Great movies that hit their target are hard to review, and Joss Whedon pretty much smacked this puppy out of the park. He made a 2:23 ensemble superhero movie that never lags and that doesn’t shortchange any of the characters. The real telling sign: my sweet wife, who is more tolerant of than eager about superhero/action films, turned to me as the movie ended and said, “This was wonderful!”

What more can I say? Well, all the actors did a better job in this film than in their lead-in superhero films, with the possible exception of Robert Downey Jr (who, as far as I can tell, was born to play Tony Stark/Iron Man and was absolutely outstanding in the first “Iron Man”). Chris Evans (Captain America), Chris Hemsworth (Thor), Scarlett Johansen (Black Widow), Samuel Jackson (Nick Fury) and even Clark Gregg (Agent Coulsen) all had a great platform and did an outstanding job. Jeremy Renner (Hawkeye) got a chance to be significant rather than the bit part he had in “Thor”. Mark Ruffalo, the third person to place Bruce Banner/the Hulk, does in my opinion a better job with fewer lines or screen time than either Eric Bana or Edward Norton.

The real key, in my opinion, was the choice of Tom Hiddleson (Loki) as the arch-villain for this film. Hiddleson (and Kenneth Branaugh’s direction) gave the “Thor” movie complexity and gravitas that saved it from being a silly B-grade superhero movie. He does the same thing here; you really believe in him as Loki, and he is often several steps ahead of those who are trying to stop him. Hiddleson was outstanding and deserves tremendous credit.

But the credit, above all, goes to Joss Whedon for both his writing and direction. At the start of the film, there’s a certain awkwardness in this group of disparate heroes, most of whom don’t even consider themselves to be heroes. They clash, figuratively and literally, and hardly seem up to the task in front of them until events lead them to put aside their own squabbles and agendas, and they come together as a team. “Come together” is such a trite cliche, yet it is very much what happens, and it happens in a real way.

Whedon writes great dialog and funny scenes, and there are plenty of both in this film. The special effects are great — and can I just say, some forty years after I first saw it in a “Nick Fury, Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D” comic, how wonderful it was to the the SHIELD heli-carrier on the big screen.

Highly, highly recommended, even if you’re not a comic book fan. Spoilers after the jump.

WARNING: SPOILERS BELOW!!

Agent Coulsen (Clark Gregg), who has been the ‘Wedge Antilles‘ of this series of Marvel films, is killed by Loki, stabbed from behind. Whedon being Whedon, you had to suspect that someone would die, and I had been tracking the various reports of follow-up films for any clue that one of the superheroes might buy the farm. I never suspected Coulsen would be the one, which gave his death all the more impact. And Coulsen, dying, recognizes that his death might be the one thing that brings the still-squabbling Avengers together. He’s right, though Fury does some rather shameless manipulation to make sure that happens.

It is the Hulk who ends up with some of the best “lines”, though in his case, they are mostly actions. The best is a scene where Loki and the Hulk are facing off in Tony Stark’s penthouse. Loki is monologuing on how Earthlings are beneath him when the Hulk grabs him and — in a move straight out of Looney Tunes cartoons — slams him back and forth on the floor three times in quick succession, leaving him dazed, unmoving, and partially embedded in the floor. The audience erupted in spontaneous applause and laughter.

Finally, there are not one but two ‘after the film’ scenes, one at the end of the major credits, the second at the very end of all credits. The first one shows long-established Marvel supervillain Thanos as the one behind Loki’s invasion of Earth. The second one — a follow-up to a comment made by Stark during the film — shows the Avengers, in costume and apparently immediately after the final battle, sitting around in a shawarma restaurant, mostly shell-shocked, as the staff is cleaning up damage from the destruction. Even though the scene goes on for 30 seconds or so, no one says anything; they just all look at each other or stare off into space (though Thor is unfazed and eating).

Great, great film. We saw it in 2D; I’ll probably try to go see the 3D IMAX version sometime next weel.  ..bruce..

My sweet wife and I went to see “The Hunger Games” today. I’ve read all three novels and enjoyed them — they are a cut above the usual Young Adult novels and are a bit dark and unrelenting. The release buzz for the film itself was very positive, so I was interested to see just how good it was.

It was outstanding.

That’s not a word I use lightly. Acting, directing, writing, cinematography, art direction were all excellent. The bleakness of District 12 looked more like a documentary about pre-WWII Appalachia that a film setting. Likewise, the gaudiness of Panem made the citizens thereof look like the privileged, self-obsessed class that they are. Casting was great; both Woody Harrelson and Donald Sutherland stayed in their roles instead of chewing scenery, while Stanley Tucci — who is one of the best and most versatile actors around — makes you like his Caesar Flickerman even as you recognize the awfulness of his role in these brutal games. I’ve seen some grumbling about the creature special effects near the end of the film, to which I say: get a life. The effects were fine. Not stunning like “John Carter”, but then again, the film didn’t cost a quarter of a billion dollars to make and will likely be profitable after this weekend.

Beyond that, this may be the single best book-to-film adaptation I’ve ever seen. It trimmed where it needed to in order to get down to the 2:22 running time, yet did no violence to the novel or its characters. It resisted the temptation to make the very end either more resolved or more dramatic than it was in the book — no hope-and-glory scene, no cliffhanger or overt threat.

Also, the film made me tear up. More than once. Actually, I came close to sobbing outright at one scene, but fortunately I have years of practice of stifling such noises in a theater.

Finally, it was brilliantly marketed and released. It is likely to have a near-record opening weekend, and I fully expect it to stay in the #1 box-office slot for several weeks — the “Titanic” effect, if you will — possibly until “The Avengers” opens on May 4th. I also think this will be the highest-grossing film for 2012, so for those who did grumble about effects, don’t worry: they’ll have a ton of money to spend on the second and third films.

In all, as I said to my wife while we walked back to our car, it was everything “John Carter” was not. Spoilers, such as they are, after the jump.

If you’ve read the book, I have no spoilers for you, because the ending is faithful and intact. For those of you who want to know the ending but haven’t read the book — yes, Katness and Peeta both survive and get out, by threatening a joint suicide after they’re the only two Tributes left. At the very end, President Snow, who rules over Panem and the twelve Districts, is clearly unhappy with how things turned out. Katness and Peeta — who had a ‘public’ romance during the games to gain sympathy and sponsors — return to District 12, where Gale — Katness’s best friend before the games, who clearly has a romantic interest in her as well — is waiting. Peeta asks Katness, “What happens now?” And she responds, “I don’t know.”

And there the movie ends. ..bruce..

I first read “A Princess of Mars” by Edgar Rice Burroughs early in high school, over 40 years ago. I loved the novel and enjoyed the ten (yes, ten) that followed, though none were quite as good or as wildly romantic. So I’ve followed with interest over the past several years the various attempts to bring it to the screen. Today, at last, I got to see “John Carter”, Andrew Stanton’s vision of ERB’s novels.

The effort: a good solid “B”, though given the various budget estimates for the film, that’s probably not good enough. Disney must be hoping and praying for a massive international market, because the film — which clocks in at 2:19 — will most likely not make its costs back here in the US. I’d love to be pleasantly surprised, but I suspect it won’t cross $150 million (and maybe not $100 million) domestically.

The film, as a film, has a beautiful realization of ERB’s Barsoom (the locals’ name for Mars). But it suffers from three major faults. The first, pointed out over i09 yesterday, is that it has too many stories going on. The second is that it takes too long to get to Mars. The third is that it changes John Carter from a swashbuckling, devil-may-care, Errol Flynn-type character to a angsty, angry, semi-tragic figure. (It also changes Dejah Thoris — the princess of Mars — from a warrior princess to a warrior scientist princess, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. IMHO.) There are a few minor faults as well, some of which I’ll touch upon.

All three major faults are related. The opening sequence — both involving ERB’s receipt of Carter’s diary after his untimely ‘death’ and Carter’s discovery of the mysterious cave — could have been shortened by a good 10 minutes at least, and the movie would have been better for it. Likewise, the whole set of flashbacks regarding Carter’s wife and child (which he doesn’t have in the books) could have been excised, which would have dropped another few minutes at least. And, frankly, Carter would have been a more likeable and sympathetic character without the whole fight-in-the-calvary-post sequence and wife-and-child flashbacks. What should have been a fun and entertaining film too often becomes, in my wife’s one-word criticism, “ponderous”.  And, frankly, they should have introduced Dejah Thoris earlier and without the extended back-story-and-battle.

As for the minor faults, I don’t mind at all how they changed the Therns or the means by which Carter gets to and from Mars — it works better for a modern audience and gives a scientific twist to what was frankly more supernatural in ERB’s novels. But then they blew it by making Carter’s leaps and strength way out of proportion to what he could actually do in a 1/3-earth-gravity situation. Burroughs himself is guilty of this — he describes Carter’s first leap under Martian gravity as carrying him “fully thirty feet into the air and [landing] a hundred feet from my pursuers.” But the movie carries it far beyond that, with Carter making even more impossibly long and high leaps, at times while catching or carrying others. Woola (the calot) was also way too fast, and the moons of Mars were too large and too close together.

I know that Andrew Stanton, the director, has plans laid out for two more films, but I don’t think we’ll see them. And Stanton won’t come out of this looking good, either.

Spoilers, such as they are, after the jump. In the meantime, here are some thoughts of mine on how the film could have been better. That post also highlights what appears to be a massive chronology/continuity flaw in the film.

SPOILERS, more or less

The very ending — when Carter fakes his own death and draws Matai Shang to his tomb in order to (a) kill him and (b) get the medallion Carter needs to return to Mars — is a nice twist. But I’m still not sure it needed the long on-Earth prelude at the start of the movie.

That’s about all I can think of as a spoilers.  After all, the novel has been around for 100 years or so.   ..bruce w..

Those who “abjure” violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf. — George Orwell, Notes on Nationalism

This film has gotten a fair amount of ‘net publicity — though probably not nearly enough regular marketing — because of its fundamental concept: film a movie about what Navy Seals do, using actual Navy Seals and, by the way, a lot of live ammunition. It sounds like a recipe for a heartfelt but amateur film.

While it is heartfelt, it is anything but amateur.

Yes, the Seals themselves tend to sound just a bit stilted when talking with each other, as I suspect most of us would if we were filmed. But after a while, that just adds to the ambiance of the film. What came through is that these are real men who train for and carry out exactly these missions. At no point in the film did I roll my eyes or make a quiet snide comment to my wife. Nor was there any hint of political correctness, stupid plot twists, or Hollywood tropes (save one, but see below). The film had great direction, great cinematography, great sound, and great editing.

What I was not prepared for at the end of the film was the list of Naval Special Warfare personnel who have died in the line of duty since 9/11. It was a much longer list than I would have expected. My wife and I were quiet when we left the film and for most of the drive home. As we walked out of the theater, past the posters for various coming films, I was struck in a new way how fatuous most of what Hollywood produces is, compared to a film such as this.

While it is doubtful that George Orwell ever said, “People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence in their behalf,” it is a true fact nevertheless. God bless such rough men in the service of the United States.

Highly recommended. Some spoilers after the jump.

SPOILERS

One of the lead characters, Roarke, is leaving behind a pregnant wife, and you know, you know as soon as you learn that, that he isn’t going to make it through the film. Yet it is powerful nevertheless. Because what happens is that a grenade is thrown into the midst of his team; he looks at it, and time slows down, and you find yourself asking, “What would I do? I have a wife, an unborn child at home. I can throw myself back away from it.” But Roarke does what so many military men have done, including those with wives and children — he throws himself on it and is killed, but saves the rest of his team thereby.

This has particular emotional resonance with me, because my nephew Darren is in the Marines. He has served two tours in Afghanistan and came back stateside to go through special weapons training before going back for a third tour — which has since been canceled due to the draw-down of US forces. He has a lovely young wife and an infant son, and yet he was not only willing but eager to go back to Afghanistan for that third tour. (His wife, God bless her, chewed his ass something fierce when he expressed disappointment over not being able to go back again.) Again, God bless not just the rough men who keep us safe, but their families as well. ..bruce w..

My sweet wife and I went to see the new remake of “The Woman in Black”, starring Daniel Radcliffe. We had watched the original (made-for-British-TV) 1989 version when it first came out on video and at least one time since, but it had been many, many years since then. We thought the original was very well done, so we were interested to see how the remake came out.

Well…TWIB-2012 is a decent haunted house story, but ultimately was unsatisfying. So we tracked down a copy of TWIB-1989 — Sandra found a copy for sale on the ‘net somewhere — and we watched it yesterday. Much better, and more chilling, and a more true-to-the-film ending.

The basic premise is that Arthur Kipps, a young solicitor (lawyer) from London in the early 20th century, is sent by his firm to a distant seaside village to the north in order to settle the estate and review the papers of a recently deceased client, an elderly widow who lived in a large house out in the middle of a sea marsh; the causeway out to her house is only passable at certain times of the day, due to the tides, and even then it can be tricky, due to thick sea mists that come up quickly. The local villagers react in a strange way when they find out why he’s there, except for one man, a wealthy local land baron, Sam. As Kipps goes about his duties, he begins to see a woman dressed all in black in different places, a woman who stares back at him. And then he begins to hear strange noises at the widow’s house….

I’ll save more details for the spoilers section below the jump, but it was interesting to note the differences between the two versions. While not as bad, TWIB-2012 is reminiscent of the 1999 remake of “The Haunting” (originally filmed in 1963) in that it tries too hard. In TWIB-1989, Kipps is happily married with two small children; his superior, one of the partners in his law firm, sends him there against his wishes, even though that partner is the one who has always handled this account. When Kipps arrives at the village, folks are generally quite friendly and accomodating, though he gets funny looks when he talks about going out to the widow’s house. He has no trouble arranging transportation there (via horse-drawn wagon), and the wagon-driver — who used to bring the widow her supplies on a regular basis — even shows Kipps how to start up the (oil-powered) generator, so that Kipps has electricity throughout the house. The house itself looks relatively normal, clean, and well-kept; the papers to be reviewed are not that voluminous. The grounds around the house are largely flat, open and bare, stretching away into the surrounding marsh.

By contrast, TWIB-2012 starts with three young girls committing suicide together. It then, post-credits, opens with with Kipps (Radcliffe) holding a straight razor to his own throat. It turns out that he has but one child, a son, and his wife died giving birth to him. When he arrives at work, his superior calls him in and tells him that he is in danger of being let go, due to his poor performance, apparently due to despondency over his wife’s death. [Since the boy appears to be 3 or 4 years old, this raises a serious question as to just how long this despondency has been going on.] The partner orders Kipps to take this matter and tells him that this is his last chance to retain his position. On arriving in the village, Kipps immediately runs into opposition; the inn-keeper claims to have no rooms available, even though a telegram had been sent in advance, but finally grudgingly finds a room for one night. Likewise, the next morning the local solicitor is very unhelpful and tells Kipps he has booked him on a train back to London that very day, with a driver set to take him to the station. The townspeople are very angry and upset that Kipps is there; Kipps has to bribe the driver of the horse-drawn wagon to take him out to the widow’s house instead of the train station. The grounds around the house are wildly overgrown (cf. the trailer above), and the house itself is very run-down, inside and out. And, of course, no electricity. Also, the 2012 version has a subplot in which Kipps sees what appears to be the spirit of his dead wife from time to time, making him wonder about life after death.

In a similar fashion, the supernatural events that start taking place in the house and the village are much more overblown in the 2012 version. This actually has the effect of making the film less creepy and more like every other modern ghost story/haunted house film. What is so effective about the 1989 version is that everyone and everything is pretty normal — except that Kipps keeps seeing the woman in black, and she looks more and more threatening each time, and then things begin to fall apart. While watching one such encounter — on the grounds of the widow’s house — I found myself getting honest-to-goodness gooseflesh on my arms, something that never happened while watching the 2012 version.

Finally, and this is a subtle note, in the 1989 version, no one except Kipps ever sees the woman in black, and we the audience only see her when Kipps sees her. However, the 2012 version uses the convention of showing the woman in black — usually faintly, in the background — at various times when Kipps doesn’t see her and isn’t aware of her. It’s a popular technique for building tension, but it is so overused in horror films these days that it has become a cliche — similar to the cliche of having a dark shape pass right in front of the camera while it is focused on a character some distance away. (That was very effective the first time I saw it, which I believe was in the film “White Noise” — now it just makes me roll my eyes.) In fact, there is probably no modern horror film cliche that this film doesn’t use.

After writing this review, I bought and read the Kindle version of the original 1983 novel (novella, really — it’s pretty short) by Susan Hill. The 1989 version is relatively faithful to the novel, with just one major change — Kipps is single, but engaged, when the events take place — and a few minor changes in events and sequences.  The ending is slightly different, but I’ll discuss that in the spoilers section below. The novel does explain more than the movie does the relationship between the deceased widow and the woman in black.

I highly recommend the 1989 version. The 2012 version, no so much — it’s a decent scary flick, but it’s not the classic that the original is.  Spoilers after the jump.

SPOILERS AHEAD!

In both films, Kipps find himself also haunted in the house by a dead child, Nathaniel, ostensibly the young son of the dead widow, but actually the son of the woman in black (who is the widow’s late sister). This young boy died when the horse-and-buggy he was ridding in went off the causeway and sank into the marsh. Also in both films, there is a tie-in between appearances of the woman in black and the death of young children in the village.  The 1989 film does not explain much beyond that; there is one near-fatal accident involving a gypsy child, but no children die.

The 2012 film, by contrast, shows at least two deaths that result the woman in black’s appearance to Kipps — one child drinks lye, while another burns herself to death, each time after having seen the woman themselves. It also makes explicit that the woman in black was forced to give up her son to her sister for adoption due to claimed mental illness, that her rage over that — and her son’s death — is what keeps her spirit around, and that this is why children die when she is seen. It then introduces a subplot very reminiscent of “The Ring”, where Kipps (with help) dives into the quickmud of the marsh, recovers the child’s body (somehow still intact decades later), and brings it into the house so that the woman in black can “find” her son and be at peace.

And now we come to the endings. In the 1989 film, Kipps — after a very rough night at the house — goes back into the village and stays at the inn, where he has a horrific encounter with the woman in black. He awakes days later in the house of Sam (the land baron), having suffered from a complete nervous collapse. Sam lets him know that the house has burned down in the meantime, and so the whole matter is closed. Kipps (and his wife) return to London, and Kipps — after a few more days of rest — goes back to the office. He confronts his superior about the house, but the superior dismisses it all. However, one of the junior clarks informs Kipps that he saw a woman, dressed all in black, standing on the sidewalk in front of the firm’s doors, looking as though she wanted to come in. Meanwhile, Kipps’ suitcase with all the widow’s papers has been delivered and put in Kipps’ office. Kipps confronts his superior again (physically, this time), then goes back, piles the papers around the small fireplace in his office, and sets them and the suitcase on fire, having liberally doused them with kerosene first. Kipps’ office is burned up, with water and fire damage to the rest of the law offices, and Kipps goes home. Some time later — it’s not clear how long, though Kipps seems to be no longer working at the firm — Kipps takes his family on an outing to the countryside, during which they get into a small boat and start rowing on a small lake. Kipps looks up as they are approaching the shore — and sees the woman in black standing in the middle of the lake, looking at him. At that point, a large portion of a tree overhanging the lake breaks off and falls upon the boat and its occupants, killing them all. The end.

In the 2012 version, Kipps is convinced that he has laid the woman in black to rest by ‘reuniting’ her with her dead son. His own son (and his son’s nanny) have come down from London that same night to visit him; he meets them at the train station, tells them that they’re heading back to London immediately, and asks the nanny to go buy their tickets. The nanny does so, but ends up letting go of the boy’s hand — and the boy sees in the woman in black. [Seriously? A nanny standing on a railway platform at night just feet away from the tracks would let go of a young boy's hand?] The boy climbs down onto the tracks, Kipps jumps down to save him, the train passes — and Kipps find himself and his son on the tracks in an empty, grey version of the train station. He realizes they’re dead — and then he sees his wife’s spirit again. They go to her, embrace, and then all walk off together into a light-filled mist.

The ending makes even less sense, because at the moment of the accident, while the train is passing by, Sam (the land baron) looks through the train windows and sees the woman in black on the other side, along with the spirits of all the dead children (including presumably, his own), and they all look pretty gray and unhappy and unpleasant. So, all these children are damned to haunt the village, but Kipps and his son get a free pass because his wife is already dead and leads them away?

The book’s ending is quite different from either movie in that Kipps is writing this story down probably 20 or or more years after the fact. As noted above, he is engaged at the time of the events at the widow’s house; on returning to London, he and his fiancee marry and have a young son. A few years later, they are on an outing at a park, when the young boy sees a trap-and-horse ride. It can only fit two (besides the driver), so the boy and his mother go on it, as Kipps watches on. As the trap is finishing its circuit through the park and returning to where Kipps is waiting, Kipps suddenly sees the woman in black standing beneath a tree next to the pathway the trap is on.  As the trap passes under the tree, the woman in black steps in front of the horse, somehow spooking it and causing it to run wildly until it and the trap crash into a tree. Kipps’ son is killed; his wife is terribly injured and dies months later. “I had seen the ghost of Jennet Humfrye and she had had her revenge. They asked for my story. I have told it. Enough.”

The end.  ..bruce w..

P.S. Did I really say “brief” in the title of the post?

In the interest of full disclosure, I must say that I’ve been a Nicolas Cage fan ever since “Raising Arizona”. It doesn’t mean that I like (or have even seen) all the films he’s done, but I do like some of his films (“Next”, “Knowing”) more than the general consensus. On the other hand, his first “Ghost Rider” (2007) film was ‘meh’ at best, while as for “The Wicker Man” — well, let’s not go there.

That said, “Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance” was a surprisingly well-done and entertaining film, particularly given that it’s based on a B-level comic book character. The plot can be best summarized as “Terminator 2″ meets “The Omen”: Johnny Blaze (Cage) is recruited by a religious (but violent) man named Moreau to help located and protect a young boy, Danny, who has been fathered by Roarke, the human incarnation of the Devil — the same man who made a deal with Blaze (to save Blaze’s father), turning him into the Ghost Rider — and who is destined to become the Antichrist if a certain ritual takes place a few days hence.  The offer made to Blaze is that if he brings Danny to a certain place of sanctuary, Blaze can have his curse lifted.

While the overall story arc holds no great surprises (name the last comic book movie that did), the ride is a fun one. Cage’s famous quirkiness and propensity of scenery-chewing works well for his character, a man possessed by an actual demon (himself a fallen angel) whose only desire is to punish the wicked and occasionally consume their souls. Cage plays Blaze as someone who is borderline functional, who chews handfuls of prescription pain meds, and who admits when asked that, yeah, sometimes he enjoys being the Ghost Rider. The special effects are largely seamless and at times impressive, such as when the Rider turns an enormous complex of earth-moving equipment into his ‘ride’. Another refreshing change from most comic book films is that the entire story takes place in Europe (filming was in Romania and Turkey). The film doesn’t try to hide its comic book origins, either, with a few brief illustrated backstory sequences and a bit of occasional live-action comic book editing (side-by-side panels, momentary flashbacks). Also note that unlike a lot of comic book films, there’s a high body count in this one — and unlike almost any other comic book film (except maybe “Captain America”), it’s the hero who’s killing everyone.

I actually went to see this in 3-D, the first 3-D film I’ve seen in probably two years. The 3-D effect was a bit jarring in the earliest action sequence, but after that was not a problem (and was not overused). On the other hand, they showed the “Amazing Spider Man” trailer in 3-D before the film, and it was awful (watching the trailer in 3-D, that is).

Finally, for those of you who sit through the credits looking for additional little bits — there aren’t any.

In all, I give the film a solid B+. Spoilers after the jump.

SPOILERS AHEAD!

OK, it’s hard to have a lot of spoilers in a comic book film, since the arc does largely follow what you’d expect. It even contains the classic comic-book twist of hero gives up his powers, then needs to reclaim them in order to save the day, but even there it’s done with a bit of style. Blaze (Cage), having delivered the boy to the sanctuary, actually has the demon exorcised out of him. But then the boy is recaptured by one of Roarke’s minions, Methodius — the original human kidnapper, killed by Blaze, but brought back to life by Roarke and given powers of his own. As it turns out, Roarke doesn’t want Danny per se — he just wants transfer himself into Danny’s half-human, half-devil body. Blaze, sans powers, decides to go after Danny anyway (with the help of both Moreau and Danny’s mother), since Blaze had promised Danny to keep him safe. They interrupt the ceremony before it’s complete — Moreau is killed by Methodius and Blaze is about to be — when Danny walks up and uses his newfound powers to restore the demon into Blaze. Lots more bodies (or, more accurately, ashes), big chase scene, the Rider causes the van driven by Roarke (and containing Danny as well) to crash. He wraps his chain around Roarke and smashes him into the ground, sending him back down to Hell.

But:  Danny died in the crash. The Rider carries him over to his mother, then converts back to Blaze…and Blaze, for the first time, can feel the angel that his possessing demon once was. He draws upon that power (a blue flame, rather than orange) and restores Danny back to life. The final scene shows the Rider on his motorcycle again, but this time the flames around him are blue, not orange.   Fade to credits.

One last spoiler, which shows that Cage is not above poking fun at himself. At one point, Blaze and Danny are in a roadside diner, and as Blaze is walking back to the table with a tray of food, he sees Danny looking a man at another table, tousling the hair of one of his kids. Blaze sits down across from Danny, then reaches over to tousle Danny’s hair. Danny pulls back and gives Blaze a “what are you doing?” look; Blaze says, “Uh, a bee. There was a bee in your hair.” I have to believe this was in reference to this scene from The Wicker Man:

Heh.

My sweet wife Sandra is not a particular fan of SF films (though she’ll certainly watch or go see them with me), nor of war movies. Yet after we saw this movie today, she talked about how engrossed she was during the entire film. (I’ll note that she went with me to see “Skyline” last year, and her reaction afterward was: “Really?”)  That speaks well for how this film is likely to do at the box office.

What makes “Battle Los Angeles” work is that it is first and foremost a war film about Marines. My son Jon spent four years in the Corps and did a tour in Iraq; my nephew Darren is still in the Corps and is on his second tour of Afghanistan; so the Corps has a special place in my heart. I claim no particular expertise in matters of the Corps, but the film seemed very authentic all the same; some of the younger Marines looked and sounded like my son and my nephew. War film cliches abound — the grizzled staff sergeant (Aaron Eckert, in a great performance) on the verge of retirement, the young lieutenant just out of OCS, the rumors among the men about how Eckert live while his men died on his last combat tour, the mission to rescue some civilians and bring them back out of harm’s way, the steady attrition of the members of the squad — but that provides a frameworkon which hangs the rest of the story.

And the rest of the story is that it’s these human Marines vs. alien Marines, who are making an amphibious assault, coming literally up out of the waves after having landed just offshore in cities around the world. The aliens are tough, but not invincible — still, they’re chewing up everything in their path as they make their way inland. And each time the Marines think they may have things under control, the alien assault escalates.

The film uses a bit too much shaky-cam early on, but settles down  reasonably as the movie goes along. Eckert is outstanding in his role as the staff sergeant and vanishes into it far better than he did as Harvey Dent/Two Face in “The Dark Knight”. The set pieces are very intense, and the filming and art direction is outstanding: you really think you are in the ruins of Los Angeles (most of the film was shot in Louisiana, to take advantage of areas still devastated from Katrina). My only complaints — which I’ll address specifically in the spoilers below — have to do with the rationale for the alien invasion and the ending of the film.

It’s not a great enough film to make me say, “Gee, I want to turn around and go see that in the theaters again.” But it is good enough that I’ll almost certainly buy the BluRay disk when it comes out. All in all, a well-done effort. Spoilers after the jump.

SPOILERS! BE WARNED!

OK, I just about put my face in my hands when — halfway or so through the movie — the Marines, holed up in a building, find an outside ‘net link, find a TV feed, and hear a news report that scientists have determined that the aliens are here for…our water! Which they use to power their ships and themselves! And, furthermore, that (a) Earth is the only planet in the galaxy (or maybe the universe) with so much liquid water on the surface, and (b) our sea levels had already started dropping. Y’know, the director went to great lengths to achieve some level of USMC authenticity (the actors went through a mini boot camp, etc.) and yet comes up with a rationale that is not only patently false but profoundly stupid, and that any 12-year-old reader of science fiction could have set him straight on. Sheesh. The aliens could simply have landed on Europa, drilled through the ice, and pulled out all the liquid water they needed. And there are probably literally millions — and possibly billions — of planets in our galaxy alone that have liquid and/or frozen water. And…water for energy? Srsly? It was all just so profoundly stupid that it sucked a lot of the enjoyment out of the rest of the film. The director would have been far better off not having any explanation at all than to come up with that idiocy.

The second big flaw in the film (IMHO) involved the fact that the alien aircraft turned out to be drones. All the drones in an area (e.g., Los Angeles) are hypothesized to be controlled by a command ship somewhere. The last part of the film has the surviving Marines hunt for the LA command ship, then call in a missile strike on it — at which point drones start dropping out of the sky. Once again: srsly? A race capable of interstellar travel can’t build an autonomous drone? We can build an autonomous drone now, and we can’t even get humans beyond low earth orbit any more. And in an echo far, far too reminiscent of “Independence Day”, once the alien control ship in LA is taken out, the news is radioed to the other cities being invaded, so that they can take them out as well.

I think it should be mandatory for anyone making an alien invasion movie to read and heed this article over at Cracked. I think that “Battle Los Angeles” made just about every mistake listed here. It is a tribute to how well done the movie was that I enjoyed it anyway. As always, your mileage may vary.  ..bruce w..

I didn’t have plans to go see “The Book of Eli”, even though the trailer made it look like “Fallout 3: The Movie” (I happen to be a big fan of “Fallout 3“). But then I read some early reviews that indicated that “Eli” might indeed be worth seeing, so my sweet wife Sandra and I went yesterday.

I’m glad we did. And she is, too.

I won’t recap the plot here, except to say that Eli (Denzel Washington) is carrying a book west across the devastated North American continent, and Carnegie (Gary Oldman) — who runs his own ruined town — wants that specific book.Oldman uses every tactic he can think of to persuade or force Eli to hand over the book.

“Eli” is a truly fascinating and remarkable movie. On one level, it’s a stylized post-apocalyptic samurai movie. On another, it is a classic Greek drama, with archetypes, divine intervention, and inexorable consequences. On yet a third, it is a morality play about Good and Evil, one that could have roots in the Middle Ages. Finally, it is a subtle yet profound treatise on faith in general and on Christian faith in particular. There are layers upon layers here, particularly as the film reaches its denouement — and said denouement means that I will go back into the theaters to see it a second time with new eyes.

My main criticism is the language, the principle reason for the ‘R’ rating. (Yes, there is violence, but it is very stylized and not much different from what you’ve seen in films such as “The Lord of the Rings”.)  It wasn’t necessary (the Greeks didn’t need it in their plays), though it did serve as a marker between characters on either side of the great divide.

The acting was excellent; the directing was outstanding; the art direction was very effective (and, yes, the film looked a lot like “Fallout 3″). What was most telling, though, was the depth of characterization and writing. “Eli” shows just how banal and shallow “Avatar”‘ is, both in story and characterization. In particular, Gary Oldman’s character — Carnegie — is vastly more believable, sympathetic and effective as an antagonist than either Parker Selfridge (the corporate scum) or Col. Miles Quaritch (the military scum) in “Avatar”.  Likewise, the religious themes in “Avatar” come across as rather goofy feel-good New Age-ism compared to the themes of faith, sacrifice, and suffering in “Eli”.

As John Notle said over at Big Hollywood, “Eli” in the end is a genre movie. But what a genre movie — possibly the best of its kind (though I have to reserve judgment until I see “The Road”).  Your mileage may vary.

SPOILER AFTER THE JUMP

WARNING. SPOILER AND REALLY SERIOUS SPOILERS.

.

.

The book that Eli is carrying — and that Carnegie wants more than anything else — is the Bible, apparently the last copy in existence. Carnegie wants it because he knows he can use its language to manipulate people and build his power base. Eli is acting on communications from God — God told him where the Bible was buried and has been guiding him west for 20 to 30 years towards a place where the Bible belongs. Eli’s copy is bound and locked, and Eli has been reading from it “every day” for those same 20-30 years. Eli — who pre-apocalypse was a Wal-Mart greeter — has incredibly keen senses and absolutely deadly fighting skills — unarmed, with a large, sharp knife, or with a gun. He wanders into Carnegie’s town looking for a charge on his external battery for his iPod. A fight in the main saloon (Carnegie’s HQ) leaves several people dead and Carnegie intrigued. He offers Eli a leadership position, unlimited clean water (a rarity), and sex with a beautiful young girl (Solara, the daughter of Carnegie’s woman, Claudia) to stick around; Eli refuses all of it and tries to leave town, even as Carnegie finds out that Eli has a Bible.  Confrontations and chases ensue; they end with Eli shot and lying in the dirt, and Carnegie heading back to town (minus most of his men) with the Bible (Eli told Carnegie where he hid it rather than let Carnegie kill Solara).

REALLY SERIOUS SPOILERS AHEAD

.

.

.

Eli — instead of going back to town after the Bible — continues west, helped along by Solara (she’s got one of Carnegie’s still-functioning cars). They make it to the ruins of San Francisco, and Eli indicates that they need to head out to the island in the middle of the bay — Alcatraz. There Eli indeed finds a community, one dedicated to rebuilding civilization by collecting and reprinting whatever books they can find. But one book they don’t have is the Bible. Eli, still suffering from his wound (Fisher King, anyone?), tells the leader there to get lots of paper — and begins to recite the KJV Bible entirely from memory.

And we see for the first time that Eli is blind.

Change back to Carnegie’s town. Carnegie has the town engineer carefully pick open the lock on the book. Carnegie opens it — and sees that the Bible is entirely in Braille. He tries to get Claudia (who is blind) to read it, but she claims (with a smile) that it’s been too long since she last read Braille. In the meantime, all of Carnegie’s power structure is falling down — most of his henchmen are dead, and his control over the town evaporates.

Back at Alcatraz, Eli finishes dictating the Bible, then dies from his wounds. But the community there prints a hardbound copy of the Bible and places it among the other religious books in their collection. Solara takes Eli’s weapons and starts to head east back to Carnegie’s town and her mother.

Food for thought.  ..bruce..

I swear this exact scene was in "Avatar". Except everyone was blue.

I saw “Avatar” (in 3-D) yesterday afternoon and saw “Sherlock Holmes” this afternoon.

I’ll be going back to see “Sherlock Holmes” again, probably within a week; “Avatar” will have to wait for DVD, if then.

“Avatar” is worth seeing once on the large screen, in 3-D, just for the sheer visual spectacle and technical brilliance. But the plot, character development (or lack thereof) and dialog is every bit as wretched, unoriginal, and stereotypical as others have warned. The film really, really is “Dances with Wolves” meets “Ferngully: the Last Rainforest“, to such an extent that I felt embarrassed for James Cameron, who wrote and directed the film. Not only was there not an original thought, theme, or plot twist in the entire film, the whole film was largely predictable from the start, with developments telegraphed far in advanced, and the characters were unrelentingly one-dimensional. No nuances, shading, or sympathies here. The “aliens” look, dress, ride, fight, and even whoop like stereotypical Hollywood Indians, and their bodies — largely human except for being (a) blue, (b) 15 feet tall, (c) with a tail, and (d) having a neural interface built in to their ‘pony tail’ — make no sense for the environment, particularly having plain human feet (5 toes, none-prehensile big toe) in an arboreal environment. The longer I go since leaving the theater yesterday, the less I think of the film — the technical excellence fades and the bad taste of the actual underlying film remains.

By contrast, “Sherlock Holmes” is worth seeing repeatedly, both on the big screen and once the DVD comes out. It is a deceptively excellent film. I say “deceptively” because it is only when it is over that you begin to realize just how well the entire film was directed, edited, performed, and art-directed. Robert Downey Jr (in the title role) does more to establish Holmes’ character within the first few minutes of the film than any of the “Pandora” actors do during that film’s entire 2:40 length. The chemistry between Downey and Jude Law (who plays Watson) is instant, real, and believable. All the characters are complex, imperfect, and conflicted, yet drive towards their respective goals, enduring the consequences along the way. And it’s all great fun, with some real tension and great visuals along the way. It probably noses out “District 9″ as the best film I’ve seen this year.

Based on my own viewings — and based on the crowds today waiting to see “Sherlock Holmes” — I not only think that “Sherlock Holmes” will win the weekend box office, I think that it will dominate “Avatar” for the rest of their respective box office runs here in the US. Your mileage may vary.  ..bruce w..