9

Rating: 7.5/9

9 doesn't exactly improve upon the amazing short film that it is based upon, but that's hardly surprising. Shorts extended to feature length rarely do (District 9 being a notable exception). The main shortcoming of the feature is that the haunting stillness of the short, which featured no voice acting at all, is replaced here by ... well, too many voices.

It's been said many times, but bears repeating: Please, Hollywood, for the love of God, we do not care if movie stars do the voices in animated features, just get someone who can do them well.

That's not to say that the voice cast of 9 is bad. Christopher Plummer is quite good, in fact. But Elijah Wood and John C. Reilly are just ... themselves. They have distinctive, easily-recognized voices, but they are not the voices of the characters, they are the voices of the actors. Jennifer Connelly, on the other hand, isn't even distinctive. She is serviceable, but why on earth would you pay to have Jennifer Connelly in a movie in which you don't actually get to see her? Even worse is Crispin Glover, not because he does a bad job, but because his character has, at most, six to ten lines, none of which were memorable or required a shaky-creepy psycho voice. It could have been anyone.

As to the rest of the film, it was beautifully animated and fun, if a bit light on plot. It was more of an extended couple of sequences, really, though that's pretty much par for the course in action movies. Lots of leaping away from explosions and dangling from high places, and smashing scenery and, "We can't just leave them to die!" and "Nooo!" etc.

It depicts a post-apocalyptic world in which the machines have revolted (again) and killed off all the humans. The only survivors are nine little burlap robot-things, the only purpose of which seems to be to be the protagonists of the film. It's pretty standard action movie stuff once you get past the unique style, but the style is gorgeous and interesting.

Note: The monsters that stalk these little sack people are pretty scary, and they shriek a lot, and about as loudly as the sound system will allow, so think twice before taking little kids to see it.

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra

Rating: Better than you expect, if your expectations are very low.

There's a weird vicious circle going on with this movie. Many people have rightly said that, if your expectations aren't too high, this is an entertaining film. But that faint praise has a way of raising one's expectations of the movie, which is not a good thing.

To say that this is a stupid film is almost unnecessary -- if you've seen the trailer, you've heard Dennis Quaid solemnly intone: "This is General Hawk. The mission is a go!"

That said, it may be more instructive to mention that this movie is so stupid that it quite literally has characters in submarines fleeing from sinking ice after an explosion breaks up an ice pack.

As a frenetic popcorn movie made up of almost nothing but battle and chase scenes, it certainly isn't boring, but so much of the film is CGI -- and not very good CGI for the most part -- that it really feels like you're watching a cartoon.

This, of course, takes it back to its source material, which was pretty stupid in itself. The movie derives virtually none of its inspiration from the underrated Marvel Comics title of the 80s, rather paying what little respect it does to the silly cartoon series of the same era.

Even there, though, it is only a superficial nod. None of the character dynamics even from that shallow kids cartoon have survived into this film. Of the cartoon's three principal characters present here, only Duke has any substantial part to play. Scarlett is a sidekick and romantic interest for Ripcord (who, if he had any story outside of the toy line, I don't remember it, yet is here placed in a starring role).

Snake Eyes, the iconic mute ninja/commando of the franchise, is present, but story-less. Other than some flashbacks of his rivalry with evil ninja Storm Shadow, he is a complete cipher. He's not even mute in this version, merely having taken a vow of silence. Everything tragic and mysterious about his character has been completely excised, and that pretty much goes for every other aspect of the franchise as well.

Stephen Sommers clearly understands the G.I. Joe property about as well as he did the classic Universal monsters he co-opted for Van Helsing (i.e. not at all), but at least this time around he's managed to maintain a better momentum, with fewer groan-inducing moments. Some of the action sequences are quite spectacular, particularly one in which the bad guys attempt to dislodge Snake Eyes from atop their vehicle by ... well, you kinda have to see it.

And, honestly, if you don't see it on a big screen, it's almost certainly not worth seeing, because it's a BIG movie.

Blue Pencil #11: Empire of the BattleLord

When looking for a subject for this installment of Blue Pencil, I stumbled across Empire of the BattleLord, by Bradley C Hawthorne -- a novel whose synopsis reads like bad resume.

The BattleLord would never truly understand the combination of genetics and cosmic circumstances that had thrust him through the Veil that separates the Light from the Dark Matter Universe.

If you must list a personal weakness, always make sure that it's one that either isn't really a weakness ("I just work to darn hard!") or is one that the potential employer must admit they share ("Well, who does have a comprehensive understanding of both genetics and random cosmic mischance as it relates to the bifurcated universes?") Score one for the BattleLord!

His biological being is subsumed by symbiotic infections, restoring his youth and vitality, repairing a lifetime of damage to his body, rendering him impervious to all but the most horrific of wounds.

I'm not sure that an infection that makes you nigh invulnerable qualifies as "overcoming adversity and personal tragedy," but Legal says we have to give these types of claims the benefit of the doubt.

Discovered by the Dough Boys, his physical makeup is further enhanced by the inclusion of shields, weapons, and data organization devices.

"Discovered?" Come on, does he think he's Marilyn Monroe or something? And this sounds like he's bragging that he has his own PDA.

By utilizing his unique capabilities, he lives entire lifetimes on varied worlds and places throughout the natural universe.

Ugh. Buzzwords. Can't he just say he has a wide body of experience or something? God.

With loving guidance from the peoples of these worlds, he acquires the moral convictions that have since guided his every action.

Oh man. He sounds like an abortion clinic bomber. Probably leaves leaflets on co-workers' desks inviting them to Tuesday night Bible Study and smiles with strained tolerance when people talk about their weekends.

Driven to know the why of it all, he confronts the Maker, a being, entity, or machine that has existed since the very beginning of time.

I knew it.

Agreeing to accept the Maker's unconditional offer of ultimate knowledge, the BattleLord becomes subjected to a total reformation. He is rebuilt, atom by atom, to form a being that is no longer truly a product of either the Light Matter or the Dark, but a unique combination of both.

Does this guy actually have any experience, or am I supposed to hire him based entirely on his spiritual growth? And who wouldn't agree to an unconditional offer of ultimate knowledge? I hope it included knowledge of PowerPoint, at least.

Armed with the boon of immortality, The BattleLord explores new worlds to ensure the continuation of sentient life throughout the cosmos.

That's a pretty vague objective. I mean, we're all very keen on the continuation of sentient life and all that, but it really makes it sound like he's too lazy to write a resume for this specific position.

Sorry, BattleLord, in this economy you're up against people with a lot more experience and less goofy New Age crap on their CVs. Best of luck in your future endeavors!

Buy it here at AuthorHouse.com!

Brick

Rating: 9 out of 10. Not bad, shamus, but you forgot one thing...

I read a review in the Onion AV Club's "New Cult Classics" series praising this little-seen but much-praised 2005 movie, and I'm very glad I did.

Brick is nothing more or less than a film noir set in a high school. The dialogue is almost entirely done with a Chandler-esque sensibility, including some slang that will leave you puzzled if you're not familiar with the genre. Even if you are, the dialogue can be a bit hard to hear at times, so you may have to resort to subtitles now and then.

Brendan (Joseph Gordon Levitt) is a high school loner who we first see staring at the body of his ex-girlfriend Emily, lying face down in a storm drain. The movie then flashes back two days to give us a little background on the situation, including a tearful and mysterious phone call between the two in which Emily asks Brendan for help but then hangs up in fear of an approaching car.

After discovering Emily's body, Brendan makes the dubious choice of hiding it, in order to pursue his own investigation/vengeance before the police get in the way. His style of investigation is pure Phillip Marlowe -- he gets his ass kicked a lot, but never loses his wry sense of humor or smartass dialogue. He doesn't have all the answers, but he'll get them sooner or later.

Some great supporting performances are also featured, including Richard Roundtree as a tough vice principal and a fantastic Lukas Haas as a sinister underworld figure.

The standout, though, is Gordon-Levitt, who sells Brendan as a troubled high school loner and a flatfoot right out of a Dashiell Hammett or Raymond Chandler story with amazing results. He's actually required to show a lot more range of emotion than the characters Brendan is inspired by, but does so without missing a beat.

Up

Rating: 95/99 Luftbaloons

Bit of a Fargo experience here.

I mean, yeah, it was a very good movie, but my expectations were so high from the "Jesus has come again and lo! He is playing at a cineplex near you"-level of praise the movie received that I was only very pleased, rather than reduced to a slobbering mass of moviegoer.

On the other hand, I keep hearing that it's "almost as good as Wall-E," which is retarded because it's considerably better than Wall-E.

Wall-E had a fantastic first act followed by a merely okay second and third. Up has a fantastic first act followed by a hysterical second act and a spectacular third.

Tiny gripe:

To say a movie about a man who flies his house to South America using children's helium balloons stretches credibility may sound a bit stupid, but I did find myself pulled out of the film a few times by "unrealistic" bits. For the most part, these involved heroic and/or acrobatic actions on the part of the elderly protagonist who, despite the fact that he needs a cane to walk (slowly) can, when called to action, support the weight of a very fat kid and two large animals on the end of a length of garden hose, with nothing to brace himself on. He is also able to scale a nearly-horizontal ladder upside-down -- a feat that I seriously doubt I could duplicate, despite my lack of elderly-ness.

Huge gripe:

The theatre we saw it at, for some reason, did not show us the new Pixar short beforehand. What the hell, people?

Still, it's a great movie. Just don't sit in front of a kid whose parents don't give a fuck if he kicks your chair the entire time.

Rachel Getting Married

Rating: 4 out of 12 Steps

Rachel Getting Married is one of those movies that's good because somebody smart said it was. It's not any fun to watch, and has almost no entertainment value, but it's artsy.

Everyone in this movie is fucking miserable, and damned if director Jonathan Demme isn't going to make sure the viewer is just as miserable every step of the way. If you need any proof of this fact, go ahead and run over to IMDB and take note of the fact that over half of the credited cast are playing parts that start with the phrase "12-Step."

Rachel's sister Kym (Anne Hathaway) just got out of rehab (yay!), and it wasn't her first time, by a long shot. She's got a miserable history of addiction and tragedy. Her family is broken by divorce and remarriage and has been driven to a near psychotic level of multiculturalism as a result.

Kym shows up, with her bitchiness turned up to about eight, guilts her sister into making her maid of honor (after she sleeps with the best man -- apparently minutes after arriving -- and he tells her she's not) instead of her friend who has actually helped plan the whole thing and actually, you know, not been a total bitch to Rachel and everyone else she can get her smoke-blowing, petulant face in front of.

So, there is a grand total of two likeable characters in this film, neither of which are Kym or Rachel, and one of which (Rachel's fiance) is something of a cypher, since he barely speaks. The other is the best man, but I get the feeling that, if you had a couple of days to get to know him, he'd turn out to be a jerk.

Did I mention that they are inexplicably having an Indian wedding? Well, they are. And it's inexplicable. And Rachel's husband-to-be is a black guy who sings Neil Young songs. I mean, it's like they're trying to confuse me just out of spite.

Rachel is getting married to a ... musician? Producer? I'm not entirely sure, except that he seems to know about four hundred other musicians who are played by real musicians, every one of whom plays at least one song at the wedding, and we get to listen. Wow, Robyn Hitchcock and Fab 5 Freddy are still alive? Awesome.

So what if the movie grinds to a halt every time somebody starts singing? You're supposed to be suffering, here, viewer!

This movie has more false endings than Return of the King. And, no, I'm not exaggerating. Every time the camera lingers on people as music plays and they all look at each other with a sad sort of reflection in their eyes ... Brazilian showgirls come running in!

Well, that only happens once, but it is not nearly as fun as it sounds.

There are some saving graces to the film, don't get me wrong. The acting is fine, the ... um ... well, the acting is good. The plot is manipulative button-pushing, but it's not boring, I guess. But if you don't like depressing stories featuring bitchy people with terrible family histories, filmed with a Cloverfield-esque lack of steadicam (barf!), I wouldn't recommend it.

Unless I didn't like you.

Star Trek

Rating: Varies (see below)

It's hard to rate a Star Trek film. Do you rate it compared to other movies, or compared to other science fiction movies? Or do you rate it in comparison with the rest of the franchise?

Either way, this film is certainly above average. As a science fiction movie, it delivers somewhere in the top 10%. As a Star Trek movie, it's a solid #2, behind the classic Wrath of Khan. As a movie, it's fairly average, with a massively overwrought plot that doesn't really make a lot of sense, counterbalanced by some excellent performances and a lot of good popcorn fun.

Luckily for Trek fans, the best performances in the film are given by our favorite four characters. Chris Pine is a great Kirk, Zachary Quinto manages to divorce himself from Heroes' Sylar completely and give us a Spock that feels very genuine, and Simon Pegg is a fun, if silly Scotty. Far and away the best of the big four, however, is Karl Urban's McCoy. Every word that comes out of his mouth is pure McCoy and he nails the character without seeming at all like he's doing an impression of DeForest Kelley's original.

My main gripe with the movie has to be the weak, weak villain. Eric Bana plays "Nero," a Romulan from a future in which Romulus has been destroyed and who, for rather idiotic reasons, has come to the past for vengeance. He's got the ingredients for pathos, but the movie just doesn't give him much to do with them. On top of that, he's sort of a "working class" Romulan, and lacks the panache of a really good space opera villain. Basically, he's pissed off, has a plan for vengeance, and really isn't very clever at all. There are a couple of attempts to give him some Khan-style gravitas, but they fall almost completely flat.

The plot, as I mentioned above, is way more convoluted than it ought to be. I don't know why the writers feel that time travel has to feature so heavily, considering that the very best installments of the series (Khan and Undiscovered Country) left it out. It is necessary for the pseudo-reboot that Abrams is effecting here, though, I guess.

This is kind of pedantic, but the "science" in this science fiction film, is almost more Star Wars than Star Trek. Trek has never been particularly realistic, but there's always been an attempt, at least, to cover up the hand-waving with some believable technobabble. I guess any cinematic attempt to work black holes and time travel into a plot is going to get a little goofy, but they don't even bother to handwave much this time around.

As far as visuals go, the action scenes at the personal level are better than any previous installment's, and the space sequences are very slick. Turning the Enterprise into a fighter plane rather than a battleship, while making for much more kinetic battle sequences, does have its drawbacks, however. There is little sense of mass in these vessels, and a corresponding failure to evoke the gut-wrenching feeling of damage that was so powerful in Khan.