Toothpick TV

I originally rebooted this old blog of mine as a way to get back into writing because:

a.       My doctor told me it would help me with my head problems, and

b.      A lot of people asked me to open it up again.

Since then I have gotten a lot of positive feedback, which I appreciate, and I have even now begun getting requests to review movies and TV shows. I figured TV would be a nice change of pace, and luckily a friend of mine who is also going through Army medical channels recommended I write one about a show that we both got into in Iraq. It’s a fantastic show about a vigilante serial killer who lives in Miami Florida and stems his bloodlust by only preying on murderers, rapists, and other violent criminals who have slipped through the cracks of the justice system. It stars Michael C. Hall as the title character, who frequently dives into well written expository personal monologues to help the audience both understand and sympathize with his madness, and boasts a great supporting cast of relatively unknown actors as various members of family and police personnel at the Miami Police Department.

I’m talking of course about The Wire, a great candidate for this blog because not only is it often referenced by countless critics as arguably the greatest television series ever made (Time Magazine, Metacritic, Rolling Stone, Washington Post,  Slate.com, and aintitcool to name a few of those lists), but it’s one of those shows that has never enjoyed the widespread commercial success of other Emmy winning, inferior shows such as Two and a Half Men, 24, Will and Grace, and ER. The show is praised for the ultra-realistic portrayal of suburban life in the broken city of Baltimore, and primarily focuses on three driving forces in everyday life on the streets, the “5-0”, “the system”, and “the vigilante”.

Looking at these three forces you may be thinking “Oh, well this is a cop show”, and you would be right, but this show is not another television show of right versus wrong, or black vs. white. The shows’ real strength lies in exploring the ambiguous grey zones that exist within each of these sides. For example, our protagonist is Detective Jimmy McNulty, a gifted detective and damn fine police officer whose personal goal begins as bringing down Avon Barksdale, the king of the drug trade in Baltimore. Jimmy may be a great cop and the driving force behind a noble unit designed to target the drug trade, but to state that Jim is a flawed hero would be an understatement. The man is an absolute mess of a human being, an alcoholic, an adulterer, and a backstabber even to his unit and friends if he doesn’t get his way. His personal issues have gotten him divorced from a woman he truly loved, and every season gets him in hotter and hotter water as he seems to not have any real allegiances to anyone but himself.

On the flipside, Avon Barksdale may be the king of the drug trade in the city, but a clear cut villain he is not.  Avon’s allegiances to his family and his friends are written into the very fiber of his being, and his sacrifices for both are what ultimately created the man he is. His existence in the world was made by simply being the toughest, as he often discusses how he got started by thriving and fighting on the streets. He’s a soldier through and through, and as we peel away the layers of the man Avon is we begin to see that the real danger behind his organization lies in those close to him, not himself. He holds true to beliefs that he developed while deep in the game, ideals such as the “Sunday Morning Truce”, an unspoken rule that his gang will not engage in violence on Sundays. Although the man may be a monster, he is a monster with a conscience, family values, and beliefs.

The entire series explores the grey zones of every character involved, and while around season three we begin to witness the rise of a truly evil antagonist and a well meaning political protagonist both of these people’s goals, ambitions, and image begin to tarnish through the seasons. The antagonist without fear gradually becomes a coward as he rises to power while the knight in shining armor begins to be corrupted by the very system he tried desperately to fix. It’s almost reminiscent of Citizen Kane, but with a much more engaging and relatable setting. There is actually one man on the show who can be considered a truly selfless protagonist, but the values this man learned were from past indiscretions involving corruption on his part, and while this man is a great police officer and a moral compass for his unit his past eventually catches up with him despite his born-again moral standing. Once again, the political system completely shuts down any possibility of this man making a positive change for the city, all because of human greed and ambition.

Speaking of systems, the second major emphasis of the show is exposing how “the system” is broken, but what’s unique is that each season covers a different system in desperate need of repair. Season 1 focuses on the justice system, Season 2 focuses on the union and teamster system, Season 3 focuses on the political season, Season 4 is primarily about the school system, and season 5 deals with the press and media system. Each season explores how these systems have become utterly corrupted by greedy people, and the crime on the streets is oftentimes a result of this corruptions. Innocent characters are dragged into dark places due to circumstances outside their control, and it all stems from the broken and uncaring systems.

Finally we come to the last and, in my mind, the most interesting aspect of the show, the vigilante Omar Little. Omar is a stick-up man who preys on the street level drug dealers, using the money and drugs he has collected to help out the innocent. Now you may be thinking this man is just a modern day interpretation of Robin Hood, but his character and motivations run much, much deeper than that. Omar Little is not a typical stick-up man, he adheres to a strict code of ethics that the majority of both his police contacts and drug dealing nemesese utterly lack. He refuses to allow any harm to come to anyone who is not “part of the game”, he’s polite, funny, friendly, fiercely intelligent, and loves his grandmother. This type of behavior isn’t exactly common for a soldier of the streets, and that’s probably why he is regarded as a mythical being rather than a man on the streets.

Everywhere Omar crusades people talk about him like he was a creature of myth, gang bangers and innocent bystanders both telling stories of heroism and courage about the stick-up man. He whistles “A Hunting We Will Go” into the darkest parts of the worst neighborhoods, armed with nothing more than his sawed-off shotgun, bulletproof vest, and fierce intellect to keep him safe from the hundreds who want him dead. He has been named the “Best/Greatest/Most Interesting” character in the history of TV by many magazines and articles, and to this day he is regarded by many as the most well developed bad ass to ever grace TV. Oh, and by the way, he happened to establish this reputation while being gay, but his actions and mannerisms are never treated as simple plot devices for a reason to over-compensate for his diminished reputation on the streets due to being gay.

All of these facets and characters are well written and believable, and while the writing of the show does a great job creating a slate for these characters it’s the actors who did an amazing job making them into memorable people. The acting in this show is top notch, admirably performed by an entire cast of “unknown” actors. Dominic West and Idris Elba, both rising stars in Hollywood thanks to this show, are resplendent in their leading roles, and the colorful and diverse supporting cast is masterfully acted, but two stars help propel this powerhouse of acting into the stratosphere.

The first is Lance Reddick as Lt. Cedric Daniels. Anyone fortunate enough to be watching Fringe will know him as Agent Phillip Broyles, and you may recognize him as Matthew Abaddon from the much more popular show Lost, but as great as he is in both of those shows it is a pale comparison to the brilliant performance he turns in during his five season of The Wire. Reddick plays his role as a dedicated and competent police officer trying to climb the ladder with a quiet dignity, but also a severe and dangerous hidden edge which he reserves for his enemies. He has this sort of quiet intimidation about him that it’s almost inhuman, and he uses it to perfect effect as the leader of a specialized major crimes unit. He also happens to have quite possibly the coolest voice in Hollywood right now, and I have no idea why this man hasn’t been catapulted into Hollywood spotlight after being primed for it for so very long.

The second major performance of the show comes from Michael Kenneth Williams, who plays the morally guided stick-up man Omar Little. Omar is one of the best written characters on the show, but the character wouldn’t be half as interesting to watch if Williams hadn’t played him so perfectly with the severe, methodical, and intelligent edge he seems to bring effortlessly to the table. Williams strikes a perfect balance of intelligent intimidation, and quirky sense of humor, and the true reason for his feared reputation stems from his intellect over his strength. In fact, for being feared as the best gun on the street we rarely see Omar pull on people, further proof that great tension isn’t just the creation of countless action scenes. Omar Little is widely regarded as one of the greatest TV characters of all time, and President Barrack Obama has even stated that Omar is his favorite TV character of all time:

“I gotta say Omar’s a great guy. That’s not an endorsement. That is not an endorsement. He is not my favorite person, but he’s a fascinating character– a gay gangster who only robs drug dealers and then gives back. But he’s the toughest, baddest guy on the show, and he’s gay. He’s a fascinating character.”

In addition to great characters, the show also excels due to good direction. The majority of the show is shot using traditional flat and wide angle shots, but some scene construction is so well done and executed that it perfectly conveys the thought process of each and every character. On top of that we have perfectly paced and delivered comedic relief, oftentimes strung together with a brilliantly directed scene that it creates an original and unique scene. I remember one such scene where Jimmy and his partner Bunk go through a house reconstructing a crime scene and looking for clues, not saying anything but “F**K” the entire scene. This scene is almost ten minutes long and that’s the only word they say, and it comes off so brilliantly and original that I have never seen anything like it in film OR television.

As great as this show is however, it has faced its’ fair share of problems. Due to its’ ultra-realistic portrayal of the real and hard lives of people on the street it was hard for the show to secure a dedicated audience, especially when the majority of audiences seem to enjoy shoving popcorn in the face and laughing at Will and Grace. People tend to not like being taken out of their comfort zones when watching TV, and I can understand why. After all, why would I want to watch a mirror of my world when I’m trying to escape it by watching Charlie Sheen talk about having sex with hookers on Two and a Half Men? However, this show is one of those rare milestones in American television where should you overcome your discomfort at the idea of watching something so gritty, you will be rewarded by what is easily the best scripted, best character driven show to ever be played on television. It’s a rich and exciting story, told through the eyes of both sides of a conflict, and to ignore it would be a colossal mistake.

10 out of 10

September Rewind: Stardust

Once a month I will be reviewing a film that I consider criminally overlooked by audiences. It's my hope that I will pique some interest in the film as well as share some great underground movies with friends who may not have been exposed to them.

There are lots of reasons why great films become overlooked films. Sometimes they are made to be Oscar contenders that don’t quite stack up against the other nominations for that year (Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead). Sometimes they are great films that are buried by the production studios for petty and insulting reasons (Idiocracy). And sometimes, they are released on a limited budget at a limited number of theaters because a studio is contractually obligated to make the film as part of a higher cost-benefit analysis (Bubba-Ho Tep). Once in a while though, you get the very rare (and most tragic) case, a fantastic film sporting a great cast and given great exposure by the studio, but just slipped through the cracks of what the audience wanted to see, and that is the case for this month’s rewind spotlight.

Stardust was an action-fantasy film released in 2007. It was directed by Matthew Vaugn (X-men:First Class, Kick-Ass, Zombieland, Layer Cake), was narrated by the always amazing Ian McKellan, and starred Claire Danes, Charlie Cox, Robert De Niro, Peter O’ Toole, Mark Strong, Rupert Everett, Jason Fleyming, an outstanding cameo by Ricky Gervais, and a still smoking hot at 50 Michelle Pfeiffer. To this day it is what I reference when I talk about how a standalone fantasy film can be an excellent film if handled properly, and it’s one of those rare films that I can pop in and watch anywhere, anytime, and it will keep me entertained for its’ entire running time.

Now you may be wondering, with talent like this behind it, how the heck have you never even heard of the film, let alone seen it? Well, you wouldn’t be alone. Everyone I know who I have tried to talk to about this film has given me a blank look when I mention the title, but should they take my advice and actually watch the film, we usually have great talks about how awesome the movie was. It seems to be one of those rare films that has something for everyone, excellent and exciting action scenes, outstanding effects, great acting, fantastic comic relief, an interesting and original story, and a romance between the two leads that is so well handled and real that even insecure men like myself can watch the film with wide doe-eyes and hope that things turn out well for our star-crossed lovers. Seriously, the chemistry between these two is so electric and real that I’m surprised fellow cast members weren’t crushed by the sexual tension between them.

The story takes place in the village of Wall, so called because it sits next to a strange stone wall that the villagers are forsaken from crossing. Never one to listen to rules, a young man by the name of Dunston jumps the wall to discover the hidden fantasy kingdom of Stormhold, and has a night of fun that he will remember forever… mostly because nine months later he discovers that he is the father of a child named Tristan who was born in Stormhold. When the son grows up, he embarks over the wall himself, questing to find out more about his history and to recover a fallen star for the aristocratic girl of his dreams. However, once on the other side of the wall, he discovers that he has unintentionally entered into a deeper power struggle between a dangerously powerful witch, and two princes, one good and one evil, vying for the throne of the kingdom.

The story sounds like a generic fantasy you would read in a dime store novel, but the film does a great job of tweaking and modernizing this classic tale of good vs. evil in order to create an original take that will keep you interested for every step of Tristan’s journey. Along the way Tristan meets a bevy of interesting and dynamic characters, including a band of pirates who travel by airship and are led by Captain Shakespeare (Robert De Niro). Lately Robert De Niro has seemed to become an actor who is only turning in performances based on the ticks and mannerisms that he himself created in his roles, but in this film we see De Niro create a new performance so genuine and out of character for him that I daresay it may be some of his finest acting since Heat. I guarantee when you see this film you will never look at De Niro the same way again.

In fact De Niro is just one part of a well oiled acting machine, as everyone in this film is in top form. Charlie Cox (an unknown actor by most accounts) plays his role as a clueless-doofus-turned-dashing-hero with a kind of hilarious bone-headedness that helps us relate to him. He doesn’t know much about this mystery world he’s stumbled onto, but he DOES know right from wrong, and that’s enough to make him into a likeable and relatable character to us the audience. Danes plays the fallen star Yvaine with beauty and grace, and she does so with such a quiet and effortless charm that it’s hard to find a single person who didn’t fall in love with her because of this film. The supporting cast is top-notch as well, Strong is predictably and fantastically sinister, Pfeiffer is resplendently evil, Fleyming is subtle and sincere in his pursuit of power for good, and Gervais and O’ Toole make the most of their brief but memorable roles.

This film excels both in action sequences and character development, a strength that Vaughn seems to have refined into his more recent and successful films. The action sequences are crisp and sharp, and always keep the audience enthralled thanks mostly to the emotional connection and relation that a well refined script has helped us create with the characters. Since we care about Tristan and Yvaine every single tense moment is heightened that much more, a point I made in my previous blog “My Thoughts on Action”. More importantly though, every single action scene has a purpose and reason behind it and helps advance the story, nowhere in the film do we have robots punching other robots just because, nor do we have fancy lightsaber fights that do nothing to advance the story.

The pacing of the film is outstanding as well, so outstanding in fact that it even draws in people who don't like fantasy films. As much as I loved the Lord of the Ring movies I can understand how the slow plot build up could turn off some people, especially in this age of "FASTER! LOUDER! EXPLOSIONIER!" action movies. Here however, the plot is constantly moving forward at a comfortable pace, never leaving you bored. Even people I know who hated Lord of the Rings couldn't stop gushing about this movie once they ended up seeing it. The pacing is further helped by the films' wicked sense of humor, and genuinely funny lines are delivered with flare and precision to keep this movie a lighthearted adventure.

Fantasy films seem to be forgotten about these days, and while there was a brief spike in their production following the Lord of the Rings and early Harry Potter films it appears that Hollywood has decided to move on because they are much harder to market, even if they know they have created gold. This seems to be the case with Stardust, a great film that just plain didn’t get the attention it needed to help jumpstart the genre, or even the franchise. It makes me sad to see great films like this fall by the wayside of Hollywood s**t-fests like the mindless crap that’s being forced down our throat, but it’s hard to compete when these mindless action films seem to get all the good trailers and press releases. Even more tragic is the fact that since these films didn’t make a trillion dollars in a weekend because of poor marketing the genre as a whole has to suffer, especially when a film like this is so good to begin with.

In fact there seems to be a new trend in filmgoers that is driving me crazy, and I don’t know if it’s because people genuinely feel this way or because this mindset seems to be doing everything it can to ruin my film going experience for no real reason. When movies like Transformers 2, or G.I. Joe come out people who know what a good film is will usually say “Well what do you expect man? I just want to see it for the action.” OK, that’s fine, whatever, but then when intelligent, well made action movies come out like Inception, The Dark Knight, Thor, or Children of Men these same people immediately turn around and say “That movie is sooooooo overrated” whenever I tell them that I like the film. Why? Why is it overrated? Because it didn’t have mindless action scenes that cost roughly three million dollars per minute to film? Because it had intricate plots that advanced the film and created genuine, realistic, likeable characters? Because it didn’t have two racist, stereotypical robots calling everyone in the film “bitches” and punching each outher in the nuts? Am I NOT allowed to simply enjoy this film now because it is a good movie? Is there no middle ground for you people? WHY CAN’T I ENJOY A GOOD GOD DAMN MOVIE?!?WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?!? WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS TO ME?!?

 WHYYYYYYYYYY?!?

Ahem…

The direction is well done in every aspect of the film, from the great performances by an ensemble cast, to the excellent creation of a fantasy world that stands out among all the other fantasy worlds on film that we have seen. Vaughn is gaining a lot of attention these days with his strong track record, and I’m hoping his newfound respect will help spread the word about this early, but earnest film attempt of his. He takes what could have been a generic, cookie-cutter idea for a fantasy movie and instills just enough original elements for it to be original and refreshing for the audience. You can easily make a genre film or show very original these days, all you have to do is add a little spice of imagination, and then you have something the audience probably hasn’t seen before.

What do I mean by this? Well, a good example comes from the critically acclaimed show Monk. For those of you who haven’t had the privilege of seeing the show it revolves around Adrian Monk, a brilliant detective suffering from OCD which stems from the death of his wife Trudy, the one crime he can’t solve. Monk blames himself for her death, and about three seasons into the show Trudy’s father comes to Monk seeking his help. Now if this was any other show or movie we all know this episode would play out.

Adrian: Mr. Trudy’s Dad… I never had a chance to speak to you after Trudy died…

Father in law: Don’t talk to me about her, she was my baby and you got her killed!

Adrian: I know, and I feel so bad…

Father-in-law: YOU’RE NO SON OF MINE! RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!

Then Monk would solve his crime, and the father in law would come around, and then they would hug and then roll credits.

That’s not the case in this episode though. As soon as the father walks in we see his face light up when he sees Adrian, and Adrian calls him “Dad” without even hesitating. The entire episode we see that the father and mother-in-law absolutely adore Adrian, and he introduces Adrian to all of his friends as “his son”. There’s no conflict between the characters, and this simple change in formula actually works to the benefit of the show because it’s more realistic and more refreshing. While good ideas in films are becoming more and more rare these days, good, original ideas for actual films are almost impossible to come by in this modern Hollywood. When films like Stardust succeed in Hollywood, even if they become cult icons, this is enough to instill in me the hope that someday Hollywood will cut the established franchise crap that it has fallen into and once again fund private, original ideas that helped create the industry to begin with.

Now yes, I have done my research and know that Stardust started out as a novel by Neil Gaimen, but the difference here is that most of us have never even heard of Stardust the movie, let alone Stardust the novel. With this movie Hollywood took a chance on an unknown property, and even though it may not have yielded the same return as the Transformers franchise it definitely made its’ money back almost threefold. The point is that Hollywood is getting more and more desperate to make movies based on classic pre-established properties that it has come to this…

Yep, that’s a poster for Battleship: The Movie, based on the Hasbro game. If you haven’t seen the trailer it’s about a battleship that fights space aliens. I am not s**tting you, that is the actual movie premise, feel free to look it up. And I mean, why wouldn’t it be, because what better way to speak to modern movie going audiences than to make a movie about a piece of military weaponry that has been retired for almost 20 years? Why don’t we just make a modern day movie about Zeppelins fighting giant cockroaches while we’re at it?  Do we really need countless movie adaptations of pre-existing franchises just because Hollywood has become so afraid of taking chances? How long is it before we get this?

Or this?

It’s coming…

The point is that in this modern day movie empire built out of ten trillion Twilight movies and nine million comic book movies (for better or worse) it’s just really good to see something original, especially when that original thing happens to be a well made and enticing movie.

9 out of 10

The Origin Story of my Wallpaper

The mystery is solved!

X-men: First Class

The X-men franchise has had an interesting and embattled background, one film of which is regarded as arguably the best superhero movie ever made (X2) while another is regarded as arguably the worst (X3). At its’ core the franchise has had to withstand constant sabotage, budget cuts, and time constraints from Fox Studios’ resident turd Tom Rothman, yet despite being given every reason to fail these films reliably bring in massive box office returns, a story kind of fitting for the X-men, whose tagline and core belief is “To Protect Those Who Hate and Fear Them”.

Personally, my entire childhood love of comic books has stemmed mainly from two comic franchises that I grew up admiring, Spiderman, and the X-men. Both of these franchises told interesting and exciting stories about flawed but honorable protagonists, but while Spiderman was primarily a metaphor for the struggles of a young man becoming a man, I believe the story of the X-men has always been more fascinating, as it dealt more on the lines of a social commentary about discrimination and societies’ inability to accept what they do not know. Heavily influenced by the civil rights movement, what’s remarkable is the ability to relate to the series’ core ideas just as much today as you could at the time of its’ release fifty years ago. Now finally, after two outstanding films and two borderline coma-inducing films, the fifth entry into the series takes a big step (both back in time and in the right direction) and becomes the “origin story” for the franchise.

I seem to be one of the few people who enjoys a good origin story. I can understand why many people don’t appreciate them because it is very hard to squeeze in an interesting action story when half of your film is dedicated to flushing out a new characters and establishing their beliefs and principles while they also develop the power of demi-gods. From this standpoint, it was a little surprising to see that the original X-men was able to get away with making a film that was NOT an origin story. The film opened up with the introduction of Wolverine to the rest of the X-men, and while their initial relationships could kind of be viewed as an origin of the team each of these characters has already learned the full extent of their powers (with the exception of Rogue, who can never control hers). So while the idea of making the fifth film in the franchise an origin story is a little unsettling, this film does an exceptional job of pulling it off.

Where this film truly excels is in character development, which as you know by now is my favorite part of a good film. We see the friendship that develops between a hotheaded, revenge driven Eric “Magneto” Lehnsherr, and an idealistic, but naïve Charles “Professor X” Xavier, and this development is handled well and realistically. The dialogue is genuine and real (with the exception of one scene), and the lines between Eric and Charles are something you would expect to hear from two friends discussing real life issues in real situations. What really grabbed me though, was the very well done and interesting best friendship between Xavier and Mystique. These two come off as two people who have actually grown up together as best friends, with Charles wanting nothing more than to protect Raven and work towards creating a world that would one day allow her to reveal herself publicly since she didn’t possess the ability to blend in with the normal world like Charles did. In fact, this relationship was handled so well that it helped me deal with the fact that it made no sense from a comic standpoint, since it never occurred in the comics OR original movies.

You know, now would be a good time for me to address one of my biggest issues with this movie, the apparent waffling of beliefs when it comes to addressing new developments of the film. From a movie goers standpoint this isn’t much of an issue, but as a comic lover I see a lot of switching back and forth between whether they wanted to stick with the pre-established notions of the film franchise, or just throw all those ideas out the window and start from scratch in a brand new universe. Choosing any one of those ideas is fine, but this film chose to exist in a strange limbo world between the two choices. For example, I can get behind the idea of Mystique and Charles growing up as best friends, and they even have a throwaway line about how since she doesn’t age the same as everyone else she will appear much younger when we see her again in the first official X-men movie.  The problem is that now when I watch those films again I see a Charles Xavier who is completely clueless about Mystique’s identity, and I see a Mystique who has no problem with the idea of poisoning Charles in the first film, despite her deep affection for him.

On the other hand I see the opposite problem in the choices of mutants they use for this film. If you are going to call this movie X-men: First Class, then I expect to see a movie about the X-mens’ first God damn class! Every comic reader knows that the first class consisted of Charles Xavier, Scott “Cyclops” Summer, Jean “Phoenix” Grey (or at the time, “Marvel Girl”), Hank “Beast” McCoy, Bobby “Iceman” Drake, and Warren “Angel” Worthington III. We could have had a fantastic movie about watching these pre-established and beloved character first learning to use their powers, but instead we are stuck with the B-team because some people didn’t want to impede on the pre-established conceptions of these characters. If you’re going to start fresh with a new timeline then who cares if you bring back the classics?

Back to the positives though, one thing I loved, and I mean LOVED about this movie was Kevin Bacon’s resplendent return to major film, complete in all his scene stealing glory. His portrayal of Sebastion Shaw was pitch perfect, and every single scene he was in made us pretty much forget about every other actor on the screen. He brought a strange sort of campy joy to the role that I love seeing, mostly because I believe that these days most comic book movies seem to be taking themselves WAY too seriously. Surprisingly, my all time favorite moment in a comic book film was actually from the first Spiderman movie, and I don’t know if I should be thanking Sam Raimi for directing the scene or Willem Dafoe for the pitch perfect delivery. During the first fight between Spidey and Goblin there is a part where Peter disables the glider, and as Dafoe flies off he screams (with a perfect touch of campy goodness) “WE’LL MEET AGAIN SPIDERMAAAAAAAAN!”. It was beautiful! The audience is instantly transported back into a great and exciting ride of comic book delight, and from that point on every single moment of Green Goblin screen time I saw Dafoe in an all new light despite the hilarious costume. That was what Kevin Bacon’s performance reminded me of, but as great as he was he was just the cream of the crop of a great cast that turned in outstanding performances.

James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender do great work with their respective leading roles, and as much as I liked seeing Charles develop into the mentor and teacher her would eventually become I actually found myself sympathizing with Magneto more. Fassbenders’ tortured conflict of ideals sets the stage beautifully for the turn we know is in store, and when that big moment finally arrives it is done with a beautiful sort of subtle character turn, not an awful, abrupt, jarring transformation like in the Star Wars prequels. It’s a moment when Magneto just plain goes too far, and we see how it crushes Charles to realize that despite their friendship he will never truly be able to help Eric the way he imagined.

SPOILERS

I loved this scene by the way, and it gave me goose bumps how well it was done. If the coin had just zipped through Shaws’ head like a bullet it wouldn’t have been nearly as effective, but something about the way it slowly passes through gives me the creeps and makes the scene that much more eerie.

END SPOILERS

I also really enjoyed seeing the always great Jason Flemyng as Azazel, but I was pretty disappointed at his lack of lines. Casting someone like that and not giving him any good lines would be like casting Liev Schreiber for a throwaway role in some action movie. Rose Byrne was great and classically gorgeous as Moira McTaggert, despite the lack of accent, and even all the new kids do a good job in their roles, particularly Caleb Landry Jones as Banshee and Jennifer Lawrence as Mystique (it should be noted that she was just nominated for an Oscar as well).

Sadly, three performances fall flat, especially in the face of the outstanding performances surrounding them. The first is Alex Gonzales as Riptide, who can’t create a believable facial expression to save his life. Normally this wouldn’t be a problem with a role as small as his was, but when you don’t have any lines in the film (if he did I don’t remember them) then having a clean slate face the entire film isn’t going to do it. The next is Zoë Kravitz as Angel (not that Angel), and while she didn’t bother me as much when she was trying to play seductive she utterly lost all credibility when she needed to play for keeps with real emotions. On top of that, the face she made whenever she spit fireballs was so hysterically silly that it took me out of the film every... single... time... she did it. At first I thought maybe she got a big break in the film because she was Lenny Kravitzs’ daughter, but then I found out that she got a big break in the film because she was Lenny Kravitzs’ daughter.

And of course, I’d be remiss if I didn’t bring up the abominable January Jones as Emma Frost. Her emotionless, boring, toneless, soul-lacking, uninteresting, nauseating, catatonic delivery of every single line utterly ruined what could have been one of the best new characters for the series. I mean look at this s**t!

I said LOOK AT IT!

That’s the face she makes the ENTIRE MOVIE! Emma Frost is a staple in the comic world and personally I always saw someone like Naomi Watts playing the role, someone with a quiet and noble dignity, beauty and grace (and who can act!), but now we are stuck with an actress whose line delivery and blank expressions are so shockingly awful that the movie dies a little every time she opens her mouth. Her line delivery has the emotional void and disconnected feeling of say… a National Geographic narrator, only not as excited. Luckily, the surrounding cast is talented enough to have their performances pull her through the rest of the film, limping to the finish line, and at least they significantly improved the horrible diamond effects from the turd that was Wolverine.

Unfortunately, that’s the only effect they improved on. Another issue with the film I had was the apparent giant leap backward in effects this film took compared to other high budget Hollywood films. I can’t really blame the filmmakers for this one because I know this film:

a.       Had its’ budget slashed, and

b.      Was incredibly rushed (principle photography ended 3-4 months before its’ release).

As much as I tried to overlook it though, there were some effects that came across as really bad… like Syfy original movie bad. I remember one scene where Banshee was first trying to fly that seriously reminded me of an effect you would see in a bad kids’ movie like Baby Geniuses or something. Again, I’m not trying to beat the filmmakers up too badly because I REALLY liked the movie, but these effects were jarring to say the least. However, remember what I said in my first article about effects not mattering as long as we like and care about the characters, well here is a perfect example of how this is true. I was too interested in the film to really notice the effects at first, it was only while watching some of the special features that I really began to see the problems. A strange case however was the transition of Beast. I liked the actor that portrayed him a lot, but when Beast transformed just like we knew he would my first thought was “Oh Jesus that’s awful”. As the film went on though I actually started to like the final product, and by the time the credits rolled around I really didn’t mind the final look (although believe it or not I still prefer Kelsey Grammars' portrayal from X3, it was the one bright spot of that miserable excuse for a movie).

The last few issues I had with the film were simple, and by no means had any significant impact on my overall enjoyment of the film. Xaviers’ spinal injury bugged me, and even though the scene was handled beautifully and we all knew it was coming I think the idea to put Xavier in the chair this early was a massive mistake. I was hoping with this new imagining we could have an X-men movie based in each decade, each dealing with a massive worldwide problem at the time and adding central characters as time went on, like Storm in the 70s, sentinals in the 80s, etc. Also, I didn’t like how they got their names. Superhero names are a big deal, whether it’s Spiderman, Captain America, The Hulk, usually there is an interesting reason or a funny joke behind the actual title of a superheroes’ name, but here it’s a simple “You should be called Professor X and Magneto!” And then BAM! Done.

All in all, I greatly enjoyed the film, and while I wouldn’t say I loved it, it is easily my second favorite of the franchise. Some silly parts of the film were abound, but the strong direction, great acting, and interesting characters kept me more than intrigued, and this is definitely a ride I will be taking again in the next few weeks. The only reason I nitpicked this film so much was because this was the type of film that irritates me the most, a film that was just a few simple tweaks away from being a truly great movie.

8.5 out of 10

Roger Ebert is a Stupid A**hole Idiot Head

Several months ago Roger Ebert re-proclaimed his belief that “Video Games can never be art”, which ignited a storm of nerd rage not seen since Jar-Jar Binks stepped in dog poop in Star Wars. Instead of trying to defend his stance or listen to well constructed thoughts on why he is mistaken, Ebert merely dismisses these arguments and proclaims himself to be right and all others completely wrong, or, if he has taken a shine to you, to be “mistaken”. He places film on a pedestal of what art should be, despite countless evidence supporting the opposite. His arrogant dismissal of this medium has inspired countless rebuttals, and I found it only fitting that I express my feelings as well.

First of all I should establish some of my feelings about film, games, and art. Anyone who knows me knows that I love film, reading, and gaming. Each experience, while wildly different from each other, can transport the audience to a world that we can never experience in normal life, invoke emotions we rarely feel, and tell a story that any of us can find deeply compelling and poignant. Yet Mr. Ebert states that video games can never be high art because “I know it by the definition of the vast majority of games. They tend to involve (1) point and shoot in many variations and plotlines, (2) treasure or scavenger hunts, as in "Myst," and (3) player control of the outcome”. The sheer arrogance of that statement is what has been making me want to write this for the better part of a year.

He says that he knows (not thinks, but knows) he is right by the definition of the vast majority of games, but on the other hand, the vast majority of films being released are cheap, common crap not even worthy of my time, or brand names being released for nostalgic value (and to make a quick buck). In fact, independent filmmaker and critic Mike Stoklasa has pointed out that from 2008-2010 96% of all movies being released by Hollywood are reboots, remakes, or re-imaginings… that is NOT a made up number. Now does that mean we should consider film a higher art based on the artistic merits of G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra? Absolutely not, but according to Roger Ebert’s logic on the topic this is EXACTLY what we should be doing, creating a definition of film by judging an example of the “vast majority”.

But to be fair let’s try an experiment, let’s judge two examples of each medium side by side, Star Wars: Episode III Revenge of the Sith vs. Red Dead Redemption. Should I really be using this film as an example? Probably not, but it’s fair and I chose it for one big reason. Roger Ebert gave this film three and a half stars, the second highest score that he can give a film. Think about that for a minute… that means that this film places immediately below Casablanca, The Maltese Falcon, and The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly in terms of quality. Even worse, that means that he considers this film on par with, or better than True Grit, The Shawshank Redemption, any Lord of the Rings film, Ghostbusters, Away We Go, Sideways, Children of Men, and Serenity just to name a few.

Now I gotta admit, I kind of liked parts of Revenge of the Sith, and it was by far the best of the prequels, but saying that this film is the best of the prequels is like saying the root canal I had this morning was way better than the spinal tap I had yesterday. The entire film is filled with boring, unappealing characters that I don’t give a crap about, despite the four plus hours the previous films had to get me to like them. I remember seeing these movies and thinking Why? Why are these lightsaber fights so impressive, and yet I’m so freaking bored? And the answer is a lot simpler than I thought it would be. The dialogue and character “development” was so forced and unbelievable that at no point did I feel ANY connection to ANY of these characters.

Art is defined as many different things, but the biggest thing these countless definitions have in common is that it is something that creates an emotional response by the viewer and considered beautiful by the audience. I think that is a fair and unbiased definition that almost everyone can get behind, and by this definition the original trilogy is something I would absolutely consider art. This is especially true for The Empire Strikes Back, which was an emotional powerhouse of a film for me. Even today when I watch that movie I feel excitement at the Battle of Hoth, hopelessness when Han is placed in carbonite and taken away by Boba Fett, and of course, the massive surprise and shock I felt the first time Darth Vader told Luke he was his father. The film was beautifully shot, the framing, blocking, and cinematography created an intense and moving work of art, which created countless scenes that were so amazing that they became iconic examples of pop culture. The dialogue was well written and compelling as well, making me care about these characters in ways I never imagined I would through simple, yet powerful and utterly believable conversations.

All Revenge of the Sith made me care about was just getting to the end so that I could see the final lightsaber fight between Anakin and Obi-Won, which was admittedly cool for three minutes, but soooooo f*****g long that by the end I was glad just to see it over. I never felt any compelling feelings like I did while I watched Empire, even though this movie contained scenes that were so promising they should have written themselves! I mean, a war on Kashykk between an army of Wookies and killer robot commandoes? How can you possibly screw that up? Even worse, since I felt nothing for these characters there was a void of emotional response when they started to meet their fates. Padme’ dies? Oh well. Mace Windu gets thrown out a window to his death?  No biggie. Anakin becomes Darth Vader? A great idea in theory that turned out lame and flat out retarded as he screamed “NEEE-YOOOOOH!” in front of a laughing audience. The point is, the “art” of this film, the component that was supposed to elicit some sort of emotional response from me, did nothing of the sort. The cinematography is bland and uninspired, the acting is wooden and yawn-inducing, and most importantly, the story is a boring and muddled mess, but Roger Ebert still gave this movie his second highest rating possible.

Now, compare this film to Rockstar’s flawed but brilliant masterpiece Red Dead Redemption. Roger Ebert argues that a lack of cinematography automatically detracts from a mediums’ ability to be art, but this game immediately draws the audience into a deep and interesting story with a brilliantly shot opening cut scene of our hero John Marston traversing the countryside of the Wild West aboard a packed train. The musical score is taut and foreboding, and the camera switches between shots of the beautiful wasteland and a worried Marston looking out his window, conveying the feeling that Marston is fearful of an unknown challenge he will have to face out there. Without our hero ever saying a word we as an audience are already invested in discovering what fate awaits this man that we have known for less than five minutes, and it only gets better from there.

Throughout the course of this game we follow Marston on a suicide mission into the West, fueled by nothing but a vague promise of being able to return to his family once his mission is complete. We witness Marston develop friendships and relationships with a wide variety of interesting and crisp dialogue and situations, see him plunge begrudgingly into dangerous predicaments, and guide him on an epic quest of excitement and adventure towards reaching his family again. Rockstar exceeds expectations at the rich character development we see in this game, not just with Marston, but with a plethora of supporting characters as well. We witness Marston evolve and adapt as he deals with a cast that includes a shady government agent, a female ranch hand and cowgirl, a creepy grave robber, a snake oil salesman, a legendary gunslinger, a perpetually drunken Irish mercenary, a philosophical sociopath, and a slimy but charismatic Mexican revolutionary.

As we follow Marston we come to learn that the people he is hunting are former friends of his, and we feel his pain as he ends of the lives of each and every one of these former vigilantes-turned-criminal. We witness his sadness, and then his loneliness as we discover that he is a dying breed of man in this changing America, and even after he fulfills his legal obligation and is re-united with his family the story delivers one more gut-wrenchingly powerful final twist to the player.

SPOILERS:

Several months after finally being re-united with his family, his ranch comes under attack by the very people who promised him sanctuary. After fighting off waves of would be invaders, John tells his family to leave out the back door of his barn, then steps out to face an army and make the ultimate sacrifice. Those who have played the game can verify how powerful this moment is, the only sound being James footsteps and the tall grass blowing in the wind and the beating of his racing heart, the army standing like a silent sentinel as they have their guns drawn in pure fear of this one man. And finally, the powerful moment when James finally pulls on his attackers, taking several down before finally succumbing to the sheer firepower of his enemies.

END SPOILERS:

By the way, this twenty second moment was more powerful and beautifully done than anything in the prequel trilogy combined, and even though the moment is outstanding in itself it’s the emotional connection that the game successfully made with the viewer that makes it so utterly brilliant and unique.

Now not to get personal, but let’s discuss what I consider to be the largest single element in film that creates an emotional response from me and is something I truly consider artwork, story driven character development, or character arcs if you will. What is a character arc? In a nutshell an arc is the change a protagonist or even antagonist will go through during the course of events in a story. A great example of a character arc would be Han Solo from the original Star Wars. The first time we meet Han he is more anti-hero than hero, he runs an illegal smuggling business, takes advantage of our hero’s desperation, he’s cocky, he’s arrogant, and he shoots a man in cold blood (first I might add). You never would have expected this man to become a hero of the Rebellion and the protagonists’ best friend, but after being forced into extraordinary circumstances he begins to grasp their ideals as his own, and by the end of Return of the Jedi he’s a stalwart friend, a great military leader, and a genuine and noble role model. None of these changes are forced by the way, they occur organically and naturally, the result of his adaptations to incredible situations and circumstances. He never loses his renegade edge, if he did then that would be the end of Han Solo as we know him, but instead he grows and matures into a better man because of it.

Now, can we find any character like this in the new Star Wars trilogy? Nope. Did Obi-Wan grow and mature? Nuh-uh. Did Padme’ develop as a character? Not at all. Did we witness any major characters mature due to circumstances at all? NO! And don’t try to use Padme’ and Anakin falling in love because that is not maturing, it’s a natural emotion. You might say Anakin had an arc because he was a good guy who became a bad guy, but when that change occurs it’s jarring, abrupt, and awkward and it doesn’t make any sense. I think at one point during the new trilogy I felt kind of bad for him because he was doing what he did in the name of love, but literally ten seconds after lamenting how he killed Mace Windu and crying about it he blindly agrees to murder countless Jedi children and ambassadors without asking any question. This is (literally) how the scene went.

                  Anakin: (after helping kill Mace Windu) What have I done? (collapses and cries)

                  Emperor: You are fulfilling your destiny, Anakin. Become my apprentice.

                  Anakin: I will do whatever you ask master.

That’s not an arc, that’s lazy writing. That would be like in the original trilogy if Luke and Han had their famous scene when they were dressed as storm troopers in the Death Star control room and the scene went like this:

                                                  HAN

                         Now, look, don't get any funny ideas.

                         The old man wants us to wait right

                         here.

                                     LUKE

                         But he didn't know she was here.

                         Look, will you just find a way back

                         into the detention block?

                                     HAN

                         I'm not going anywhere.

                                     LUKE

                         They're going to execute her. Look,

                         a few minutes ago you said you didn't

                         want to just wait here to be captured.

                         Now all you want to do is stay.

                                     HAN

                         Marching into the detention area is

                         not what I had in mind.

                                     LUKE

                         But they're going to kill her!

                                     HAN

                         (Pause) You’re right Luke! Oh I have

                          realized the error of my ways! I will

                          now devote myself to helping the

                          Rebel Alliance!

And despite its’ massive budget and undertaking, countless digital effects, and a massive cast of talented actors the new trilogy utterly fails to create any sort of character arc, leaving us stuck with wooden, boring caricatures of archetypes.

Now compare this turd to a hit game called Mass Effect 2. In summary, the game is an interactive adaptation of Star Trek, but a well made and fun one. Its’ core gameplay is that of a third person shooter, but its’ main driving force is its’ rich and detailed character development and the ability to create a custom world around you through the consequences of your decisions. For example, in the first game I chose to save a race of insects that were perceived as a threat. As a result, in the second game a woman who was saved by these insects came up to me with a message from this race thanking me for allowing them to live, and promising their allegiance to me in the coming battle. Now Roger Ebert stated that having control over a situation and character detracts from a medium’s ability to be considered art, so while I don’t exactly agree with that statement I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and say that OK, sure… since we are directly controlling the man Commander Shepherd (the main character) is becoming and the world he is creating, his story won’t be entered into the equation.

Where this statement does NOT apply however, is in the story arcs and character development of the rest of your crew. Every crew member you take onto the ship has rich and unique back story to them, and the more you learn (NOT control, but learn) about their lives, their situations, their plights, and their motivations, the more you learn about their personalities and behaviors. Some of them come on board with a preconceived positive view of you, others come on board and make no attempt to hide how they want you dead, but each character is unique and interesting. As time goes on these crew members stories converge with your main quest, and as a result each individual grows into a stronger, more mature soldier that begins to trust you as their commander. Again, a natural change of character due to the course of events in the story, sounds an awful lot like an arc doesn’t it?

Christ, even the artificial intelligence on your ship has a character arc! When the game starts EDI is an experimental AI designed to help streamline the efficiency of your ship, but NOT control it. At first she doesn’t understand human emotion very well, she gets defensive when you try to explain things to her, and she gets in constant fights with your pilot “Joker”. As time goes on though EDI begins to learn and grows fond of everyone on the ship, she even starts to play pranks on Joker as a way to better understand human emotion. Eventually the ship comes under attack, and as a last resort Joker unshackles EDI to purge the virus out of the system and escape. After all is said and done not only does EDI NOT try to kill the crew like every other Hollywood thinking machine, but offers to re-shackle herself if it will help ease tension about her control over the ship. She even tells you “I would never allow any harm to come to any of you as a result of my actions, you are my crew”, and even Joker, her most stalwart opposition, argues that she really saved their asses and should be allowed to remain free in the systems.

When the time comes to launch the final attack attack on the enemy you have grown to like and respect each member of your crew, so every single loss you face is a punch to the gut unlike anything witnessed in any movie. I felt devastated when Wash died in Serenity, but that feeling was nothing compared to pit I felt in my stomach when I saw Mordin Solus, my Salarian science expert, get shot and killed in the final mission. I almost threw my controller across the room in anger, a huge difference in emotional response from saying “Oh no they di’in!” and then just going right back to watching the movie. You could argue that since the game takes around twenty hours to complete characters are given more time to develop than films, but that’s that doesn’t work here for two reasons:

1.      While the overall story takes twenty hours, each character is given roughly 20-30 minutes for direct, actual character development and conversation, depending on how much you want to hear about them.

2.      The Star Wars prequels were given over six hours to get me to care about their characters, and they still failed magnificently.

 Through simple character development Bioware created a game that allows you to feel more deeply about a character than pretty much any film in Hollywood, and last I checked caring about a non-existent character or situation in a story is the epitome of “creating an emotional response”, hence, art.

At the end of the day pretty much all of Roger Ebert’s arguments fall flat, and it’s not because they are bad arguments, but mostly because they are poorly thought out and not researched at all. His lack of knowledge on the topic of video games doesn’t give him the right to even talk about one in depth, let alone completely insult and bash the industry as a whole in one sweeping statement. His argument without knowledge would be like if I called Hitler a great man because all I knew were the following facts about him:

1.      He was responsible for saving Germany from a crushing depression.

2.      He was a brilliant wartime tactician, overcoming amazing odds against him despite not being allowed to build weapons.

3.      He was a decorated soldier who served on the front lines during WWI.

It’s a blanket statement made without any proper research or study, and declaring it without taking the time to study all the facets of your idea makes you sound like a fool. Even worse, a broad declaration like his completely steamrolls over everything that goes into a good piece of art, doesn’t take into account the feeling or motivations of the creator, and sounds as egotistical and uninformed as something a 6^th grader would say in a playground argument.  Ebert has been saying a lot of things lately that have gotten many people to view him as an arrogant, pompous, out of touch ass, and I hope for his sake he is doing it for attention and not because he truly believes it. The next time he releases an intentionally degrading blanket statement such as this, I hope he puts a little more research into it than none at all. Now before you ask, no, I do not think I am smarter, better, or more sophisticated in my thoughts than Roger Ebert (I mean, look at the title of this entry for God's sake), but one thing I certainly AM NOT is blind, stubborn, or afraid to admit when I'm wrong.