The Ruins

The Ruins is a delightful cautionary tale written by Scott Smith, which I happen to think was the best book of 2007. I would highly recommend reading it prior to seeing the film. He adapted this screenplay from his own book, and 10 years ago he wrote and adapted a book titled A Simple Plan into a great little film.

The premise of the story is that a group of college friends are vacationing in Mexico when they hear of an ancient Mayan temple off the beaten path, and they decide to make the journey to it. Once they arrive, they discover that this is no ordinary temple, and their struggle for survival ensues.

The cast is mostly unknowns, but some may recognize Ashmore from the X-Men movies, or Malone from her impressive resume of independent film work. The strong protagonist is Jonathan Tucker from the Black Donnelly's, and Laura Ramsey is the eye candy. Overall, the acting was average at best. The women were annoyingly helpless and weak, and Tucker seemed to lack any real emotion in his expression. The only strong performances were by Ashmore who took a backseat role, and added some occasional comic relief, and Joe Anderson, who plays the unfortunate Mathias with a great German accent (he is English). Anderson was the centerpiece of one of the more squeamish sequences in the film, and he did great. The star of the film is really the story, and that carried both the absurd premise as well as the mediocre acting.

It was well done for a minimal budget, and was obviously filmed entirely on location. I could not shake the anticipation of knowing how it turns out, and the film was surprisingly faithful to the book. There were some minor details overlooked, but the adaptation translated well onto the screen and conveyed all of the eeriness and suspense that would be expected.

I had intentionally not read any of the reviews beforehand, and as it had not screened for the Seattle Times, I thought it would be a bust, but I was pleasantly surprised. There were minimal special effects, and much of the suspense and tension was psychological more so than visual. The effects that did arise were well done and realistic, mostly dealing with amputations, blood, and things of that nature.

I enjoyed the film despite the wildly vivid preconceptions that the novel gave me. Scott Smith is an incredible storyteller, and I am very much looking forward to his next piece of work. 7/10, with extra style points for not cutting out some of the more graphic sequences.

Across the Universe

If you've ever watched The Wall or Tommy and wished that there was a psychedelic film done to Beatles music, then Across the Universe is for you. I have to say, it starts off not half bad. I was reminded of Moulin Rouge, which I really enjoyed in spite of Nicole Kidman. The music is appealing and well done with enough homage to the original renditions that it is likable, and more importantly, recognizable to even the most musically challenged individuals. Done mostly chronologically, the songs elicit a nostalgia that is enjoyable and lets you forget the mediocre acting and story that is on the screen. For awhile.

The film goes on. And on. And on for a seemingly endless period of time. I must admit, I am a huge Beatles fan, and most of my favorites were sung, but there was one crucial song missing; Yesterday, the most covered song of all time. However, this oversight or intentional subversion, whichever it happened to be, did little to detract from the film.

Set in the early 1960's, converging story lines of characters with names found in Beatles songs highlight the decade of peace, love, war and civil disobedience. The main characters, Jude and Lucy meet, fall in and out of love, and reconnect after the scarring trauma of the Vietnam War. Really though, it is not as heavy as it sounds. The war scenes start with a bang, and end with slow motion singing and over the top visual effects. Taking countless cues from The Wall, this film is far from original.

The highlights are certainly the adaptations of the songs, and presentation. The choreography and some of the trippy visuals that accompany the musical interludes are thoughtful and clever. However, the story is stagnant and stale. The characters never fully develop, and although it is a light-hearted intentionally provocative and quite possibly one of the more creative displays of film making of the past year, it is ultimately not entertaining enough.

A great idea, and wonderful musical numbers, but everything else falls flat. Perhaps it is the depressing journey through drugs and the war, and maybe it is the music itself that brings the tone down a notch, but either way, the film as a whole fails. 6/10 for the musical presentation, but that is sadly generous.

Jumper

Doug Liman has had his ups and downs as a director. Coming off of the brilliant Mr. and Mrs. Smith, as well as the Bourne Identity and Swingers, he has become a big name in the action film genre. Somebody called this movie "The Matrix meets Bourne" and they must have been watching a different film than I was.

The tagline "Anywhere is possible" almost holds true. The premise of the film is that Hayden Christiansen, a 15 year old boy, discovers the ability to teleport to anywhere that he has seen with his own eyes. Initially it is an accident, but as with any superhero flick, he harnesses his power and begins to enjoy it. Presumed dead, he disappears for the next 8 years, travelling, stealing money and womanizing.

The visual effects are pretty impressive, but they do get old quickly. The jumper runs into another jumper with similar powers, his old high school flame, and the obligatory government agency that is chasing jumpers and killing them. This is where the movie gets ridiculous (as if it weren't already).

Rachel Bilson is drop dead gorgeous in the cutest girl-next-door way possible, but either she is the worst actress of this generation, or her character intentionally lacked any intellectual depth. Either way, it was annoying. The other jumper, played by Jamie Bell is the typical veteran who has all the answers, but is a loner and refuses to share information or resources. Samuel Jackson plays the leader of the mysterious agency, and makes a noble attempt at cool with bright white hair, but fails miserably because there is no development or explanation. Who funds the agency? Why are they chasing the jumpers? There is a laughable veiled explanation that teleporting is unnatural, and only God should be omnipresent. That doesn't hold much water, especially for a global travelling team of hunters equipped with the latest in wormhole technology (insert barfing sound here).

As expected, Christiansen puts himself, the other jumper, and Bilson in danger, but the reality is that they are all idiots. The hunters are equipped with high-tech stun guns that deliver massive amounts of voltage to the jumpers and inhibit their ability to concentrate on a place to teleport. The problem that I have is that if I had the ability to teleport, I would make sure that I never got caught in an electrically charged net. Christiansen should have done the same. Bell should have done the same. The movie would have been decent had they been wise enough to protect themselves.

I can suspend belief for a movie, but when it jumps the tracks of its own logic and rules, I get a little upset. The kicker came at the end, when there is a revelation about Christiansen's lineage. Possible sequel? Who knows. Hopefully the film won't make enough money to be considered for further production.

The effects and the premise were great. Even the allusion of superhero powers used for a self-promoting purpose is appealing. I liked that he didn't put on a costume and save innocent people. I kind of liked that he burgled banks, womanized and enjoyed his peaceful existence traipsing around the world, lounging atop the Sphinx or drinking at a pub in Ireland. The possibilities are endless. The problem comes in when the love interest is a complete dolt and the parameters of the superpowers are suddenly compromised by illogical elements.

I suppose that it would be too fantastic otherwise, but what began as a great idea was released as a pretty horrible movie. 6/10, for the idea and effects alone.

Sunshine

The premise of this film is simple enough; futuristic sci-fi apocalyptic tale where the sun is dying, and a crew is sent to nuke it into reigniting itself. The previews even made it look interesting, and Danny Boyle, although quite eccentric in his directing style, followed far too many space movie cliches to succeed with this one.

The crew of the Icarus II is the second attempt by a global consortium at this endeavor, and nobody can explain the first crew's mysterious failure. This sidebar story leaves little to the imagination, and ultimately ruins the film's integrity. As they proceed closer to the sun, things start going wrong, crew members start dying, and we are ultimately left in the dark as to what is even going on. There is too much shaky camera movement, there is absolutely no character development. In fact, I couldn't even tell you any of the characters' names even if I wanted to. Reminiscent of Event Horizon minus the gore, and obviously taking cues from Kubrick, Boyle absolutely muddles the story and inserts far too many predictable and redundant space movie scenarios.

Perhaps the best line of the film comes when a small exploratory crew docks upon the original Icarus and someone suggests that they split up. One of the characters spouts "Right, so an alien can pick us off one by one?" My sentiments exactly. The "twist" if you want to call it that is severely disappointing, and although some of the visual effects were dazzling and the premise is intriguing to say the least, there were some problems.

First of all, it is a crew of eight. Each one has an area of expertise and nobody else has any knowledge of that area. Why do space movies always follow this paradigm? Wouldn't it be better to have a larger crew so that in the case of catastrophic events, or even just an accident, everyone doesn't have to die? Second, I have little knowledge about the science of physics, particularly as it relates to the energy output of the sun and UV rays, and solar bursts, and everything sun-related, but many of the details seemed to be overlooked.

Overall, this film did not hold up to expectations. The cast was forgettable, and the story got out of control after some initial promise. It has been a long time since there was a truly good sci-fi space flick (1986), and I'm still waiting for the next. I won't give up on the genre, but I would not recommend Sunshine. 5/10.

Oscar Revisited

Alright faithful followers, the Oscars have come and gone, and it was certainly an eventful evening on the red carpet. Only a few minor surprises, but here are my thoughts on the "big 8" categories -

I accurately predicted 6/8 of the winners, and that was before the nominations even took place, so I was fairly proud of myself. The only miscues were Best Actress and Best Original Screenplay. The remaining categories were hit and miss, but let's be honest, many of them are just too unpredictable anyways. Kevin O'Connell failed to win the Oscar in his 20th nomination for sound editing (Transformers) which is just a shame. The foreign and short film categories are just too obscure, and making accurate predictions (although decidedly difficult in all categories) is just too futile. Therefore, the "big 8" are the area of focus.

Best Picture - I was excited to see No Country for Old Men when I first heard about the cast, crew and story. I had to wait for a couple of weeks after initial release because it wasn't showing in my area, but I was there for the first showing in Seattle. When I walked out, I was blown away and knew that it was something special. It made an immediate impact on me as a cinemaphile and my only complaint was that I viewed it in a small, dilapidated movie house in Wallingford. My affinity for the film couldn't be contained, and I told virtually everyone I knew that they had to see it, and that fell on some deaf ears, and to some mixed reviews, but those with an appreciation for quality film loved it as well. After seeing it a second time, I was even more impressed with the non-conformist ending, and the cinematic bar that hasn't been raised since 2006's The Departed.

I am still disappointed that Into the Wild did not receive the recognition that it deserved in the form of a nomination, but that would have pushed Juno out of the category, and it seems that the recent trend by the Academy is to include an independent feel good dramedy into the mix. Politically understood.

Best Director - Joel and Ethan Coen did more this year to deserve this award than anyone except perhaps Paul Thomas Anderson and Tony Gilroy. Both of the latter wrote the screenplays and directed, which is an incredible accomplishment, particularly for Gilroy who wrote the original screenplay. The Coen brothers however, in keeping with their tradition, adapted the screenplay, directed, and edited under their alter-ego Roderick Jaynes. This award cements their place as eccentric visionaries who create films for more than just a cult following.

Best Actor - This was actually a weak category until Daniel Day Lewis entered the running. His penchant for choosing quality over quantity is a character trait that many actors should take a lesson from. Without Lewis, There Will Be Blood would have just been an average film created by an above-average filmmaker. With Lewis, it was the second best film of the year.

I am still upset over Brolin not receiving a nomination in this category for No Country. I constantly shifted my allegiance between him and Viggo Mortenson until There Will Be Blood came out. He had a resurgent year starring in three Oscar nominated films, and played an entertaining-as-hell doctor in the Tarantino/Rodriguez gore-fest Grindhouse. He has some meaty roles coming up in the next couple of years - including Gus Van Sant's Milk, Oliver Stone's Bush and McG's update on the Terminator franchise. Look for him in the Oscar nomination category for years to come.

Best Actress - This is the one I was disappointed, but not much. I chose Ellen Page as my winner, because her performance was very impressive in Juno, but I did not have the opportunity to see La Vie en Rose. This is where I spout some political opinions. There is a foreign film category. There should also be a best actor and best actress in a foreign film category. My reason for believing this is not xenophobic. My reason is quite the contrary in fact. Of the films that are released in the United States, most are American made English films. That is kind of the gold standard worldwide, which is something to be proud of as an American. International films that are released in the United States rarely have the impact (financially or number of screens) that even the most ridiculous films do. If Who Framed Roger Rabbit, the Fast and the Furious, and Three Men and a Baby can all find their place in the top 200 domestic grossing films of all time, and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon boasts the number 1 foreign film gross at number 230 (right in between Coming to America and Rocky 4), then maybe there should be a separate category for these great foreign made films, and the actors and actresses that live and work in a different culture and a different realm of expectation from the movie-goer. Alright, my ranting is done. Amy Adams should have been nominated for Enchanted, but she'll be around a long time and will receive plenty of awards in her career.

Best Supporting Actor - No surprise here that Javier Bardem won for the single most sinister character portrayed on the screen this year. It is a stretch to say that this was even a competition, although the other nominees ironically made this the most talent-ridden category of the evening. Any other year, any of the other four actors could have won, but this year, Anton Chigurh carved his place in villain history right next to Darth Vader, Hannibal Lector and Jack Torrance.

Best Supporting Actress - I had Tilda Swinton from the get-go. The scene where she sits down in the bathroom stall after giving her presentation is brilliant. The details from the heavy breathing to the sweat-soaked armpits to the crying absolutely exudes emotion. A lot of people had Blanchett or Ryan winning, but they just didn't carry enough of their respective movies to have the impact that Swinton did. Michael Clayton was a better all-around film anyway.

Best Original Screenplay - This was another one that I missed, but only barely. I thought about going with Juno, but didn't really think that it had a chance against Michael Clayton, or the "I can't believe it flew this far under the radar" Before the Devil Knows You're Dead. This was the best movie that nobody saw this year, by far. Read my review. I also liked the originality of Lars and the Real Girl, but didn't think that it had the stamina or timing to really connect with viewers. Juno just struck a chord with people, and not to take anything away from it because it was a great film with an outstanding cast, but the Academy doesn't tend to reward comedies very often.

Best Adapted Screenplay - This was another no-brainer until There Will Be Blood came out. I could have easily seen Anderson's masterpiece take the director and screenplay awards from No Country, but the buzz and all around marvel surrounding Old Men was just too strong. Besides, it was deserving of all the awards it received.

Another year in the books, and it's time to look forward to the Spring and Summer blockbusters. Keep reading the blogs, and I'll give you the straight story on what to see and what to pass on.

Send me your feedback, I'd love to know what you think.

Diary of the Dead

In an attempt to portray a satirical social commentary about the dissemination of information and the blur that the computer age has created with Youtube, blogs and television coverage, George Romero fails miserably. Not surprising that a man who has written and directed over a dozen films about... flesh-eating zombies, fails in this attempt at a hip new type of media. Taking cues from the suspenseful and well done Cloverfield, Diary of the Dead is filmed entirely (except for the expert cuts and the slow motion collages of flashbacks) on a hand-held camera. However, there are musical interludes and the band of characters spout dialogue as if they were in a John Carpenter movie.

The story is not anything new. Zombie virus outbreak, group of students including two couples, a few outcasts and a mysterious British professor embark on a survival journey, and one by one they are eaten and forced to shoot each other in the head. Fairly formulaic as far as these things go. The thing that made this a little unbearable, besides the lack of originality is the amount of time it took for them to finally die off. It wouldn't have been so bad had there been zombies running around with the Romero trademark gratuitous dismemberment, decapitation and disembowelment. However, there were far fewer scenes, none of which were in the least bit scary.

The character development was like sitting in a dentist's chair, and as one of my friends would surely complain about, the tactical situational unawareness was annoying. These people deserve to die. They separate anytime they get a chance, walk around in the dark, and put their faces near corpses. Are you kidding me? How many zombies do you have to see before you put up your defenses?

The worst character of all is the cameraman, a self-righteous crusader to get the "real information" documented for the survivors to have a record of what really happened. Really? You won't put a camera down to help your friends kill zombies? You won't console your girlfriend after she killed her zombie family because you need to film her emotional response? What a complete and utter farce. Not to spoil the plot, but I smiled a little when he finally got bit.

There were some interesting special and makeup effects. That is the only saving point to this film (if it can even be called a saving point). The final image of the film is by far the most spectacular, but it is far too little too late. I enjoyed 2004's Dawn of the Dead remake quite a bit, but it was helmed by a newcomer named Zack Snyder. You may have heard of a little thing he did last year called 300. He's also working on the much anticipated Watchmen film due out 2009. Basically, George Romero has overstayed his welcome within the genre he created. I know, blasphemy to the believers, but like Carpenter, his films are not as good or original as they were 20-30 years ago. 4/10.