REVIEW(ISH): THE WALKING DEAD, Episode 5

When I say that The Walking Dead almost lost me before finishing its first season, I'm not kidding. Great TV has spoiled me, and my meager attention span wont tolerate mediocrity. A run of bad episodes is enough for me to drop a show six seasons in; this show went from brilliant to crap in the first two weeks, and only managed to work its way back to 'kinda good' by episode four.

And then this week's "Wildfire." Wow. Half-way in and it's already the best episode of the season. After last week's blindsiding zombie attack finale, all of the show's subplots boil over. Everything happens. Devastating grief and the most horrific tension since the pilot. A escalating series of character moments builds toward an abrupt shift in the third act with the showstopping introduction of a new character. This is not the same series that aired last week. Gone are the bouts of clunky, expository dialog, the broad stereotypes, and the substitution of action for genuine suspense. This is the show the pilot promised us.

There are more bodies to be buried. While the traumatized survivors mourn, lingering tension between Rick and Shane erupts in a debate over Rick's latest plan: convoy up and head for the CDC building a couple hundred miles away. And... that's all that should be said. This is the kind of episode you really don't want spoiled, a turning point for everyone involved: the characters, the show, and the audience. With "Wildfire," the show finally delivers on the promise of its spectacular first airing. I'm hooked. Again.

BSG: FAVORITE MOMENTS

Now that the great Battlestar Galactica is in my hands in its completion (season 4.5 is out on DVD now), I feel as though the show is actually over; even after the March finale, there was that lingering anticipation for the forthcoming box set and its myriad of bonus features, commentaries and gloriously extended episodes. With that release in my posession and only The Plan (for which I have only a passing interest) on the horizon, Battlestar is, in my heart at least, over.

So I feel like a list is in order. As I've listened to the soundtrack for season 4 the last few days (available now in a 2-disc set), I've been reminded of so many wonderful moments from the last season by Bear McCreary's beautiful score. The music for Apollo's farewell, Laura running, Starback at the piano, Gaeta's lament; they all trigger such gut emotional reactions from me (not gonna lie, I cried in the car the other day when one of these queued up - wont tell you which one, though) that are obviously tied to the scenes, but are also stirring on their own.

I'm compiling a list of my own, but I want you, dear reader, to submit yours. What are your favorite moments from the entire series? I'll probably post a list of 10, but don't feel obligated to match that number. Please, however, feel obligated to actually post something. I see that little Hits counter move up whenever I post something so I know you're out there.

REVIEW: HARRY POTTER AND THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE

(Here's my original opening to this review, which is no longer accurate - figured I'd include it for the sake of posterity and disclosure. Also, the intent was pure. Some day I will post a review within hours of seeing something new. Someday...)

This is an impromptu review, composed on the fly not an hour after I've seen the movie. That being the case, it will likely be unbalanced, hastily composed and given to frequent derailments of my always steady train of thought. Really, it'll be like every other review I've ever posted here, except minus the two-week lag between release and review.

This is easily my favorite of the Potter films thus far. While it doesn't hit the levels of perfection that Alfonso Cuaron's Prisoner of Azkaban did, it is by far the most engaging and human of the series. It also boasts a career best performances from Rupert Grint, Emma Watson and in particular Dan Radcliffe, but more about them later.

First, let me praise the welcome return of Steve Kloves. Kloves was responsible for the intelligent and efficient scripts for the first four films; his instinct for theme and character (teens especially) was always a boon to the films, never more apparent then when it was absent from the rushed and muddled fifth installment. Equally important was Kloves' skill at adaptation; he always knew what to keep, what to abridge and what to cut, and I'd say that, barring one exception, he was always right.

Still, this Potter is more assured in it's storytelling than last time. The scenes play out longer (with more character packed into each one) and that cumbersome montagey feel is gone. And again, Kloves can write terrific teens (better than Rowling does). Scenes of horny Hogwarts students eyeing each other up in the halls and nervous pre-sexual encounters populate this movie and make for several of its best moments. Among my favorites is Harry and Ron, while each laying in bed, discussing girls they like; it ends with Harry abruptly ending the conversation and switching off his light, though it's scripted and played just right to suggest (in a PG-appropriate manner, of course) that he'll be polishing his wand momentarily.

Y'know. Jerking off. Of course that's all played very discreetly so as not to offend the kiddies with "mature content." The film's actual on-screen maturity is displayed by Daniel Radcliffe, who more than exceeds expectations this go around; the dude is fantastic in this movie. He isn't just the star because he's playing the title character, he's an honest to Gods movie star here, more than holding his own with sage actors Gambon, Smih, Rickman and Broadbent. Radcliffe has developed into a very, very talented young actor. He handles the drama with more gravity than in previous installments (his go-to affectation for conveying heavy emotions was usually to just get louder), but his comic abilities are what surprises the most. While Grint has previously been the series' funniest young actor, Radcliffe steps up his game in this installment. I was howling with laughter during a scene when Harry's high as a kite on a good luck potion. Seeing Harry Potter stoned (played beautifully by Radcliffe) in a PG movie was a real subversive delight. Kids growing up with these movies are going to discover so much more burried within in them when they get older.

Like its audience and protagonists, the Potter franchise is getting older. This movie defies audience expectations of a summer movie by ending quietly and slowly. What follows is a vague and minor (though what's blacked out is specific and major) spoiler, even for those familiar with the books. Yates and Kloves opted to excise Rowling's climactic battle scene from the film, instead allowing Dumbledore's death to be, as it should be, the climax of the film. I was stunned that there was no epic wizard fight in the halls of Hogwarts afterward (the largest cut from the book); after a brief chase and a fizzle of a reveal (to a somewhat abandoned plotline that really functions only as a subtitle), the movie winds down with what must be the longest and most satisfying denouement to any recent summer blockbuster. I applaud director and writer for trimming what wasn't necessary, even though what they trimmed would certainly have been a rousing, spectacular and crowd-pleasing action scene, in favor of character, tone and emotion. I'm sure the decision, which makes more sense in the context of the movie's original winter '08 release date, will cost them at the box office, but it was the right move.

Brief Thoughts on Random Bullshit

Here's a quickie, but reviews of MOON, THE HURT LOCKER and PUBLIC ENEMIES are in the works.

First of all, please don't see Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. Don't go despite bad reviews, even if only to satisfy your curiosity - trust me, you really aren't THAT curious. Don't give them your money. Hell, don't even download a bootleg of the thing - aside from the illegality of it, you'll be giving them your time. The thing has made over $300 million domestically so a second sequel is all but guaranteed. Please, please, please, don't encourage them.

Also, it appears as though Fox is pursuing replacements for voice-actors Katy Segal, John Dimaggio and Billy West for the forthcoming season of Futurama. This is a real heart breaker; my elation at news of the show's resurrection is all but totally dashed. Those three actors are irreplaceable to people who watched and loved the show (I came to it ashamedly quite late on DVD, but still love it dearly). This is lame.

The Emmy nominations are out, and again it seems the the people who award excellence in television don't seem to watch very much of it. Battlestar Galactica was again all but shut out, with nominations only for directing (Michael Rymer for the series finale "Daybreak, part 2," and quite deservedly) and for their pre-4.5 webisodes. Meanwhile, Mad Men and 30 Rock each snagged four writing nominations of the total five in their respective categories and, most offensively of all, Family Guy got a nod for best animated program. Seriously, Emmy's, you gotta spread the love around a little bit, but never, ever to Family Guy.

REVIEW: TRANSFORMERS - REVENGE OF THE FALLEN

I'm late getting this online (shocking, I know), so anyone interested has probably read at least one review of the new Michael Bay fighting robot explosion-fest, TRANSFORMERS 2: REVENGE OF THE RUNTIME. If you haven't yet, read any and all of the reviews linked at the bottom of this page - they're terrifically entertaining reads. And in the nature of full disclosure, I read those incredibly negative reviews before seeing the movie myself, something I try to avoid doing in most cases. I couldn't resist, though, and still somehow mustered the will to see the movie after reading how abjectly awful it is. Don't get me wrong, if Devin, Nick or Ebert say that a movie is inherently terrible and without any redeeming qualities (which they all do), I take them at their word; when it comes to avoiding shitty movies, they've never led me astray.

But goddamn, do I love me some big robots.

Five minutes into the new TRANSFORMERS (after an opening so retardedly audacious - including Decepticons at the Dawn of Man), after a terrific robot fight that leveled Shanghai, I started to wonder if maybe, just maybe, the pros and I weren't going to see eye to eye on this one. The movie, while just as dumb as the previous installment, was not the disaster I'd been told to expect. The action was bright, colorful and, most unlikely of all in a Michael Bay movie, coherent. Also, kickass. When engaging a hidden Decepticon force in the soon-to-be-craterish city, Optimus Prime drives out the back of an Air Force C-130, transforms in midair (all in one, continuous, 100% ILM shot, of course), deploys four parachutes, touches down on the freeway and, three bounds later, transforms back into a truck. Mindless, I know, but it's the kind of giddy, little boy playing with action figures fun you want when watching this kind of movie. I leaned over to my friend and commented that, so far, the movie was pretty enjoyable, with which he agreed.

ONE MINUTE LATER.
ME: What just happened?
FRIEND: Oh my god, I'm so bored.

And that's TRANSFORMERS: REVENGE OF THE FALLEN, condensed for your reading pleasure. There's a few minutes of robot ass-kicking scattered throughout two-and-a-half hours of horrible. Let me be clear: there is NOTHING to enjoy in this movie that doesn't involve 40-foot robots punching each other in the face. The only moments in the movie that I didn't hate featured robot fights, though I by no means am saying that there weren't robot fights that I didn't hate, which there were (and I did). The things that I hated most about the movie were the robots, which there is no shortage of. The Autobots and the Decepticons filled out their ranks since the last movie, though there is no explanation where any of these new bots came from. On the "good" side we have Shiny Silver Sports Car Robot (if this character was given a name, I didn't catch it - in my defense, it also wasn't ever given a line of dialog or anything to do onscreen except drive around looking mighty slick) and the Crotch Rocket Sisters (a trio of fast motorcycles who project holographic girl-riders when in bike form, and who roller-fucking-skate in robot form). Adding to the mounting inanity is Jetfire, the ancient SR-71 Blackbird who, to better depict his age, walks with a cane (that comes from within when he transforms) and has a shiny metal beard. And of course there are already-infamous Twins, two smaller robots who walk, talk and look like the worst black man stereotypes ever; their presence in this movie is hateful, stupid and ugly, and all involved in their creation should be ashamed of themselves.

But Mudflaps and Skids, as they're called, aren't the only offensive content vomited on the screen over the movie's unbearably long running time. American soldiers are killed off by the dozens throughout - early in the film we see their bodies being unloaded at a stateside airbase, coffins draped with American flags. This is a scene in a movie about alien robots based on an 80s toyline. It's bad enough this brainrot movie kills off U.S. troops just to up the body count, but to try (and fail) to milk an emotional moment off the solemn imagery of their deaths is beyond insulting. In addition to that public offense, the movie peppers what is (or should be) essentially a children's action movie with profanity and tasteless "humor." Little children sat in theaters this weekend watching dogs and dog-sized robots hump Megan Fox's leg. They saw at least one robot farting gag, yet another robot pissing on people gag, Sam's mom get high on pot-brownies, and John Tuturro's barely-concealed nutsack. There's nothing, absolutely nothing funny in TRANSFORMERS: ROTF, and every attempt at humor is at best dead air (but in most cases crude and tasteless).

Every human element in this movie is a complete and utter waste of time. There is not a single character in the entire movie, only human-like props that scream each other's names loudly and repeatedly. Shia Lebouf, whose sharp comic instincts were one of the first movie's few saving graces, is undeniably terrible here. Megan Fox, who suggested last time that she might be more than just a pretty everything, is strictly a piece of ass this go 'round. Her character is a pin-up in the middle of a $200 million action flick and nothing more. I almost feel bad for her. Bay & Co. follow the PIRATES 2 model, wherein any and every memorable (or not) supporting character from the first installment (dogs included) must return. Everybody's back: Sam's parents (who killed last time but, sadly, are given dreck to run with this go), Tuturro's disgraced Sector 7 agent (a needless and 100% unfunny John Tuturro thong gag hurt my soul), and even Mojo the chiuaua (who is featured two of the movie's three dog-humping-leg jokes. Seriously) all return, none of whom add anything of value to the proceedings. Let's not forget Josh Duhamel and Tyrese Gibson's Military Dudes (I saw the movie last night and I can't remember a single character's name, or for that matter even a rudimentary outline of the plot), who function solely as... nothing. They're barely in the movie. In fact everyone feels like they're barely in the film at all. There isn't a character in the movie that I didn't hope would die by the end, and those that did ALL came back to life before the movie (finally) stopped. This is such a vacuum of talent and entertainment featuring nothing, barring a few brief robot fights and the aforementioned offensive content, even remotely noteworthy or memorable.

One thing to keep in mind while watching this movie (which you should under no circumstances do. Please, don't give them your money, your time or your brainpower) is that its principle architects HATE YOU. Michael Bay and screenwriters Orci and Kurtzman think you are of limited intelligence and are so eager to kill two hours of your tedious life that you'll endure hours of noisy, mindless drivel. They think you won't notice glaring continuity errors, like when characters on one continent in one scene are inexplicably on another in the next, or that an amphibious invasion force manages to cross the entirety of Africa in the space of minutes. Certainly they think you're a racist cretin like them, since they think you'll find it funny that black dudes can't read, even when they're robots. They assume you're a moron for laughing at shit like The Twins, Sam's intensely annoying college roommate (who annoys every character he encounters - perhaps this should have been a warning, screenwriters) and a lech for wanting nothing more from Megan Fox than to do cheesecake poses for 2.5 hours (seriously, if I wanted porn, I know where to look). They think you don't have even the most rudimentary grip on geography, going so far as to place the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum in the middle of the goddamn desert and setting a journey from Egypt to Jordan (and then back) over the course of a few hours. Really, though, they think you're a mouth-breathing, bib-drooling, Maxim-reading product of hastily-unplanned mutant incest for enjoying the two hours of banal filler that populates the non-robot fighting portions of the movie.

This is a terrible, terrible, terrible movie. People that tell me they enjoyed it are no longer people I can have conversations with. This is an objectively bad movie - no one can argue otherwise. There is no plot, there are no characters, there is nothing dramatic, comedic or otherwise entertaining about anything that occurs in the film. There are a few enjoyable (but unoriginal and unexciting) robot fight scenes that were the only things I looked forward to during its punishingly-long duration. I hated, hate now and will forever continue to hate this movie until something even worse is released (and even then, I'll only hate it slightly less). This is an insult to audiences and a black mark on Hollywood.

I'm not typically inclined to make hyperbolic "best/worst" statements (and even less inclined to take seriously those who do make them), but TRANSFORMERS: ROTF is easily the worst movie I've seen this year, and among the worst I've ever seen. I can't believe I'm this offended by a damn robot movie. Avoid it at all costs.

ROGER EBERT'S REVIEW


DEVIN FARACI'S REVIEW

NICK NUNZIATA'S SEMI-REVIEW

DISCUSSION: GREATEST ACTION MOVIE

My complete and total disinterest in seeing McG's TERMINATOR: SALVATION didn't prevent me from getting jazzed enough by the trailers and posters to go back and revisit the Cameron films. I have no unrealistic love for ol' Jimbo or his works; the guy is a good storyteller, spectacular craftsman and mediocre writer (dialog - hard to argue with his handle on structure*). That said, the dude has a pretty well 100% success ratio, a statistical impossibility in Hollywood (topic for another discussion: filmmakers without a bad movie to their credit. Brad Bird certainly tops the list, having made three perfect films).

Cameron's TERMINATOR 2: JUDGEMENT DAY has got to be one of, if not the very best action spectacle of all time. Before you lose your shit and start throwing titles at me, read that sentence again: greatest action spectacle. It isn't the best action movie of all time, as that distinction easily goes to RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, which is damned flawless. No, T2 doesn't quite hit reach perfection the way Spielberg did so effortlessly with RAIDERS, but it's damn close. Where T2 exceeds RAIDERS is in the action - Cameron crafted the perfect thrill machine actioner, one that set a standard that's been mimicked, aped and shamelessly copied for almost 20 years, but never with the same skill.

The action in T2 is just spectacular. Think about the number of great action sequences in that movie. The opening future war battle. The naked Schwarzzenager bar fight. The shoot-out at the mall. The truck/dirt bike/harley chase on the spillway. The elevator fight/escape from Pescadero mental institution. The Cyberdyne systems break-in, the subsequent assault on the cops with the minigun, and then that last car chase between the SWAT van & helicopter, then the pickup and the semi. The steel works finale. EVERY sequence is different, every one is thrilling, every one was groundbreaking for its time, everyone still holds up today (I say that having re-watched the movie not an hour ago), and every single one is perfect. Cameron stumbles with the schmaltzy writing and the heavy-handed voice over, but as an action director I think he's unmatched.

Thoughts? Is there a grand action spectacle that I've overlooked in my praise of T2? Is there an action director you think tops Jim "I only shoot in underwater 3D" Cameron? Am I totally wrong about T2? Comment away, interwebs.

*Let's not get semantic and bring up the overlong special editions of ALIENS, T2 or THE ABYSS - the theatrical cut is what counts.

REVIEW: OUTLANDER

There are some movies that get lauded with absurd amounts of praise wildly disproportionate to what they actually deserve (Little Miss Sunshine comes to mind, along with last year's The Dark Knight and Slumdog Millionare - which is itself rising on my own personal hype-backlash list). My issue with these movies (or more accurately those that hyperbolically over-praise them) is that they deprive other, often better, tragically underseen films of the love and accolade warranted to them. Spread the love around, critics and filmgoers.

Outlander falls in the latter category: it's a film that to 90% of people would sound terrible, but to that movie loving, film savvy 10%, it's golden. The blurb on the DVD box describes it dully as "Beowulf meets Predator." If I were to offer a polish on the language, it would read: "The 13th Warrior meets Starman, except AWESOME." Intrigued but mystified? Outlander tells the epic story of Kainin, an alien soldier on his way home when his ship crash lands on Earth circa the 8th century A.D. In the crash, a monstrous alien dragon-wolf-monster-thing called a Moorwen is freed from the ship and unleashed upon the unsuspecting fur-wearing populous of Norway and only Kainin can stop it - that's right, kids, an alien helps the Vikings fight a bitchin' looking monster. If this appeals to you, you need to watch this movie. Yesterday. If it doesn't appeal to you, I offer my condolences for your never having experienced the joys of being a child with external genitalia, 'cause this movie was made for little boys (and little boys at heart).


Jim Caviezel (just occured to me his initials are JC - do you think that was a requirement for Mel? Would he have cast another actor instead? Possibly John Cho, John Cleese or John Carpenter?) plays Kainin and alternates his performance between stoic badass and tortured hero - nothing new here, but he does an admirable job. Kainin's interactions with the local Viking tribe proves to be the center of the movie and while far from original (the script borrows heavily from any monster-in-the-dark-that-we-must-outsmart-and-destroy movie -Alien, Predator, 13th Warrior, etc and flat out steals from Beowulf - both the text and the Zemeckis movie*), the cast elevates trite material to at least fairly enjoyable level. There's an altogether ridiculous scene featuring Kainin and Wulfric (Jack Huston) competing in the mead hall game "shields" has to the two running across upheld battle shields in a circle, performing various feats of balance and agility while the drunken crowd cheers; it shouldn't work, but miraculously does. It also might be the best scene in the whole movie, and that includes several gorey Moorwen attacks.

There really isn't an original idea in the whole movie, but the cavalcade of cliches are executed with enough conviction, style and the occasional, very knowing tongue-in-cheek to sell it. In fact, Outlander is pretty damned entertaining despite and in spite of itself. The action is well-shot and varied - there's nothing repetitive from set piece to set piece - and hits all the beats you want in this kind of movie. There's a few sword fights, a ton of scares and some genuinely fun, original violence. But never does the movie tread into overkill territory like Zemeckis did. Each action scene is, by contemporary standards, quite brief. Sword fights go on just as long as they need to and never longer, as do the monster attacks scenes - never did Outlander fatigue me the way most recent action pictures have. There's a familiar low-budget efficiency to the movie that I admired a lot, something lost now that most big Hollywood productions are actually B-movies with $200 million budgets. Outlander certainly looks cheaper than its contemporaries, but it plays cheaper, too, and that's a good thing.




*There are characters named Rothgar and Boromir - seriously? Also, furthering the Beowulf theft, the Moorwen has enough time to squirt out a baby Moorwen, which naturally bites it to better enrage the already vicious parent - Grendel's mother anyone?