A Tribute to Toy Story 3

Calvin and Hobbes...another fine portrayal of a boy and his toy.

Toy Story 3

Rating:	★★★★★
Category:	Movies
Genre:	Animation

The Pixar Standard of Excellence

When was the last time you saw a movie trilogy that got better with every movie? I can't remember. But next time I am asked that question, I will undoubtably answer "Toy Story".

The first movie was quite good. The second movie was awesome. This third movie is the best of the trilogy. It offers the same sense of grand adventure as the second movie, but offers a final act that both captures a kaleidoscope of emotions and meaning and provide a good and proper final wrap to the entire enterprise. Sure, it is slightly more gag-driven than the second, and considering what the third film is supposed to be, there is little room for further character development (except for Woody), but the last act puts it slightly above the second movie in my opinion. Whereas the second movie's final act alludes to the toys reaching this point, the third fleshes the point out with powerful symbols and emotions.

Structurally, this is the opposite of last year's beautiful "Up", wherein the power of the first ten minutes contextualizes the rest of the movie. In "Toy Story 3", the entire movie builds up the power of its last ten minutes, and those last ten minutes I will carry with me for the rest of my life, just as I would the first ten of "Up".

I originally planned to break this review down into parts, but now I find that I can't. This movie should be seen as a whole, and appreciated as a whole. Every element is perfectly in sync, from the story-telling to the 3D cinematography. This is, by far, the best movie I've seen this year.

And for once, I don't want to spoil it. Go see it for yourself, and be amazed. Pixar is the American Studio Ghibli, and this movie seals the comparison.

When, at the end of the movie, Andy says "Thanks, guys", you will want to say the same. Thank you, Woody, Buzz, and Pixar. Thanks for everything.

Now, I'm going to go and hug my old toys.

Reboot Battle: Karate Kid

I've just finished seeing the new "Karate Kid" (or "Kung Fu kid" if you want to be more accurate) and I've been wanting to stack it up against the old "Karate Kid" as soon as I exited the theater. Not sure if that's a good or bad thing.

                           VS

Anyway, this is how the battle will go: I will award a star for each version in every aspect it is superior, and will compare stars in the end.

Warning: Spoilers ahead.

Round I: Plot Presentation

The plot did not significantly change in the reboot other than the martial art and the location. The reboot is plot point note-by-note similar to the original, right down to the villain instructor telling his second-best student to break the hero, despite his insistence that he can beat him fair and square.

What matters here is how the plot is dramatized. The plot points provide the escalation, but the presentation will determine the effectivity. The original Karate Kid had it down pat, with Daniel-san progressively getting his ass kicked in increasingly painful and humiliating ways. In this respect, the reboot was somewhat lacking. Sure, using slow-motion made the blows to Dre seem more painful, but he is hardly humiliated. He endured rather standard and cliched bullying tactics (Emptying the bag? Please...), while suffering nothing compared to Daniel getting thrown off his bike while going downhill or having his car die in the middle of a date. It is also to the original's credit that the disadvantages Daniel vis-a-vis the girl and his enemies is much more stark than that endured by Dre. I guess Will Smith's son cannot stand having to play a complete loser.

Since this is a fairly big point of lumped together factors (can't be bothered to go into more separate details...nobody watched Karate Kid expecting Citizen Kane), it gets multiple stars. Advantage to the original.

Original: ***
Reboot: **

Round II: Leading Man (Boy)

It's Ralph Macchio vs. Son of (Will) Smith.

Sure, Son of Smith comes off as "cooler", with his hip hop moves and skateboard. (A decade behind, but better than a bike.) However, having such attributes does not help in this case, as upping the cool only ends up reducing the sympathy for the character. Macchio's Daniel looked like he genuinely needed Mr. Miyagi, while Son of Smith's Dre looked like he could have coasted by on slick had he just played his cards right. It also doesn't help the reboot that the hip-hop jiving of Son of Smith made him come off as more of a douchebag and less of a lovable everyman. Further compounding the reboot is that while Macchio won't be getting an Oscar, he at least acted his part. Son of Smith at some parts looked like Mokujin from Tekken (yep, the walking piece of wood), and at other parts looked like all he cared about was striking cool poses for future Hollywood reference. Macchio may hit a few sour notes, but Son of Smith felt too cool to condescend to playing any.

Advantage to Macchio's Daniel-san.

Original: *
Reboot:

Round III: The Mentor

This is an intriguing comparison. I can't really go one way or the other here. On one hand, Pat Morita plays the "hidden dragon" martial artist master / father figure to a lovable-yet-detached perfection. On the other hand, one cannot deny the on-screen charisma of Jackie Chan. Jackie Chan's Han gets minus points though, because his "let's make him more human" moments are so schmaltzy that they're practically begging for tears, thus compromising his unspoken authority as the master in the partnership with Dre. Contrast Han's incessant whining about his car crash with the stoic, dignified (though drunk) revelation of Miyagi's Japanese internment camp experience and subsequent war service. However, Jackie Chan has undoubtedly far more charm at this stage of his career than Pat Morita did during the making of the original.

By the barest of margins, advantage to Chan's Han.

Original:
Reboot: *

Round IV: Villains

The original had a bunch of southern California douchebags, while the reboot had Chinese douchebags. While the Chinese seem more credible on paper, some of the characterization of the villains is somewhat thin in the reboot. The evil kung fu mentor initially looked more menacing, what with his brutal drilling of his students and their military-precision at acting on his commands. However, his lines are delivered in a clipped monotone that does nothing to make him scarier, especially in scenes where he is not ordering students around. The Cobra Kai sensei's delivery of "I want him broken" is much more chilling and menacing than that of the kung fu master, precisely because the latter delivered it like he was reading it. The little combatants are an interesting dynamic. While in the original, the lackeys seem far more menacing than the boss fight guy, the reboot has the boss fight guy rightly more menacing than his lackeys. However, the reboot misdelivered on a subtle but important plot point. During the tournament, there is one guy who belongs to neither camp who makes it to the semi-final. In the original, its a dark-skinned Asian guy (Filipino?) who has some pretty convincing aerial moves that look more Tae Kwon Do than karate, while the reboot has some kid douche with a mohawk. The purpose of this character is to build up the boss fight guy as a world beater. The original pulled this off well-enough, with the Asian guy scoring on some nifty kicks before the boss fight guy hulks up and runs him through. This made it seem like he can beat even experience and flashy high-fliers, making him look more daunting. In the reboot, mohawk guy is so pedestrian that he looked overmatched by boss fight guy. It did not make boss fight guy look more daunting. Indeed, he looked more bully than world beater.

By a small margin, advantage to the Cobra Kai.

Original: *
Reboot:

Round V: The Ladies

Who is the hero fighting for? Its the original's young cheerleader Elisabeth Shue versus the reboot's Generic Asian Girl picked up from generic asian girl catalogue. Who plays a weak violin. *yawn*

No contest. Big advantage to Elisabeth Shue. Big, big advantage. (Just watch Leaving Las Vegas.)

Original: *
Reboot:

Round VI: The Montage

The reboot's training montage featured gorgeous Chinese countryside vistas and the Great Wall of China, while the original's montage had the mean streets of Santa Monica beach. Yeah....

However, as Team America teaches us, a montage is made awesome not by the scenery but by the music. Does the music get you to believe in the awesomeness-in-becoming of our hero? Or does it want you to beg for it to stop?

The reboot's training and fight montages had some fairly forgettable hip hop instrumentals and generic Chinese instrumentals, and didn't even feature the somewhat catchy song featured in its trailer. The original had this in the fight montage:

You're the best around!!!!

Advantage Esposito. Not even the reboot's trailer song comes close.

Original: *
Reboot:

Round VII: Training Gimmicks

The original had "wax on, wax off", while the reboot had "jacket on, jacket off". The original's training gimmicks were more comedic, and in-line with the premise of an everyman being eased into the strict discipline of a martial art by a wise master. While the reboot's training gimmicks seem to magically diminish the learning curve (Son of Smith seemed way too good at kung fu after the gimmicks), they look much cooler and have all the mystic juju of a Shaolin temple. Plus, the dragon well water and the snake woman were an upgrade in awesome from the crane stance on a pier.

Advantage, jacket.

Original:
Reboot: *

Round VIII: The Combat

This is what most people came in expecting to see. The movie is called "Karate (Kung Fu) Kid" after all. The original was criticized because Daniel seemed to punch soft, but it was in-line with the premise of an everyman loser who had just learned karate to save his hide. It also further enhanced the sense of drama in the final match. The reboot featured some nifty kung fu, but all the fights looked the same. (Just check out the blandness of mohawk guy.) It takes a hell of a bad job to make karate seem more varied and diverse in style than kung fu. And while the kung fu looked nicer as a whole, the use of the wire was also as readily apparent as steroids in baseball. At least the tournament in the original featured fighting that might realistically occur. Plus, while the snake charming stance looked way cooler than the crane, the move Son of Smith executed afterward was just jaw-droppingly fake. Say what you will about Daniel-san's soft punching, but at least he wasn't blatantly abusing wire-fu like an insecure douchebag.

Advantage to non-wired Karate.

Original: *
Reboot:

Final Tally

Original:  ******** (8)
Reboot: **** (4)

Winner: Original

Final Note:

I absolutely loathe the soundtrack of the reboot. I especially despise that asinine chest-thumping congratulatory rap by Son of Smith and his brother while the credits were rolling.

Would It Be Better as "Iron Person"?

A feminist professor on Ms. Magazine, further (unintentionally) proving Eve Ensler's theory that women are not cut out for intellectual work, goes on an estrogen-tinged rampage against the Iron Man franchise.

You know you're doing something right when the hysterical feminist establishment unleashes the harpies on you.

Politically incorrect and loving it!

The pseudo-academic gossip gaggle about "weaponizing the male body" is funny enough (brought to you by the same people who interpreted Frodo's stabbing Shelob as "Patriarchy!!!"), but the best part is right up there on the first sentence:

It’s right there in the title: Iron MAN, not meaning “human” but male.

Before spewing her ignorance on things Iron Man, she decides to be fair and presents herself as a blubbering moron right off the bat. At least, that's sort of courteous.

Personally, I pity her 13 year old son. By the looks of it, he'll be growing up with an insane parent who wished he had a vagina.

And yes, Tony Stark is right, the liberal agenda is boring as hell.

Maybe I should go watch the movie a third time.

Robin Hood

Rating:	★
Category:	Movies
Genre:	Action & Adventure

A Bleating Lion

*spoiler warning*

A good movie always gives the audience an emotion to leave the theater with. However, frustration, anger and ironic mirth are not among the desired ones. Unfortunately, that is all this latest mish mash of the Robin Hood mythos has to offer. Whoever made this boondoggle should fire the research staff, since they were never used as evidenced by the lousy history. Then they should fire the hack writer. After that, they probably should get another director. Or another movie star. Or, hell, just rename this whole stinking turd and repackage it as a movie about a Renaissance Faire. Poorly written, poorly acted and overall, poorly made, this lamb can rise and rise again, but it will never grow a mane and be a lion.

Craftsmanship

Sure, there were some breathtaking shots, but most of them have to do with the subject matter and less with the actual skill of the cinematographer. I would claim that it doesn't take much to make a wide-angle shot of knights in armor riding to battle look dramatic. Awe of the horseman has never left the Western audience.

The whole picture seemed to have been shot with a palette of gray, with the occasional greenish tribute to English hills thrown in for a little variety. Whoever made this movie probably got all of his medieval imagery from Monty Python. I wouldn't be surprised if Blanchett's Marian suddenly pointed out a lovely mound of filth in a corner.

The costumes were standard Renaissance Faire, and making Maid Marian wield a sword sort of highlights the fact that their swords are costume-grade and made of aluminum tinfoil. An authentic broadsword like that would've broken Blanchett's arm if she had tried to swing it around like it were a toy. Best way to allow your audience to suspend disbelief is to not do anything so patently unbelievable by your universe's logic. If Marian had been established as a fembot cyborg, then the Eowyn moment would have been acceptable.

Plot / Story-Telling

As a historian, I am already offended by the blatantly stupid historical pastiche director Ridley Scott attached to this film. In order to satiate his basic instinct for ideological cheap shots (just watch Kingdom of Heaven), he includes an unnecessary and over-long introduction in order to demonize Richard Lionheart and the Third Crusade. Russell Crowe's Robin Longstride*, asked for an honest medieval man's opinion by the Lionheart on the righteousness of his Crusade, unironically delivers the answer of a 21st century liberal hack, complete with Orientalist drivel about the enlightened Muslim.

This massive introductory exposition, which takes up a whole half of a long film (2 hrs 30 mins), does nothing to justify the moving action. If Richard Lionheart was such a heartless asshole, why should I believe that his exchequer managed to raise four years' worth of revenue just to ransom him from the Holy Roman Emperor? And how is King John a worse king than his brother? The massive introduction never fully establishes this, because Scott wanted to demonize Lionheart. On another note, why should I believe that Robin Longstride would fall for such an unwomanly, cold shrew like Blanchett's Marian? Also, how come Marian wants to take back the grain that was freely given to the Church as a tithe offering just because she let the estate's grain get stolen? If you give money to the collection basket, do you storm back and demand a refund from the priest if you get robbed on the way home? This Marian could have stepped onto a bear trap and bled to death, and I wouldn't give a damn about it. This is just poor character development.

Aside from these problem, one gets a sense at the end of the movie that the beginning never really ends in a middle. The movie ends with Oscar Isaac's King John burning the Magna Carta (something that never happened) and denouncing Longstride as an outlaw. This, which should have been the starting point of the film, is placed as the resolution. This renders the entire movie a two and a half hour introduction.

But, one can say that this could be an origin movie. I would retort that even horrible origin movies (Wolverine, for example) have a compact and complete story. Scott's dick move of having King John burn the Magna Carta turned what could have been the ending (and as a bonus, an historical accuracy in a sea of lies) into a prolonging of the absurdly long beginning.

Then, there is character development. I already mentioned the one-dimensional Marian. But almost every character in this movie is a cardboard cutout. A Brechtian production could just put labels on top of each head and the experience would not be altered. King John is a one-note "bad king". King Richard is a one-note "Crusader hypocrite". Godfrey is a one note "bad heavy". Worst of all, Robin Longstride is a one-note "21st century hero medieval stand-in". Anachronism makes for lousy characterization.

Another funny plot moment: where the hell was Godfrey riding to when Longstride hit him with the fatal arrowshot?

Performances

One moment in this film encapsulates the sheer mediocrity of the phoned-in performances for this movie. Crowe's Robin Longstride is preparing to ride away to Dover to meet the French in battle (another bit of historical rape). He looks at Blanchett's Marian, and with a robotic deadpan delivery that would make Keanu Reeves proud, he mumbles "I love you Marian". (Yes, punctuation marks would be a travesty to that delivery.) If young Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher can make "I love you", "I know" into an instant quotable classic, there is simply no excuse for a heavyweight veteran like Crowe. This sort of mediocrity is what you get for two and a half hours. Scott could have saved himself $10 million if he had just gone with Cary Elwes. At least that Robin Hood would have an English accent.

This pedestrian effort ought to tell the movie-going world a lesson: never let Ridley Scott anywhere near anything medieval. He has proven not only incapable of capturing that age and its sentiments on film, but that he also has an utterly debased hatred of anything medieval. In fact, it would be a crime to let Scott attempt to direct historical movies in general. The guy's sense of history, lifted from no later than the last news cycle, interferes with his capacities as a filmmaker and story-teller.

*One more funny observation. Robin Longstride, who never appears in any of the Robin Hood incarnations, is never once called "Robin Hood". The closest is an off-hand remark by some sheriff saying "also known as Robin of the Hood". For a movie called "Robin Hood", you'd think they'd use the name more.

Also, there is no "Longstride" among the Magna Carta's signatories. If ever, "Longstride" seems derivative of the more medieval-sounding "Longshanks" (they mean the same thing), which is the nickname of Braveheart's nemesis King Edward I. So, maybe this can be a prequel to Braveheart?

Where Do I Sign the "Fuck Cannes" Petition?

The media is in a self-righteous huff when trying to take down sleazy bishops who move pedophile priests with decade-old cases around.

But when its an entertainment figure like Roman Polanski, Cannes filmmakers circle the wagons to protect him and try to get his case dismissed because it was decades old. Of course, this further proves how useless filmmakers are. At least, even sleazy bishops preside over vast works of charity. And sleazy bishops can be confronted. No, its only these self-important filmmakers who are above moral indignation.

And where is the media in all this? Where the fire-breathing hatchet jobs, the thundering op-eds and the call for boycott of these preening auteurs? If the media were as consistent in their treatment of all who abet child abuse as they were in their Catholic scandal coverage, maybe I'd believe their scandal coverage more. As it stands, they'd try to get a doddery old priest tried and hanged, but these assholes would let Polanski walk in a heartbeat.

More Street Fighter

Apparently, the resurrected video game series has been getting a lot of fan love.

Here is Street Fighter: Beginning's End:


And here's Street Fighter Legacy:


Both have surprisingly good production values, especially Legacy. But I think Beginning's End has better fighting.

Overall, quite amazing. 

160 Greatest Arnold Schwarzenegger Quotes

Celebrating the finest actor of our generation with 160 of his greatest movie quotes! Batman & Robin, Collateral Damage, Commando, Conan the Barbarian, Conan the Destroyer, End of Days, Eraser, Jingle All the Way, Junior, Kindergarten Cop, Last Action Hero, Predator, Pumping Iron, Raw Deal, Red Heat, Red Sonja, The Running Man, The Terminator, Terminator 2: Judgment Day, Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines, Total Recall, True Lies, Twins, The 6th Day and Around the World in 80 Days.

I'd Be Singing Mickey Mouse Too...

From Full Metal Jacket.


There's something about a bunch of hardened soldiers walking through carnage singing a kiddie song. It's both bad-ass and poignant at the same time. Awesome scene.

Now if only Matthew Modine and his girly voice would just stop talking...

Clash of the Anachronisms

So, which debauchery of Greek mythology will win? The thoroughly modern notion of a most gods-haunted people wishing to "damn the gods" or the thoroughly modern notion that hubris is man's greatest virtue? If you're willing to watch Sam Worthington painfully attempt to act out an answer, then go waste your money. 

I Hope They Know I Can Work for Peanuts

According to Variety, Hollywood studios are looking to use cheap (as in low asking price, inexperienced) writers and directors on their franchise projects.

Hey, in Obama's economy, everything must come cheap.

The Book of Eli

Rating:	★★★★
Category:	Movies
Genre:	Westerns

If "Fallout" Were a Western *spoiler warning*

"The Book of Eli" is a very rare thing. Here you have a post-apocalyptic movie about hope instead of despair, in which hope is purveyed through the preservation of a relic most of today's corrupt intelligentsia would be all too glad to burn. Here you have a Western that does not dwell on righteous violence (though there is plenty), vengeance or getting the girl, but on themes few Westerns would touch, let alone dwell on. Denzel Washington took a risk here, and while it is nowhere near the level of risk Mel Gibson took on in 2004, the fact that he did and did so rather well deserves some commendation.

Craftsmanship

Watching Denzel Washington's "Eli" walk long desolate roads was like reliving those long hours playing Fallout 3. The husks of cars, the occasional roadkill and cannibals in ambush all feel like they came straight out of Fallout. Even the dirty, dust-colored wash that pervades all the scenes feel like they came straight out of post-apocalyptic videogame convention. This is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, I think that Westerns, with their ghost towns and dust-colored pastiche, have had a greater influence on post-apocalyptic imagination than they are given credit for. In any case, the world of Eli mimics the tone of the movie's premise. To dust we all came, and to dust shall it all return.

Plot
I must confess to having sympathy for the premise. If, after the end of civilization there is but one Bible left, I cannot think of a relic more worth preserving. As to the novelty of having a Hollywood movie depict the Bible as worth risking life for, I find it a breath of fresh air. "Book of Eli" starts off rather fast, but is punctuated by some awesome fight scenes. (Eli under the bridge, fighting in silhouette, was particularly cool.) But, once the plot gets rolling, the pace slows down to allow the audience time to get to know the characters and their motivations. When the action gets going again, the sense of urgency is heightened in every proceeding scene, topped off by Eli seemingly executed in the backyard cemetery of a cannibal couple. Here, one gets the notion of the main character as divinely protected, as he survives long enough to make it to his destination long after the bad guys think they've won. The movie's surprise twist, unlike most surprise twists, are central to the point of the movie, and provides for a satisfying punctuation mark. Unfortunately, the denoument is slow in the unravelling, culminating in a cutesy Solara (Mila Kunis) trying on the Road Warrior get up to continue spreading the Word back home. Where "Unforgiven" was a rebuke of the heroic violence of the Western, "Book of Eli" is a rebuke of the nihilism of "Unforgiven" and its descendants.

Performances
Denzel Washington always delivers, and this time out is no exception. Gary Oldman shows the range that allows him to play so many different roles in his career. Mila Kunis is the odd woman out. She is the youngest of the main cast, and she cannot seem to shed the wide-eyed cuteness that made her so popular in "That 70's Show". However, rather than being a disadvantage, it allows her to stand out amongst the giants she has to work with, and provides a stunning contrast of innocence with such a desolate and unforgiving landscape.

Overall, this movie will probably not get much notice beyond its screen run, and its a shame. The movie is a credit to Westerns in general, and should have a place in the canon of the genre. It is an exploration of the Western on the opposite end of the spectrum from "Unforgiven", and deserves a hearing for the case it makes.

Every Academy Award-Winning Movie's Trailer

Sheer genius.



Even the damn music is the same one every one of these Oscar-bait movies use.

Alice in Wonderland

Rating:	★★
Category:	Movies
Genre:	Science Fiction & Fantasy

Tim Burton Farts a Fail *Spoiler Warning*

The one thing I liked about this movie was how it made me miss the old animated Alice in Wonderland. It's quite sad for a director who built his reputation on charming quirks to be out-charmed and out-quirked by a 50's animation feature.

The only thing worth writing home about are the visual effects, but the ones employed by the movie contribute little to the unity of the experience. I almost fell asleep during heavily CGI-infested final battle scene. If your central visual piece causes yawns, its time to rethink the strategy. See: Matrix Reloaded.

The acting is dull. Johnny Depp is badly restrained. The lead actress is about as charming as an English goldfish. Anne Hathaway acted like she was lost in a high school production of Cinderella. Helena Bonham-Carter was the only one who looked comfortable in her role.

Worst of all is the screenplay. They tried to shoe-horn in Lewis Carroll's wierd poem "Jabberwocky" into the Alice storyline, apparently forgetting that the poem's hero was male. (Which is why Depp's Mad Hatter keeps calling Alice "he" for no explained reason.) The result is a battle sequence between a talking winged chameleon and a girl wielding a sword that has to be made of paper for someone of her stature to lift it. (They even ripped off the dragon kill animation from Dragon Age: Origins.) By the end of it all, not only did the cheap grrl power individualistic sentimentality leave a bad impression on me, my suspension of disbelief also lay murdered on the cinema floor.

All these could be hand-waved with the usual "it's a kiddie movie" excuse (watch "Up", you lazy bastards!), but the decision to cast a young adult pretty much puts that excuse in the trash bin. By the end, I was quite hoping for a sequel, where Alice catches Malaria in some swamp-infested jungle near Rangoon and ends up eaten by a tiger. I'd pay to watch that. Unlike Alice, I tend to think of the very, very possible.*

*Alice keeps saying that she believes in the impossible. Blech.

Hurt Locker Pisses Off Real Soldiers

While I do want someone to topple that walking bloated ego James Cameron at the Oscars, I personally do not want "Hurt Locker" to be the giant slayer. (Which is kinda stupid, Mrs. Goliath beating Goliath instead of David...)

As it turns out, I'm not the only one. The problem with this "most accurate Iraq War movie to date" is that it is most manifestly inaccurate.

So says a bunch of guys who were there. And you know its pretty bad when its the anti-war Washington Post breaking the story.

Many in the military say "Hurt Locker" is plagued by unforgivable inaccuracies that make the most critically acclaimed Iraq war film to date more a Hollywood fantasy than the searingly realistic rendition that civilians take it for.

To which you might say: It's just a movie and an action flick at that. It's Tinseltown fiction -- an interpretation of war such as "Full Metal Jacket" or "Apocalypse Now." It's supposed to entertain. It's not a documentary, not real life.

But to those who were there, Iraq is real life. And they're very sensitive -- some would say overly so -- when their war is portrayed via a central character who is a reckless rogue.

Hence a rising backlash from people in uniform, such as this response on Rieckhoff's Facebook page from a self-identified Army Airborne Ranger:

"[I]f this movie was based on a war that never existed, I would have nothing to comment about. This movie is not based on a true story, but on a true war, a war in which I have seen my friends killed, a war in which I witnessed my ranger buddy get both his legs blown off. So for Hollywood to glorify this crap is a huge slap in the face to every soldier who's been on the front line."

The guy Rieckhoff is a partisan hack who works with Matt Damon, but if even a guy whose ideological sensibilities are the ones Hollywood loves to cater to thinks the movie is over the top, then something is wrong.

Of course, the jackass who wrote the film's screenplay retreats back to the tried-and-true defense of "it's only a movie". BTW, this is the same moron responsible for "Valley of Elah".

Boal not only wanted to tell a riveting and important story, but also to raise awareness about soldiers who disarm bombs, a specialty known as explosive ordnance disposal, which he believed the general public knew little about, even though hidden bombs are the leading cause of casualties in Iraq.

Yeah, only problem is that the "awareness" he raises is that of a fictional military where all soldiers are adrenaline junkies and cruelty is a way of life. You might as well be raising awareness for Romulans.

Then, in comes the usual academic milquetoast:

Filmmakers always worry that productions that servicemembers see as spot-on might leave general audiences cold. So: Is it really important that a war movie be accurate?

No, says David McKenna, a film professor at Columbia University. "Hurt Locker," he argues, isn't as much about Iraq as it is about one soldier's addiction to war. It's a character study, an exploration of courage, bravado and leadership told through "a series of suspenseful situations. I suppose it could have just as easily been set in outer space."

Here's the problem: it cannot be "so much about Iraq as it is about one soldier blah blah blah" because it is set in Iraq. Anything set in the actual Iraq War will always bring the war and its participants to the spotlight, because its a real war. And considering how most US soldiers are not the offensive caricature this purported "character study" portrays (addicted to war?), it will come accross as highly offensive to the ones who served there. Bigelow's "character study" would've been better served if it were placed in a fictional war or in "outer space".

The leader of the EOD memorial foundation also speaks up for the movie, but its kinda hard to take him seriously when his organization got a busload of money from the studio that made the movie. Its generally good practice from a courtesy standpoint to be nice to people who give you money.

The reason I loved Mel Gibson's "We Were Soldiers" was because the movie had characters, not caricatures. It had a story, not a political point. Is that too much to ask from the slew of Iraq War bullshit (up next, "Green Zone"!) streaming from the Hollywood cesspool? The sad part is that "Hurt Locker" is probably the high point, and the least offensive one Hollywood is willing to make. Uness Mel Gibson decides to do an Iraq War movie as well.

Update:

At the bottom of this LA Times piece is this bit which shows the company's contempt for real soldiers:

At one point, "The Hurt Locker" might have been made with government cooperation. But just 12 hours before Lt. Col. J. Todd Breasseale was to fly to Jordan to serve as the Army's technical advisor to "The Hurt Locker," he said in an interview that he heard there might be problems. A Jordanian official told him that scenes were being shot that were not in the script that the Army had approved. Breasseale accused the producer of shooting a scene in which soldiers act violently toward detainees. (The military does not provide help to films depicting violations of the laws of war, unless their consequences are shown.) He also charged that the production had driven a Humvee into a Palestinian refugee camp in order to film angry crowd scenes.

"Nice working with you," Breasseale said he recalled telling a producer before the military decided to stop working with the production. "Kathryn has a lot of talent, but I cannot trust that your company will honor its contract to the soldiers and government of the U.S." Breasseale said the filmmakers had been solicitous of the Army's opinion, "trying to get the look and feel right," and they had been allowed to film at an Army logistics base in Kuwait. Breasseale, who is now deployed, saw "The Hurt Locker" on a laptop in Afghanistan along with a soldier from one of the Army's EOD teams. He conceded it was a great story and a "spectacular looking movie. But if you're looking for realism and how military relationships really work, I believe she missed the mark," Breasseale said of Bigelow.

Driving a Humvee into a Palestinian camp just to spark up some trooper hate for the film. WTF...

Another Reason for Hollywood to Hire Historians

Good Lord, some director with a Latino name (and Hollywood sure has a crush on those) has decided to take a break from quirky sex dramas* and try his hand at historical movie-making. Considering Guillermo del Toro's Communist Manifesto-bashing (can't use a Bible) take on the Spanish Civil War in his fantasy crap, I find that asking for historical accuracy, or even borderline historical fairness, is too much to ask for. Still, it is maddening to encounter the lack of these things in "history" films.

So, here enters Alejandro Amenabar's "Agora", ostensibly a story about the murdered fifth century Neo-platonist philosopher Hypatia of Alexandria. The problem is, it's not a story about Hypatia, but about a Frankenstein monster created by Enlightenment prejudices. The actual Hypatia checks many the politically-correct boxes: female, philosopher, scientist. But the monster Hypatia has other attributes. She was "outspoken" and "was a pagan martyred for SCIENCE! By Christians!"

It doesn't matter that Hypatia was far more likely killed because she was involved in a factional fight between Christians. The fact that she might even be Christian herself escapes the notice of these Hollywood idiots. Like the Enlightenment fools who preceded them, they won't let hard facts get in the way of a good narrative.

*Yes, every Hollywood director with a Latin or Spanish name is Pedro Almodovar to me. I'm sure they wouldn't mind the stereotype. They spend enough time manufacturing them.

Five Questions for "Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief" *spoilers*

I was bored yesterday, so I went and saw this contender for the Harry Potter sweepstakes. Mind you, all my impressions are from the movie. The book sounds interesting though. I might check it out. However, if it is anything like the movie, I will be asking the same questions.

Most of these are regarding the consistency of either its adaptation of Greek mythology or its own internal mythos.

1. Why is there a daughter of Athena? Isn't Athena's virginity a significant part of her goddess profile? And considering that her daughter is barely post-pubescent, its not like she went the Athena route and sprang full-grown from her mother's head. So, what, did Athena just get hammered at a party and woke up with a take-home package?

"I'm never touching Apollo's shit again, ever!" *groan*

2. How come Medusa is alive again? Hasn't she been slain and decapitated before? Heck, her head is on Athena's shield. Couldn't they get another gorgon? Are there contract issues with the gorgon Union or something?

3. Why is a Fury doing a Harpy's job?

4. If, according to the internal mythos, the demi-gods' heads are "hard-wired for ancient Greek, not English", (which can be assumed they inherited from their Greek myth parents who should have the condition) how can a Fury in disguise teach Othello, which was written in English?

5. If, according to the book's internal mythos, the demi-gods inherit the god profiles of their divine parent (all of Aphrodite's daughters are Girls Gone Wild), why is the daughter of Pallas Athena, the virgin patron of Athens, suddenly all googly-eyed when confronted with a Theseus wannabe? Shouldn't she be the ice queen, or at least more guarded about her chastity? This is why it would have been better if she were made the daughter of Artemis instead. You circumvent all the "virginity" questions, get enought grrl power attributes to satisfy the stupid feminists in the audience, and leave enough room for her to fall in love with the hero.

One More Reason to Never See "Avatar"

I take pride in being the last person on Earth to have never seen Cameron's monstrous "Titanic".

And now, I have one more reason to hold the same record for fucking "Avatar".

EW: “Avatar” is the perfect eco-terrorism recruiting tool.”

JC: Good, good. I like that one. I consider that a positive review. I believe in ecoterrorism.”

Yep, from the auteur's mouth himself, "Dances with Space Smurfs" is an eco-terrorist recruiting tool.

They should release an Avatar RTS game. One where we can play the Marines and totally annihilate the blue cat people. That's probably the only bit of Avatar junk I'd buy. 

Ah, I suppose this dooms me to pop irrelevance. But it's better than becoming this pathetic.

"Ever since I went to see 'Avatar' I have been depressed. Watching the wonderful world of Pandora and all the Na'vi made me want to be one of them. I can't stop thinking about all the things that happened in the film and all of the tears and shivers I got from it," Mike posted. "I even contemplate suicide thinking that if I do it I will be rebirthed in a world similar to Pandora and the everything is the same as in 'Avatar.' "

I wonder why the damn pussy won't make himself a Darwin Award recipient....

Michael Bay Signs $50M Deal to F*** Up Thundercats

I know its from the Onion, but the best parodies are the ones that make you think that such an absurdity can happen. In this case, it may well happen.

"I couldn't be more excited to completely fuck this up," said Bay, who plans to begin production on destroying the live-action adaptation next month. "ThunderCats has a great story, endearing characters, action, adventure, space-travel, and fantasy. It will be an honor to run it into the ground."

"I'll use every directorial tool I have to suck the very life and charm out of this beloved cartoon," added Bay, claiming that the film could turn out to be the most colossal piece of shit he's ever worked on. "I won't rest until I get every last scene exactly wrong."

This is A Brain on Acid

Harvey Weinstein says Hollywood has "the best moral compass", after emerging backlash for his and most of Hollywood's support of child rapist Roman Polanski.

Ladies and Gentlemen... Pope Harvey of the Church of Hollywood

Kids, don't do drugs. Or you'll be talking out of your ass too.