special child…

That’s the premise to the new movie Legion from a relatively unknown director, Scott Stewart, which he also co-writes with a relatively unknown collaborator, Peter Schink. This follows right on the trail of the release of the Hughes Brothers extremely well done The Book of Eli and has at least in a couple of places inspired some to write articles that these two seem to mark a trend of Hollywood looking to the good book for a message of hope to it’s audiences, to which I think it’s just a matter of coincidence, but that’s just me. Yes, there is a message of faith in both films, but the difference is that The Book of Eli is a really good movie, and Legion is a really bad one…

Watching this, I was put in the mind that Stewart and Schink probably read a lot of Garth Ennis’ comic Preacher and were big fans of movies like Constantine, The Prophecy and Kevin Smith’s Dogma and thought “Wow, we could make something really cool along those lines as well.” But that’s all it has, the idea that they could fill this thing with scenes and visuals that they thought would look really cool, but doesn’t have any sort of real thought put into it. For something like this to work, it needs some rules to go by, and those seem to be made up here on the fly, simply because they think it would look cool on screen. Yeah, we have angels coming to wipe the Earth clean, but they use humans to do it, either seeming like zombies or demon-posessed, but why? If we have a child here who is supposedly being seen as the salvation for humanity, why would God then want to wipe the planet clean? And the whole meaning of the child is something that’s never given a proper explanation, basically being unresolved by the time this ends.

Like I said, it looks to me like this is being done because they think it looks really cool and they really don’t have any conviction behind their ideas whatsoever. It even filters over to all of the atrocious dialogue which all seems written in mind for what would sound cool in a trailer more than anything else. On top of that, all of the characters are simplistically written cliches that behave in mostly a one or two dimensional manner, with little or no smarts amongst any of them, only asking questions when it’s convenient to the script.

On a technical level though, this is pretty well shot and the effects are serviceable, helping them get their “cool” moments, but it’s story reads like it’s written by someone who’s read a lot of DC’s Vertigo line of comics without any real life experience to bring to the whole thing.

And that’s a real shame considering the impressive cast this thing has- Paul Bettany as the angel Michael, backed up by guys like Dennis Quaid, Lucas Black, Tyrese Gibson, and Charles S. Dutton should be a combination for something pretty good. And to their credit, Lucas Black plays Quaid’s son, and that’s something I could actually buy here, it’s just a shame that they’re all of one note (though I also have to give credit to Dutton as well, who in his brief scenes really does try to inject something genuine here even without the base material to do so. Most laughable though is Quaid, and I really do like Dennis Quaid, but he doesn’t do himself any favors here, playing his character with pretty much the same tone all the way through and with a forced expression on his face that’s a cross between the cartoonish and the constipated.

The trailer was pretty good for this, and it certainly sold the movie to me before seeing it. I paid my own money to see it, so naturally, I wanted to like it- but, oh… when this is filled with this many inconsistencies and simplistic characters, it’s real easy to hate it, though I have to admit to some fun making some MST3K comments along the way. Just as I’ll remember The Book of Eli at the end of 2010 when putting together a list of the best movies that I saw, I’ll remember Legion as one of the worst…

You know, it’s sort of odd at the beginning of a new year for me when I see movies. Often in January, I’m seeing holdovers from the previous year that are now making their way into St. Louis, so really I might not start seeing actual movies intended for the new year’s release until late in January or more often early in February, and as such, I’m often seeing some of the best movies that I’ll see during the last year at the start of a new year. This past year has been a little bit different, with the changes in the economy, home video and the rise of 3D, studios are more getting those prestige films out now all around in the same calendar year, so right now, the only holdover from 2009 that I’m still waiting to show up in St. Louis that would qualify for 2009 is Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans and I get to concentrate on new releases for the current calendar year.

Now I would’ve seen The Book of Eli regardless because this is a movie that I’ve really been looking forward to, but it’s just really rare that I see a movie released during the start of a calendar year, that might already qualify to be one of the best movies that I’ll see during that calendar year, and that’s the case with The Book of Eli– already I have seen something this year that will be up there with the most special movies of 2010.

Set in a post-apocalyptic future, The Book of Eli tells the story of a lone man, Eli, who’s had a calling and must follow that calling. Because of the great war that caused this apocalypse, nearly all of the Bibles have been destroyed as a result of that (as well as a good deal of other books). One bible remains and it’s in Eli’s possession, and his calling is to go West and from there decide what to do with the book. But Eli runs across others during his travels, and along the way he comes across a town that’s controlled by a man named Carnegie, and Carnegie is desperate to get a hold of a Bible because he knows what power the Bible has and what it can inspire amongst people who have no more hope.

This is the fifth movie from The Hughes Brothers and like James Cameron and Kathryn Bigelow before them, their first major release in a long period of time (their last film being their adaptation of Alan Moore’s and Eddie Campbell’s graphic novel, From Hell). And like Cameron and Bigelow, the time away certainly hasn’t hurt their chops at all and in fact, they’ve just gotten better if The Book of Eli is any indication, and for me anyway it is, as I think it’s their best movie yet.

First, it’s just a beautiful movie to watch. Yes, it is set against an all too bleak backdrop, but the composition of every shot is almost a work of art in itself. There’s heavy duty action elements in the film, and the Hughes Brothers buck the trend that a lot of others shooting action go for now, which is a lot of in-close stuff with quick cuts, and instead, they’ll pull their camera back and let you take in what they’re doing, which just makes the scenes even more impressive. One action scene in particular is just really fun to watch and it simulates a single camera shot that travels all around the action. Like Kathryn Bigelow with The Hurt Locker, they’re also not afraid to let a scene play out longer than what another movie might do, and thus add even more weight to what you’ve just seen.

In particular though, this movie deals with faith and they’re not afraid to take it as far as they do. There’s a particular point in the movie that really illustrates this (and I expect for some, this will be the turning point in the movie where they’ll either love it or hate it, depending on whether you want to go with them on it- I went with them on it). This same point is also like ones seen before in The Sixth Sense or Fight Club, the type of scene that makes you want to go back and re-watch the film to see where their “tells” are.

All of this wouldn’t mean anything though if you didn’t have a cast with the same conviction to carry it out, and fortunately, the Hughes Brothers have that with Denzel Washington and Gary Oldman as their leads. With Denzel Washington, you always get an actor who just gives the right amount of credibility to every part he plays, and Eli is no exception- his conviction is there, and I just wanted to follow him all the way through this. Oldman is the same way, once he’s been cast in a part, you know you’re in good hands, and while his Carnegie is the villain of this piece, it’s not just played single-mindedly and you do get the feeling that this is man who knows he’s done some pretty foul things to keep his life and his town going, even if it is starting to go further than what he might’ve planned. They’re backed up with some real nice turns from Mila Kunis, Ray Stevenson, Tom Waits, Michael Gambon and Jennifer Beals amongst others (really nice to see Beals doing something like this) and the entire cast makes sure that the Hughes Brothers vision follows through.

It’s a pretty profound story of faith told against a spaghetti western post-apocalyptic backdrop that’s masterfully made and certainly, at least to me, worth more than one viewing. It’s terrific to see the Hughes Brothers back in action and now I just hope it’s not another nine years before their next movie. Without a doubt in my mind, very much recommended, and already something that I’ll certainly be thinking about for the best that I’ve seen in 2010.

In a brief ten-year period, an epidemic of vampirism has swept the planet, making most of the population vampires with a small amount of regular humans kept alive to be “farmed” and have their blood harvested for the rest of the population. Civilization has continued for the vampires, still living their regular lives, but making the adjustments for their new condition, and most of the population has embraced this condition with a small few seking an alternative to this life. One corporation, Bromley Marks (The World Leader in Blood Pharmacy) is the leading supplier of blood to the vampire population, and their supplies are now running low. A hematologist for the company, Ed Dalton, seeks to come up with a blood substitute and is edging closer to success, but not quite getting there yet. If the vampire population is deprived of human blood, then they start to degenerate to something much more feral and fearsome, even to the rest of the population. Ed Dalton is a reluctant vampire though, refusing to drink human blood himself, and slowly is starting to fall prey to the condition that’s starting to take the rest of the population. Ed has a chance encounter with a small group of humans one evening that starts to change everything.

That’s the basic premise to Daybreakers a new movie written and directed by Australia’s Speirig Brothers, and for me, this is a welcome addition to what seems like a spate of vampire movies that more romanticizes the field. Daybreakers plays with the concept in some interesting ways, especially with the way life is lived after the condition strikes, but at the same time fully recognizes that it is a horror movie, but laced with some science fiction and speculative fiction ideas. Some of the cooler ideas are being cars that are customized so that vampires can drive during daylight hours, or in the cities, the construction of underground Subwalks that still let the vampires travel from building to building during the day.

But this is a vampire movie, and it doesn’t shy away from the violence inherent within the genre, so in addition to these ideas, you can certainly expect to see a good level of good old R-rated violence that goes with it, and the Speirig’s are quite adept with it as well, even being involved with some of the films more technical aspects.

They’ve got a nice cast here, headed up by Ethan Hawke as Ed Dalton. Hawke plays this quite earnestly and is pretty rock solid. And that pretty much is true for the rest of the cast as well, which includes Claudia Karvan, and always welcome appearances by guys like Willem Dafoe and Sam Neill.

Daybreakers does some fresh stuff with the genre as well as giving it it’s teeth back so to speak. It’s a briskly paced film that recognizes that it is a B-movie and has some fun with it’s genre, and it certainly entertained me. This may not be the best movie that I’ll see in 2010 (and by that, I mean the type of thing that really sticks with you), but I certainly thought it was a good start and a nice little diversion.

As our movie starts, we’re introduced to a strange little traveling sideshow attraction as it’s making it’s way through and setting up for a show near a pub area in London. We’re introduced to Doctor Parnassus himself, his daughter Valentina, a young man who acts as the “barker” for the show, Anton and Parnassus’ aid, the dwarf Percy. And we’re introduced to The Imaginarium itself, which upon entry, seems to present it’s entrant a doorway into his own imagination and there the entrant has to make a choice of a certain path to take through life. We’re told of Parnassus’ origin, which involves him believing himself to be a leader of a group that keeps the order in balance for the world by telling it’s story, and then we’re introduced to Parnassus’ nemesis, the Devil, who has won a wager with Parnassus that takes him out of his former life and puts him into the existence that he has now. Along the way, the group comes across Tony, a young amnesiac man who was at death’s door until they come along to save him and again, Parnassus also becomes involved in another game with the Devil. Tony helps where he can, as little bit’s of his previous life become clearer to him, but those bits of his past look like they could be even more of a hindrance in the end than a help…

And that’s where I’ll leave off with the basic premise of The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus both famous for being the newest movie from director Terry Gilliam and the last movie for the late Heath Ledger. I really, really wanted to like this movie, I’m a fan of Gilliam’s, though for me he really hasn’t delivered a really good movie since Twelve Monkeys, and unfortunately, The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus is another big miss in a string of misses, but one where it might also be impossible to think of it purely on it’s own on it’s first viewing, because of the obvious death of Heath Ledger and what was done to fill in for that. This might improve in later viewings, but I have to say for myself, those viewings would be much later than sooner, as still this didn’t grab me in the way that would make me want to see it again right away.

If Terry Gilliam isn’t the most cursed filmmaker out there, he’s certainly in the top five. After some very public problems with the making of some of his movies from the past (Brazil and the so far yet to be completed properly The Man Who Killed Don Quixote) he’s plagued yet again with the unfortunate death of one of his stars for this movie, and has come up with a way to finish it, by having other actors replace heath Ledger in some of the key scenes within the Imaginarium, at least on the surface… but there would have to have been other changes made as well (I’m thinking of an introductory scene where a young man goes into the Imaginarium and see’s his face has changed, which doesn’t happen for everybody that goes through), as well as what I though had to be some sort of tonal shifts that seem to undermine Tony’s involvement with the group. In addition, these changes seem to make it so that there aren’t really any rules for the use of the Imaginarium proper and while some could write that away as “Well, it’s a fantasy, anything can happen,” fantasy, at least o me is only really good when there are established rules that are stuck to. And in the end, what you get is something that, again to me, was patchy at best.

There’s nothing wrong with the main performances, Christopher Plummer plays Parnassus, and he’s certainly right for the part. Lily Cole is quite good (and attractive) as his daughter and I actually really like Verne Troyer here as Percy, and think there’s something both odd and quite cool about his interplay with an actor of Plummer’s stature. Tom Waits plays the Devil and of course brings those parts of himself that you’d expect him to for the role, making the character untraditionally creepier than what someone else might’ve done. Heath Ledger is also quite good in his last performance, though this isn’t anything near what he did in The Dark Knight it’s still quite solid, but it leaves the question of what would this film had been like had he lived through it’s completion. Johnny Depp, Jude Law and Colin Farrell all take the part of Tony as he enters the Imaginarium three times and I don’t think they’re seamless performances at all, and I’m sure there had to be some changes made that altered what the Tony character was originally supposed to be in order to finish this up, and unfortunately, those changes are felt.

There’s also nothing wrong with the visual style of the film, which is Gilliam running on all cylinders and certainly making the most of the technology in front of him to give you worlds within the Imaginarium that are like Gilliam animations from the Monty Python days, but this time working in three dimensions.

At present, like the movie Lost in la Mancha which is about all of the problems that Gilliam went through to make The Man Who Killed Don Quixote, it almost seems that the background of the making of The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus might make for a more interesting piece than the actual film itself. As I said above, this might change for me with a later viewing, but after the first viewing, I’m not really that inclined to readily give this one another chance. The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus is an unfortunate mess, it means well and I’m sure Gilliam did the best with what he had in front of him (and probably more in desperation to just maintain his financing), but it left me more wondering in the end just what this could’ve been had he not made the changes that he obviously had to make.

As Sherlock Holmes and Dr. John Watson are closing the case on the nefarious Lord Blackwood, they’re also looking at closing out their own relationship as Watson is about to get married. But seemingly, Lord Blackwood returns from the dead, to hatch his scheme again, and Watson finds himself still tethered to Holmes to deal with this situation…

That’s all I’m going to say about the plot to Sherlock Holmes, the latest attempt to revitalize Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s classic characters, it’s also the latest film from director Guy Ritchie and uber-producer Joel Silver as he attempts to start another franchise.

To tell the truth, I was a little hesitant to readily see this one. Here’s the deal- I’m actually a fan of Holmes and Watson and read some of Doyle’s stories back in the day. Hell, in high school for my English class, I even did a paper on Holmes complete with comic style illustrations that I did for it (got an A for that paper by the way and even got a little recognition from my teacher for going above and beyond with drawing illustrations for it). On paper, the idea of Guy Ritchie making this movie, with Robert Downey Jr. as Holmes and Jude Law as Watson sounds pretty good, but once I started to see some of the trailers for it, I thought it was being turned a little bit into a smart-ass snark-fest, and so wasn’t exactly sold on seeing it. But after reading a few things about it, I was opening up more to it and of course it helped that I got a free ticket to see it as well (thank you Microsoft and the special deal with Best Buy to buy an Xbox 360 Microsoft points card, which I needed anyway).

And even if I didn’t get to see it for for free, I’d still say this: it really is an overall good time at the movies and I’m really surprised at just how much they got right.

After he made RocknRolla, it was a least apparent to me that Guy Ritchie had his “legs” back after a long period of not making a good movie while he was Mr. Madonna, but how would his style translate to what a period piece this was obviously going to be? Well, he actually reins it in a little bit, in comparison to some of his other movies, though there are some cool hyper-kinetic moments in it, but those moments are used to good effect (primarily when Holmes’ mind is at work) and don’t get in the way at all, making for a cleanly told story.

I have to give the writing team a lot of credit here, because they do pay homage to the books a great deal, and I’ll even go so far as to say that if Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was alive in this day and age, and creating Holmes for the first time, this is probably closer to the way he’d be written (taking into account audiences tastes today). Also, huge kudos to Hans Zimmer for a very kinetic and violin-heavy music score that really works well in the film’s cool action sequences.

Downey and Law are really good as Holmes and Watson respectively, especially Law as Watson, who usually gets a little short-changed in the process. Downey plays Holmes as though he does have a bit of a disorder to him, but the trade-off is of course with his brilliant powers of deduction and his rapid-fire thought process. The only beef that I have is in some of the private moments with Holmes and Watson (and these are a couple of the moments where there are no other characters in the scene) and the relationship from the two comes off more as a little campy and gay in a small way. Now this isn’t a deal-breaker by any means, and you may not even see it at all, as I know the others that I was with to see this didn’t think that was even there- so your mileage may vary (and mine may change as well, as I see this again in the future). Other nice turns though come from Rachel McAdams and Eddie Marsan as familiar Holmes’ characters Irene Adler and Inspector Lestrade and Mark Strong, playing Lord Blackwood, who’s certainly good here, though not as powerful as he was in RocknRolla.

Really, Sherlock Holmes is a lot of fun and hopefully this will be the start of a new franchise- I have no doubt that Downey and Law will be back for a second, but the people I really hope are part of it are director Guy Ritchie, composer Hans Zimmer and the screenwriters who really made this more fun, even more so than it’s stars (and they do a damn fine job for the most part their own selves. Highly recommended…

It’s the year 2154, and former marine Jake Sully has been offered the chance of a lifetime. Jake has lost the use of his legs, and his twin brother was originally supposed to be a part of a scientific expedition on the planet Pandora, a planet whose atmosphere is lethal to humans, but after his brother’s untimely death, Jake, being as good a match as they can get for this expedition is offered the chance to take his brother’s place. Using genetically-bred bodies of the natives of Pandora, and a cybernetic process for controlling those bodies, Jake’s mind is implanted in the artificial body and with a few other humans taking part in this, he’s able to walk again and experience the wonders and dangers of Pandora firsthand. But the corporation in charge of this expedition, has ulterior motives to mine the planet for an ore of great wealth and the marines protecting this expedition want to use Jake to find out the ways of the native people, the Na’vi, and Jake, being a former marine readily agrees and gets way more out of the bargain than he would ever expect…

And that’s where I’ll leave off with the premise to Avatar the first dramatic movie from writer/director James Cameron since he made Titanic. Cameron’s had this idea for a movie since he was a kid, and has waited for the technology to catch up for him, and it’s been well worth the wait. He’s always been right on the cutting edge of technology with his previous movies, but this one raises the bar considerably with it’s motion capture work and the idea of creating computer-rendered characters that you do actually give a damn about. But it’s just not that, he’s created an entire world here with many wonders and pitfalls, and it still doesn’t stop there, as even the man-made elements of the story are also at the peak of what you can do in today’s movies.

It’s a technical achievement to be sure, but of course, it’s story is what matters the most, and fortunately the technology is used well enough to make the story really convincing. I’ve seen a lot of comments in places that bag on the film for not being original enough, and it certainly does borrow from a lot of other sources, but really, for me that didn’t matter. If the story is well-told, then I could care less if it does borrow from other things… and this is pretty well-told (though I do have one little beef with it, but we’ll get to that soon).

It really is something that deserves to be seen on a big screen, and of course in some theatres this is being seen in 3D as well. I saw it in a 3D theatre, and if you have the chance to see it that way, that’s what I’d recommend- but… the 3D isn’t overwhelming and not the point of the film. It’s really well done here, but not for jolting effects but more for actualizing this world. it’s not necessary to see this in 3D to enjoy this experience, but it’s fun nonetheless.

Cameron’s cast is terrific for the most part, and this is where my one beef is, but that’s not necessarily due to the actor but more to Cameron’s story, but I digress… Sam Worthington really impressed me in Terminator: Salvation and he’s here as Jake Sully and even more impressive, serving a double duty with both his human performance as Sully and his motion capture performance in the avatar body, and he’s really good, demonstrating a natural growth of character as this unfolds Sigourney Weaver reunites with Cameron in this film and also serves the same double duty that Worthington does, and again pulls it off real nicely. The pure motion capture parts though- wow, Zoe Saldana (seen earlier this year in Star Trek) really impresses as Neytiri, the Na’vi who is given the task of teaching Jake the ways of the Na’vi. Other members of the Na’vi are performed by veterans like CCH Pounder and Wes Studi, and again they make you believe what they’re doing. The rest of the human cast is filled out by Joel David Moore (who also does some double duty here- not to the same extent as Worthington and Weaver though), Michelle Rodriguez, the always rock solid Stephen Lang and Giovanni Ribisi. Ribisi plays the corporate head of this expedition and he’s where my one real problem with the movie is (though in the big picture, it’s a moot problem). Basically, he’s just a little too cartooned here for what the rest of the movie does- this isn’t really Ribisi’s fault, it’s what he’s been given to do by Cameron, but still compared to everyone else being a little more three dimensional, this character is purely stuck in one dimension, and again considering the scope of this movie, I’d like to think that even a character that’s performing actions as vile as he does here, might still have a little more depth to him.

But still, this is very much worth seeing- it’s big spectacle filmmaking from a master of big spectacle filmmaking who also always manages to go for some heart in his films as well. Cameron hasn’t missed a beat in his long absence from dramatic films and Avatar is the proof. Do not miss this if you have the chance- for me, even with my one beef, it’s right up there with the best of the year…

Ty Hackett has returned from his tour of duty in Iraq and has his own set of problems to deal with once he’s back, his parents have passed away, his younger brother Jimmy is always getting into trouble, and he’s about to lose the family home. To make ends meet, Ty has been training with the Eagle Shield security company to be an armored car guard where he’s being mentored by an old family friend, Mike. Right as things are looking darkest for Ty, Mike reveals to him a plan that he and a few other guards have to heist 42 million dollars from one of their deliveries. Ty reluctantly goes along, and then things begin to go south…

That’s the premise to Armored a fun little B-movie heist film from director Nimrod Antal, who previously directed a fun little terror movie named Vacancy and will next be working on Predators. What I like about this film is that it’s not too over-the-top in what it does, and the guys performing the heist are your basic working stiffs, who really aren’t as equipped to deal with this situation as they’d like to think they are.

It’s a short movie, running about 88 minutes, and it doesn’t really waste it’s time on anything- it does just what it needs to do to set up it’s main character (Ty) and puts everything else in it’s proper place for this situation to play out.

The really good thing about the movie though is it’s cast- Columbus Short plays Ty and while I’m not that familiar with him (just found out that he’ll be in the movie version of DC Comics’ The Losers), I think he does solid work here and makes Ty a good character. But the real gold is in the other members of the cast- Matt Dillon as Mike, along with Laurence Fishburne, Jean Reno, Amaury Nolasco and Skeet Ulrich make up the rest of the guards. Fred Ward plays their captain, and Milo Ventimiglia plays a young cop who stumbles onto the plan. Everyone does a nice job here and keeps this moving right along.

It’s a fun diversion film, nothing that will win any awards or anything like that, just some solid entertainment- probably for most, more fun to catch on home video or cable down the road.

Mr. Fox, out on a romp with his wife Mrs. Fox, decides to have some fun and go after some squab, only to find himself trapped and his wife pleading to him that if they survive this, they need to change their life, and by the way, she’s pregnant. Well, they do survive and two years later, they’ve changed their life, with Mr. Fox now being a columnist for the newspaper for the other wild animals and now a father with a young son named Ash. Mr. Fox though, isn’t happy with his situation, and thinks at this stage in his life he and his family shouldn’t be living in a hole, and so Mr. Fox decides to purchase a new home inside a tree that overlooks the collective farms of Boggis, Bunce and Bean… and from there, he feels the need to resume his old ways… and of course hi-jinks ensue…

Fantastic Mr. Fox is the latest movie from the very talented Wes Anderson, using Roald Dahl’s original book as a springboard (I’m not familiar with the book, but there’s just too much stuff here that’s pure Wes Anderson to even begin for me to think that it was ever in the book). It’s an animated feature that’s pretty much unlike anything else that’s out there today and for two reasons: 1. It’s stop-motion animated, no CGI in sight and 2. It’s really way more for adults than it is for kids. If you’re familiar with Anderson’s other movies (he’s made Bottle Rocket, Rushmore, The Royal Tenenbaums, The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou and The Darjeeling Limited) then you already know that his movies have a pretty unique voice and look to them, and Fantastic Mr. Fox fits right in with the rest of his filmography (and for me having much in common with both The Royal Tenenbaums and The Life Aquatic).

The animation here is actually some pretty sophisticated stuff, particularly with the character subtleties, though there’s also a little something that’s just a touch creepy about it as well (though I’m having a hard time putting my finger on just what is a little creepy about it- it just struck me that way). And though this is about anthropomorphized animals, they don’t let you forget that they are wild animals, with Mr. Fox coming off as urbane and witty one moment and the next moment viciously attacking his food.

But it is very entertaining, at least to me, and one of those movies that I expect for me might end up being like Being John Malkovich was for me- mildly amusing at the first viewing, but increasingly funnier the more I see it.

Lots of Anderson’s go-to guys are here in the voice cast, including Jason Schwartzmann, Bill Murray and even Owen Wilson in a walk-on role. George Clooney plays the part of Mr. Fox and he’s just as uber-confident as he should be, and Meryl Streep voices his wife, with a lot of quiet confidence.

I tend to think that your liking for this will probably hinge on whether you like Wes Anderson’s previous movies. I know some just won’t get it, and there’s nothing wrong with that, he’s just not your cup of tea. But those that are real fans of his work will probably just love this, and if not immediately be head over heels with it, then for sure having it grow further with them in later viewings. If you’re a parent looking to see if they should take their kids to see this though- well honestly, I don’t know what to tell you. I mean this isn’t a Pixar film by any means (and that’s not being derogatory to Pixar at all) and while not being a parent my own self, I found something just a little creepy to this (but still entertaining) and thus just don’t know how it would go over with a kid. But still, this is pretty unique stuff and if you’ve had any passing interest at all, I’d surely recommend seeing it at some point, if not in a theatre, then surely when it hits home video later…

“Trained since childhood to be a lethal killer, Raizo has since turned his back on the Ozunu clan that raised him and now seeks revenge for their heartless murders. Teaming up with Europol investigator Mika, Raizo steadily butchers his enemies while inching ever closer to the long-awaited bloody reunion with his former master.”

That’s how the premise for the movie, Ninja Assassin reads over at IMDB, and really that’s it in a nutshell, and it’s one very entertaining film, especially if you’re a fan of big-ass over-the-top martial arts action- Ninja Assassin ups the ante in a very big way.

It’s the second movie from director James McTiegue (his first was V for Vendetta, who is also well-known for being the Wachowski Brothers Assistant Director on the Matrix movies, and the Wachowskis are certainly connected to this one as well, as film producers, along with long-time genre fan favorite writer J. Michael Straczynski, so this film already has a hell of a pedigree behind it.

And they really deliver the goods, with some very fast paced action and some solid characters that you can get behind. The biggest thing that I think it does though is it really makes a ninja something far more fearsome than what has been shown in film before, at least to me, where the term Ninja seems to have a set meaning but hasn’t really been taken to a full potential in a live action movie.

McTiegue’s influence from the Wachowski’s is certainly present, but in addition, again at least to me, he’s been watching Zack Snyder’s 300 as well, especially around one particular sequence that follows Raizo through a battle with a bunch of different ninjas, but going in different speeds with different camera zooms on the action (much like Leonidas charging into battle in 300)

Another Wachowski alumni appearing here though is Rain as Raizo. Rain was also in the Wachowski’s excellent Speed Racer and here he really gets to make a mark- he’s got a great screen presence, and just looks terrific in all of his action scenes. Also of note though is the legendary Sho Kusugi, who appears here as Ozuno, and is just as commanding as ever.

Really, Ninja Assassin is just a fun and extremely bloody good time, harkening back to a time when these sorts of movies were a little more plentiful, but upping the stakes, by just having a budget to take some of these things way farther than they’ve been taken in the past. I really hope this does well, as I’d certainly like to see a Ninja Assassin 2. Very much recommended…

When I wrote a review for 2012, I made mention of the fact that while it’s special effects were spectacular, there just seemed to be a little something odd that it’s escape-by-the-seat-of your-pants popcorn movie thrill-ride was being viewed as entertainment considering that it’s backdrop was hundreds of thousands of people meeting their certain death…

Well, think of The Road as the story of people who weren’t lucky enough to get to go on that roller coaster.

It’s actually much, much more than that, but that was something that certainly popped into my head after watching it.

The Road from director John Hillcoat adapted from a novel by Cormac McCarthy tells the story of a father and son trying to survive after a global cataclysm has occurred and it takes the harder and darker path in it’s tale of survival while still trying to maintain their humanity. There’s no explanation for what has occurred and there’s no government team that’s seen as the path of salvation, it’s probably way closer to what you and I would actually face if such things were to really occur.

And it’s a really great little film with a very good performance from it’s lead actor, Viggo Mortenson. But, even though I had criticisms with 2012 one thing that it surely offered up was conversation afterwards of what you’d really do in something like this, and The Road does that as well.

It’s extremely dark stuff, though and that’s certainly not the thing for some in the potential viewing audience out there. There is a subtle message of hope here by the film’s end, but you literally have to go through hell and high water to get there.

Viggo Mortenson plays the father, never called anything other than “Poppa” by his young son. I’ve often said in conversations with some friends that Tom Hanks is the closest thing that we have to a James Stewart today in films, well with that in mind, the more and more that I see of Viggo Mortenson, the more that I’m convinced that he’s the closest to what we have now that’s like Kirk Douglas in his prime. This is really a thoughtful performance from Mortenson, another good mark from him in an ever-increasing amount of good roles that he’s taken on. Kodi Smit-McPhee is the young actor who plays his son, and he’s certainly up to the task of keeping pace with Mortenson, and there is a great chemistry between the two that’s a very natural thing between a father and son. At one point, Poppa says to his son, “You must think I’m from another world.” and the moment he said that, I couldn’t help but think of my own relationship with my father. In addition, Charlize Theron plays the wife and mother, seen only in flashbacks, and there’s some nice walk-ons by both Robert Duvall and Guy Pearce- it’s all good and solid work, with Theron getting the best of it as a mother who’s delivered after the apocalypse has happened and who struggles with the idea of trying to survive with her husband and son during this.

It’s really a terrific movie, but it’s by no means a feel-good movie. It’s very bleak and very dark and from what I understand, very true to it’s source, so if you don’t want to see something this dark, then you probably shouldn’t, but for me, I think it’s right up there with The Hurt Locker as one of the better things that I’ve seen this year. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Viggo Mortenson get an Oscar nomination for this, his performance is certainly worth it. Without a doubt, highly, highly recommended.