Who Killed the Electric Car?

I watched this movie tonight, nearly two years after its initial release, and I felt absolutely compelled to pontificate or spout my environmentally liberal side about how absolutely ludicrous this government has become in its approach to the protection of wealth and the wealthy. I am not usually one to show my true colors, this my friends can attest to. When I saw Sicko, I was politically moved, but regarded it as another Michael Moore ultra-liberal plot to make the current administration look foolish (bravo Moore, you have compounded the damage done by Farenheit 9/11 to make our country seem almost third-world in its treatment of citizens).

Who Killed the Electric Car is a maddening look at the auto/oil consortium that controls our free market economy enough to sway state government officials to overlook the greater good in deference to corporate financial gains.
General Motors, which I am ashamed to admit is the producer of my current car, created the EV-1 (Electric Vehicle 1) in the late 1990's, and it was wildly successful among is lessees. Unfortunately, the company (and competitors) began to see the financial disincentives attached to the ownership of such an efficient vehicle (no gas, no internal combustion engine = no oil/parts service) and scrapped the whole concept despite no recorded consumer complaints or compliance issues. It was simply too advanced for its time.

GM disallowed continuation of contracts with its lessees, despite numerous offers to purchase the vehicles. The consumers were met with hostile legal threats and the cars were confiscated. Further investigation showed that these vehicles were destroyed with no apparent paper trail or reason.

Only money could be behind the absurd decision to move forward into hybrid technology which (surprise) isn't much better than regular internal combustion engines, or for car companies to explore an undetermined time line of hydrogen cell technology which has significant obstacles to its own viability. The answer is the electric car, and the technology is available for an affordable vehicle with a 100 mile daily charge. As battery technology advances (better, smaller) that number will increase as the cost decreases, but as it stands today, it would still be disturbingly reasonable.

There is only one reason for the national conspiracy to suppress technology, and that is money. I would highly recommend this documentary as required viewing for anyone falling victim to the raping that is currently taking place at the gas pumps. There are few conspiracy theories to which I am a subscriber, but oil/auto company conspiracies is one of them. Anyone who has a genuine concern for the environment and the future needs to be aware of this film and the lies that have been told and the truths that have been buried. With rising fuel costs and greater awareness about the state of the global environment, this is going to be the most anticipated change in consumer behavior since the advent of indoor plumbing or central heating/air conditioning.

By no means is this a great film. In fact, it is quite the contrary. On a scale of 1-10 I would probably give it a 4-5 for its cinematic appeal. The content however is something that is absolutely magnetic. Further fueling the skepticism of this country's collective leadership conscience, I can only shake my head at the utter waste of potential that is on display. Maintaining the status quo is certainly a beneficial business model, but when contrasted with the sustainability of our environment, or on a greater scale, our civilization, it is a small price to pay, right?

I highly recommend this film for the message and the information that the American public needs to be made aware of. Hybrids and Hydrogen cars are not the future, they are a way for the auto makers and oil companies to continue posting record profits. Electric cars are the future of clean fuel transportation technology. Take a look at Tesla motors in California as a pioneer in the clean fuel industry. I rarely find a documentary that sparks my passion, but this one is a tribute to true American technological innovation (and a bit of an outlet for pent up frustration) 7/10.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

The familiar feeling of impending adventure. The now rare Lucasfilm logo flashing on the screen with its glimmering green aura. The Paramount Pictures mountain morphed into a lowly prairie dog mound in the Nevada desert in the 1950's. Such is the irony of anticipation and expectation that rides the coattails of the unprecedented success that two of the action film pioneers; George Lucas and Steven Spielberg, have created over the past three decades. They have reached the top of the mountain, and everything they do from here forward is a blank canvass of self-effacing work that in no way can be compared to their classics. Take the new trilogy of Star Wars for example. Disappointing to the millions of fans, it still grossed in the billions, and was Lucas' personal project for decades. I feel the same way about the resurrection of Indiana Jones.

Indiana Jones is as iconic a franchise as James Bond, with a hero as timeless as Harrison Ford himself. Millions of today's generation will be exposed to the childhood hero of every man in his late 20's to mid 40's. Raiders of the Lost Ark was one of the great action adventures that spawned hundreds of copycat protagonists throughout the 1980's, but none had quite the mystique or charisma that Indy had.

Jones is quintessential Ford, played this time with a bit of "I'm getting too old for this s*%t" sarcasm, and there is a refreshing blend of aging heroes, and franchise spin-off youth. The story begins in Nevada in the early 1950's and Jones is dragged into the hunt for an elusive artifact called the Crystal Skull by a band of Soviet military baddies led by Cate Blanchett. Her face looked every bit the part of the Russian masochist, but her accent was pretty awful. Not to pass judgment, she made the journey fun until the bitter end, but Russian? A little predictable.

Indy meets up with LaBeouf and they head to Peru to find the artifact. There are lots of dangerous near misses, many ludicrous escapes from peril and some pretty good action scenes. There are also some plot twists that have probably already been spoiled all over the Internet, and the obligatory creepy crawlers. For sentimental reasons, it just isn't quite the same as the first three. I fully appreciate the cinematic vision of Lucus and Spielberg, and Ford does a great job reprising his role at the ripe age of 65 (gray hair notwithstanding, he could easily pass for 50).

It must have been a wonderful treat to work on this film, but the filmmakers show their age a bit with some of the editing, special effects, and most importantly, the speed of our aging hero's actions. Everything seems to have been slowed down a pace or two, and the running and jumping that used to be so suspenseful is now elaborate schemes that lack the death-defying element. Spielberg seemed to be going through the motions a little bit. Of course, I could just be 20 years older with a less child-like imagination.

Channeling the young, adventurous archaeologist in all of us, this film satisfies on the level of the character and the world that Indiana lives in. Raiders of the Lost Ark is the gold standard, and Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is in contention for the silver with the Last Crusade. Temple of Doom falls to fourth, no contest.

Ever entertaining, but impossible to reach the level of expectation from those of us who were raised on Indy. 8/10.

Iron Man

The level of expectation for this flick is on par with the other superhero movies of the past few years; Spider Man, the Hulk, X-Men, Batman, Superman and even the Punisher. There is something distinctly different about Iron Man however. The protagonist does not have superpowers, and there is not a fictitious world that is dealing with calamities and despondence. The energy of the film is not dark, like Batman, or reliant upon vengeance as a primary motivator. Iron Man is a reluctant super hero who is created out of self-preservation and necessity.

Tony Stark is the rock music loving, hard drinking, womanizing billionaire CEO of a cutting edge defense technology corporation, and his self-absorbed attitude and arrogant demeanor becomes evident within the first few minutes of the film as he is conversing with his military escort in Afghanistan. There is something very likable about his character however, and it may be his honesty and the quick-witted, silver-tongued delivery of his flirtatious comments. He knows that he is brilliant, powerful and wealthy, and he pulls no punches in letting the audience know that he has the perfect life.

His world is turned upside-down when he is captured and forced to build a replica of his latest weapon of mass destruction, but the revelation of the extent of his own contribution to world disorder gives him the motivation to escape and change his ways.

What makes this film better than your run-of-the-mill superhero film is the humanity and dependence on technology as opposed to unexplainable natural powers or a far-fetched back story. Not that there is a shred of realism in the concept of electromagnetic arc energy, or that a man alone could create a suit enabling him to fly and fight crime, but in the context of this film, it all adds up and makes perfect sense.

Jon Favreau has tinkered with directing over the past decade, and did a fine job with 2003's Elf, but this film will propel him to a higher level as an action director. It was very well executed and the visual effects were top notch. There were the obligatory moments of levity interspersed with the high-tech action sequences, but they were done tastefully with quick dialogue and a minimal amount of forced humor.

Downey has resurrected his stalled career, and with this summer's Tropic Thunder, he will again take his place among the biggest names in Hollywood. He was perfect for this part and his supporting cast did great in very subtle roles. The only exception was Paltrow who plays the assistant/unrequited love interest Pepper Potts the way that she was meant to be played, along the lines of Lois Lane, Rachel Dawes and Betty Ross. They have ridiculous alliterative names, and are too cute and devoted to either their man or their work be taken seriously.

Bridges plays Stark's mentor with his trademark gravelly voice, and avoids the trap of being too eccentric as the villain. He is a wonderful actor who has not received ample credit for his body of work. Howard gives an understated performance as Stark's best friend and military liaison. Even one of Favreau's entourage, Peter Billingsley (also executive producer - remember him from A Christmas Story?) makes a cameo appearance with the greatest fake balding haircut on screen this year (or maybe ever). It must have been as result of a bet or some sort of inside joke.

There has been some criticism that the action takes too long to develop, but in reality there is just enough back story to make the anticipation worth the wait. The climactic battle is textbook superhero fighting, but that can't be held against the film. The visual and special effects were outstanding in every way. The only complaint I have is that Stark should have died multiple times. For someone without any real superpowers, his body is incredibly resilient to trauma. Easy to overlook with all of the positive aspects of this film. I couldn't think of a better way to kick off the blockbuster season, Iron Man is going to be a top 5 grossing film this year. I highly recommend this wildly entertaining action flick - 9/10.

Forgetting Sarah Marshall

I greatly respect Richard Roeper's opinions when it comes to movies, so when he stated that Forgetting Sarah Marshall is one of the best comedies of all time, I knew I had to check it out. Produced by Judd Apatow, and starring the writer/member of Apatow's crew - Jason Segel in a surprisingly strong performance, Sarah Marshall is a feel good comedy with some great roles and no self-deprecating cliches that would have absolutely spoiled the ambiance.

Segel is an unapologetic everyman who despite his character flaws, is quite funny and likable. His girlfriend (Kristin Bell) breaks up with him, and to deal with the pain, he takes a vacation to Hawaii where he runs into none other than... you guessed it; his ex-girlfriend and her new boyfriend, played exceptionally by the relatively unknown British star Russell Brand, who is a pompous rock star with a narcissist complex.

The rest of the cast is typical of Apatow films, and hilarious. Bill Hader plays the brother-in-law, Jonah Hill and Paul Rudd play hotel staff members with some good lines, Mila Kunis gives a compelling performance showing off range well beyond that of the one-liners she delivered on That 70's Show or the dreadful straight to video garbage that she's been in. The best supporting role however belongs to Jack McBrayer, aka "Kenneth" from 30 Rock. He adeptly plays a honeymooner with religious morality issues that interfere with his sexual abilities. The icing on the cake however (for me), was a cameo by none other than Jason Bateman. He is comedy perfection and the film couldn't have ended on a better note.

There were some trademark crude sexual references, some odd original music in the form of a rock opera, and Brand's pop music that is almost catchy in its double entendre-filled nonsense. The crudest gross-out attempt is the full-frontal male nudity that was really not as funny as it was probably intended. Overall it was not as offensive as Superbad, but was more on par with the 40 Year Old Virgin.

First time director Nicholas Stoller, who is undoubtedly a part of Apatow's crew, did a fine job, but really didn't show any remarkable skill. The majority of the film (which did run a bit too long) took place at a beautiful resort on a Hawaiian beach. To his credit, there were no flashy segues or fade-outs, and although music was an integral part of the film, it was not used as a comic device or substitute for the character development.

It was a very entertaining film for the most part. Admittedly, I got a little tired of it after about an hour and a half, it just went on for too long. Most of the jokes came in the first half of the film, and the star power carried the second half. There was a feeling of resolution at the end, but the rock opera thing just didn't jive with me. I disagree with Richard Roeper, this was not an exceptionally great film. It was unfortunately pretty average. Good acting all around, good comedy and story, and some nice scenery, 7/10.

Smart People

First Paul Giamatti in Sideways, and now Dennis Quaid in Smart People. Why does every intelligent yet cynical, self-deprecating writer/teacher with emotional detachment and women issues drive a Saab? Wait, I drive a Saab.

Smart People is a sharp dramedy by a first time writing and directing duo that combines a talented cast with great dialogue and a pragmatic view of dysfunctional relationships, even when the people are exceptionally gifted intellectually. There is not much more to the story than a character study of a widower college professor (Quaid) who is simultaneously striving for a department head position at the distinguished Carnegie Mellon University English Department, and trying to publish a book about some tremendously boring and pompous diatribe about the criticism of literature. His curmudgeon is endearing and respectable, but evokes sympathy because of the effect it has on his two children, played by the outstanding Ellen Page and the unassuming Ashton Holmes. Luckily, Quaid's adopted brother, the obligatory black sheep of the family, played by Thomas Haden Church is there to add levity to the mix.

Rounding out the cast is Sarah Jessica Parker as the former student and current love interest, but there was something important missing from her performance. I didn't buy her as a doctor, and there was never really any telling evidence to qualify her attraction to Quaid in the first place. Something just seemed out of place, but I can't put my finger on it.

Page filmed this prior to her hugely successful Juno, but the characters could be twins separated at birth, with one becoming the quick-witted rebel chick, and the other the academically overachieving, therefore quick-witted yet socially deprived symbol of unacknowledged teenage angst. Pretty much dopplegangers (I never tire of that word) without the sinister nature. Her performance is great, but as with Juno, she had great writing. Not to take anything away from her acting ability, but much of the allure has more to do with what she says and how it appears coming out of her sweet, innocent mouth than how she actually says it.

Thomas Haden Church is the glue that holds this film (and family) together. Although the story revolves around Quaid, without Church, it would have been far too dismal of a family situation and dysfunctional would have become tragic. He even evokes the spirit of Oscar 2007 and sports a hideous mustache that seems almost contrived even though it clearly isn't.

This is what I would call the first good film of 2008. Cloverfield was entertaining, but this one delivered more than just that. It was heartwarming, clever and well done. Quaid shows that he is truly one of the better actors around with a performance more on par with In Good Company, The Rookie, or Traffic than The Day After Tomorrow, or Flight of the Phoenix. He has made some questionable decisions over the past decade, but I have a feeling he is finding himself a niche as he rolls into his mid 50's.

Thomas Haden Church and Ellen Page are continuing to impress me as actors, and Sarah Jessica Parker? I am not sure. She may stay in the business, but it wouldn't surprise me to see her fade gracefully after Sex and the City. She just doesn't seem right in many of her past few roles. That might just be me though. 8/10.

30 Days of Night

Isolated in the cold, dark northernmost city of Barrow, Alaska for 30 days during the winter, a group of 150 people prepare for the annual attack of the elements, but they never anticipate being attacked by vampires. The premise arouses more than one nostalgic thought of John Carpenter's brilliant 1982 remake of The Thing. Based on a graphic novel, this valiant attempt at a modern classic is directed by David Slade, a music video veteran whose only other feature length film was Hard Candy (which was actually very entertaining).

On the last day before the annual 30 day winter of darkness, a stranger comes upon this small Alaska town and strange things begin happening; Sled dogs are slaughtered, cell phones are stolen and burned, and the town's only helicopter is destroyed. Hmm, kind of seems like someone wants to cut off the means of escape and communication. Fortunately many of the townfolk have made their way south for the duration, so the population drops dramatically, but once the last plane leaves, the rest of the townies are stranded. Where the film admittedly succeeds is in the pacing. There is not a lot of time wasted getting to know characters who are obviously going to meet their end in a nasty if not highly entertaining way. The events begin unfolding, and carnage ensues.

This is when the pacing dies and the story becomes absurd. Most of the town is wiped out by the intelligent, strong and bloodthirsty vampires, and a small group bands together and finds a hiding place. All of a sudden, it is 17 days later. The problem with this scenario is that it is a very small town of a few dozen homes and shops. There are dozens of vampires ravaging the town, and with their super sense of smell, wouldn't they search for and find the hiding individuals? Or would they just move on to another town in the middle of nowhere? Apologies for ruining an otherwise entertaining horror flick. These vampires hang around for 30 days feeding on stragglers, and the stragglers continue to make bad decisions that lead to mostly disappointing and uninteresting deaths.

I've got to give Slade proper credit, he tried his best. But vampire flicks are a tough one. You can't make it too cheesy, and you can't take it too seriously. There are the typical rules to follow, and Slade did fine by that. He even succeeded in creating some pretty grizzly visual effects including decapitations, various dismemberments, burning, and the staple of what I believe to be a good fright flick - possessed children. The whole concept of a horror flick is to scare the viewer, and the characters make obviously bad decisions that lead to their debatable deserved fates. However, I have a hard time stepping out of the objective "what would I do" role and accepting that these people are simply fodder for my entertainment. Knowing that without that entertainment, it would simply be a boring film is what makes it so diametrically opposed to conventional wisdom. Stepping outside of that conventional wisdom, this film was mediocre.

One thing that was never addressed was the looming questions where did they come from, how do they survive, and where will they go when the feasting is over? Although the answers may detract from vision of the graphic novel and subsequently the film, they remain nonetheless. I appreciated the strength of the ending, although the ambiguity was a bit unsettling. This genre is becoming more and more difficult to create quality works, and I have to give kudos for the effort. It was however, a less than satisfying film. 5/10.