John's Movie Musings

Remember the story of Joseph and Pharaoh in Genesis? No? Well, it's about this guy (Joseph) who becomes Pharaoh's right hand man after some extraordinary circumstances. The Last King of Scotland is very similar, but instead of Egypt, it's in Uganda. Instead of 2000BC, it's in the 1970s. And instead of Joseph and Pharaoh, we get James McAvoy and Forest Whitaker.

Forest won an Oscar last year for his performance as the Ugandan President. Man, did he deserve it. The movie itself is great, but it's worth watching just for him. He is such a recognizable guy, yet I completely forgot everything else he'd been in as I watched. I can't say enough good things about how great he is.

Now McAvoy is becoming one of those actors that seems to be in everything. Sort of like Shia LaBeouf. The difference being that McAvoy isn't freaking annoying (yet). Shia is becoming like Candyman to me. I'm afraid if I say his name too many times, he'll appear behind me and annoy me to death ("No-no. N-n-n-o"). Not so with James, so let's stick with him.

It's a good thing McAvoy is tolerable because the story focuses around his character. He plays a Scottish doctor who heads to Uganda to "do some good." Things happen and he soon finds himself as the President's chief advisor. More things happen and the movie ends, leaving you trying to remember the last time you saw a movie so great.

The story is "loosely" based on historical events. I'd tell you what those are, but you'll just go look 'em up in Wikipedia and completely ruin everything. So I won't. If you don't know what the movie is about, keep it that way until you watch it. Trust me on this.

Gillian Anderson also makes an appearance. Remember her from the X-Files? She has a really small (and almost meaningless) part, but her character helps fill in some personality traits of McAvoy's character. It seemed like they may have had a larger role for her, but it may have got cut due to interfering with the main storyline. Who knows.

Anyway, great movies like this should not be missed. If you missed it, be sure to rent it.

Grade: A+

The 2007 Academy Awards airs tonight, so it's kind of fitting Netflix shipped For Your Consideration this weekend. In the genre he perfected, Christopher Guest mocks the movies and all aspects of its culture.

You may not think you know who Christopher Guest is, but he's the same guy who did Best in Show, A Mighty Wind, and This is Spinal Tap, the best of his mockumentaries. If you've seen any of those, you pretty much know what to expect with For Your Consideration. If you've never seen any of them, go get to renting so you can catch up with the rest of us.

Like all his movies, the same cast is in this one (plus Ricky Gervais this time). It's almost funny just to see what kind of character they pop up as. Guest appears as a director of a "home for the holidays" drama that starts getting some Oscar buzz around it. The movie then follows that buzz around all the news outlets, the critics, and the Hollywood TV shows.

If there's any problem with the movie, it's that things might be getting a little formulaic. I don't care too much about that since every scene is just a joke the characters aren't intentionally telling. Guest is a genius in putting character quirks into normal situations and making everything hilarious. It's literary alchemy and few directors have it.

You're gonna like this movie, or you won't. There's really no middle ground. If you saw Spinal Tap and couldn't understand what was so funny about it, you'll hate this one. Now it's not as good as Spinal Tap, but come on, that's like comparing your second slice of pie to your first.

Oh and when you rent it, be sure to watch the deleted scenes. There seemed to be twenty of 'em, but they are all fantastic. Definitely worth sitting through.


Grade: B+

Finally, a decent movie.

Juno came out in December right in the middle of the Writer's Strike. With all the talk shows on reruns, the only place to really hear about this was on the internet. And since most of you were watching the latest "Will It Blend?" you may have no idea what this is about.

Juno is a quirky indie flick about a girl who gets pregnant at sixteen. Think of a John Hughes movie set in today's world. While teenagers of my generation could relate to Pretty In Pink and Sixteen Candles, today's teens probably can better relate to getting knocked up and thinking of reasons not to abort it.

In film, you can tackle heavy subjects like that through serious drama or humor. Juno contains plenty of both, yet still manages to bring real emotion out of every scene. That's hard to do when you're trying to be funny.

Juno also does a great job of just telling a story and making you care about everyone in it. Obviously, it could have been easy for the director to make judgments about the characters' actions and try and make a statement or two, but he avoids all that and just tells a story. It's just part of what makes this one so great.

I don't want to say much more for fear that I may spoil it. This is one of those movies that's best to go into knowing nothing about it. But I will tell you that you'll laugh, you'll cry, and you'll come away with a deep love for everyone close in your life.

This one's still in theaters, so catch it if you have the time and money. Or wait for it on DVD. Either way, this one is a must see.

Grade: A+

On the whole, I hate horror flicks. But, there are two series that I've gotten into: Resident Evil and the far superior 28 Days/Weeks Later. Both have zombies, so maybe there's a connection. I mean, who don't love 'em some zombies?

Anyway, I caught the first Resident Evil because I have this unwritten law to watch every movie based on a video game. "But John," you say, "those are crap. Always." I know, I can't explain it, but I have this deep hope that one day I'll live to see a decent convergence of the medium. And you know what? The first Resident Evil came close. It wasn't great, but it was a decent zombie flick with an interesting, engaging story mashed between brain maulings. Trust me, go rent it.

But then came the sequels. Number two was one brain stem short of horrid and this latest one makes you wish you could feed your frontal lobe to the zombies through the screen.

I read Ain't it Cool News every day and the guys on there have this public hatred of Paul W.S. Anderson. Other than the Resident Evil movies, he's also done masterpieces like Mortal Kombat and Aliens vs. Predator. So the hatred is warranted. Instead of directing RE:Extinction, he wrote it. I find this laughable since I could not find any evidence of writing as I watched it. Sure there's dialog, but it's completely meaningless. Everyone could done their best impression of the Peanuts teacher and nothing would have changed. Wa-wah wah. Zombies. Wah wa-wah wah. Zombies. Wa-wah. Super-Zombies.

It's all horrible and worse yet, they set themselves up for a fourth. And since I continue to watch this drivel, you can bet the review for that one will appear here next year.

I know you're asking why I'm reviewing a straight-to-video movie, but believe it or not, Dragon Wars was released in theaters last fall. It was there for like two days, but you did have the chance to spend $10 on it. Aren't you sad you missed it?

I knew nothing of this and only rented it 'cause it was in Blu-Ray. But after watching the special features, I learned that Dragon Wars is "based" on the Korean legend of the Imoogi (not to be confused with Unagi). The director had a huge desire to bring the Imoogi legend to the West. And out of this desire we get CGI dragons fighting in Los Angeles. Lucky us!

So let me explain the Imoogi legend. 500 years ago - wait. Why is it always 500 years? Why not 327, or 642? Anyway, 500 years ago a girl (named Yu-gi-oh or something) was born in Korea. Her job was to bond her essence with Imoogi so that he could become more powerful and win the dragon battle waging in heaven (Yes, I had to check the MPAA rating after hearing that. But it's all innoncent. Consider it something lost in translation). Unfortunately, before this could happen, the evil dragon came down and attacked the girl's village (well, more like a fortress, really). Now pay attention here. The evil dragon brought his entire army of soldiers, little flying dragons, and lizards with missile launchers on their backs. This massive force (with scenes straight out of Lord of the Rings) attacked the ancient fortress, only to be defeated by ninjas who appeared out of nowhere (duh). The ninja attack gave the girl enough time to escape to a cliff and commit suicide.

OK, I buy that. It was ninjas, after all.

Fast forward to today's Los Angeles and the girl is resurrected as a reject from "The O.C." There's a boy in all this, too, but I could never figure out his point in it. Anyway, he gets resurrected in LA, too. After a string of laughable coincidences, the two find each other just as the evil dragon appears. His army then materializes out of scrolls around the city and all hell breaks loose.

But where's Imoogi, you ask? Well he just kind of shows up for no reason. You see, the evil dragon's army kidnaps the two O.C. rejects and takes them to Mordor. Seriously. When they escape they have some charm on their necks that they finally decide to use, and when they do, the entire evil army evaporates. In two seconds, the battle is over. I was kinda bummed they didn't use the ninjas again. I realize they're ninjas, but I know of one that shouldn't have been too tough to find.
Anyway, Imoogi appears, essences are bonded, and everything is restored to normal.

OK, I won't draw this out. This is a crappy movie. Absolutely horrible. But, it's laughably bad, so it's kinda worth watching. Just like "American Idol."

Grade: F (but an A if watched during a Uwe Boll marathon).

I caught There Will Be Blood yesterday afternoon and I still have no idea what I think about it. I'm hoping that as I type out my thoughts, I'll come to some conclusion by the end.

What I do know is that Daniel Day-Lewis is a man among men. The dude puts out one or two movies per decade (it seems) and every time I have a "Why doesn't he do more movies" conversation with whoever I'm with. There Will Be Blood is no exception. He's awesome. In fact, he's up for an Oscar and I'd be surprised if he didn't get it.

But what about the rest of the movie? Well, it's up for eight Academy Awards (including Mr. Day-Lewis's) so the critics love it. It's entertaining to watch, but it does without a lot of traditional storytelling devices. There is no main villain and no major themes to explore. Greed carries through a lot of the story, as is religion (through the fringe, almost cult-ish elements of Charismatic Christianity), but I didn't come away with any central point. It's just a story about an Oil man in the early 1900s and the ups and downs of his life.

I'm not really sure how to recommend this. I was entertained through the entire thing (it's over two and a half hours long), and I can't think of a scene that wasn't interesting. But this movie is up for Best of 2007. Really? Maybe I've watched one too many Die Hard's or Rocky's. Or maybe the critics have watched too few. Either way, their idea of a great movie and mine don't match up.

It'll be a few months before this one comes out on DVD, but it's certainly worth a rental. If you check it out, let me know what you thought of it.

Grade: B-

Across the Universe should have worked. The brilliance of Once still lingered in my heart and here was a musical filled with Beatles songs. I should have got West Side Story with Paul and John. Instead, I got Rent without the AIDS. "But John," you say. "Rent without AIDS is just a crappy New York love story set to song." Exactly.

I should back up for those of you who have never heard of this movie. Across the Universe follows two main characters, Jude and Lucy (/rollseyes). There are five or so other characters that are central to the story, but those are the two you are supposed to care about. Hint: you don't.

While most musicals make up their own songs, this one uses Beatles tunes (like "Hey Jude" and "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds"). I'd joked with a friend prior to watching that if the movie sucked, I could at least listen to it and be entertained. Wrong. See, I'd mistakenly thought the movie would use the Beatles' original master tracks. Instead, I get a cast of Rent rejects trying to imitate the Fab Four. To be fair, some of them do an OK job -- Jude, for instance. The rest made me wish John Lennon would raise from the dead as a zombie and devour their brains.

Another problem I had is that I'm pretty sure the director wanted to get all his favorite Beatles songs into the movie, even if they didn't fit. There were several moments where the movie paused and a crappy music video was inserted. And by the end it seemed like they were running out of time, so you only get parts of a song. Sometimes, you get two songs mashed on top of one another. Two songs that have absolutely no similarities in rhythm, tone, or style. And don't get started on the crappy, drugged-out songs where everyone gets naked. Mind you, I have no problem with drug-induced nudity, but only if it's done properly in context... What?

I may have been too harsh on this one, but I expected so much more. There are some cameos that are funny and the cast isn't horrible (well, most of them anyway). But if you're in the mood for a musical, rent Once or even Rent. Both are better movies and (I can't believe I'm saying this) their songs are better.


Grade: C

Way back in 5th grade, I was Pente champion of Ranchwood Elementary School. In 6th, I came in 3rd after a brutal defeat to my brother. After my two years of near dominance, Pente is now just a topic of self-lifting conversation whenever I see people playing. Fortunately, those conversations end after I get beat in 5 rounds.

Now imagine if Pente had consumed my life from 5th Grade to Thirty-something (and beyond). And instead of Pente, it was Donkey Kong. You'd have a pretty good idea of what King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters is about.

"But wait," you say. "This is a movie about video games. By law, it must suck." True, that is the law, but this documentary transcends Kong and offers a look into the lives of those consumed by some inner drive to win.

Back when I was winning at Pente, Billy Mitchell was winning at Donkey Kong. And he got famous for it, setting the world record high score. He was so good, no one touched his score for decades. Finally, some teacher named Steve Weibe decided he could beat that score. King of Kong follows Steve into the freaking bizarre world of classic arcade competitions in his attempts to beat Billy's untouchable score.

As you might imagine, that world is a bit unusual. Cameras and natural light rarely make an appearance. And while it's easy (almost too easy) to mock the denizens of this world, King of Kong looks deeper into their culture. I watched this like a Natural Geographic show on the pygmies, asking why these people continued to pour their lives into decades-old games the rest of the world had left behind.

And then it hit me. During a moment where the Guinness Book of World Records gets involved, Steve Weibe's daughter asks a simple, innocent question that cuts to the heart of everything. This movie is not about Donkey Kong or classic arcade games. It's about those meaningless things in our lives that consume us, for one reason or another. After that, the 8-bit shell encasing the movie crumbled to reveal a universal question about what we devote our lives to.

And it's all brilliant. Steve's determination and humility makes you root for him. Then, after the interviews with his wife, he gets your pity. Billy Mitchell is the definition of evil, complete with a cult of star-struck followers. He'll make you swear at the TV, I promise.

This is a must see. You may even start to re-examine the priorities in your life. With a bit of wisdom, that's a very good thing.

Grade: A

So I accidentally threw myself into a theme of director's cuts. Like Payback, Superman II also got "the director is whining, so let's give him his own version" treatment. I also recognize that in my review of Superman: Doomsday, I said I wasn't the biggest fan, but this makes the second Superman movie I've seen in less than a month. I'll humbly keep quiet while you point and laugh.

So here's the story on Superman I and II. The original Superman (starring Christopher Reeve) was directed by Richard Donner and written by Mario Puzo, the same guy who wrote The Godfather. Donner had a two-part story in mind, so he filmed I and II at the same time. Superman II was about 70% done when Donner had to shift his attention to editing I because it was running behind schedule.

After Superman I was released in theaters (to outstanding reviews), Donner and the studio had a major falling out and Donner was cut from Superman II. In his place, the studio put Richard Lester in charge. In order to have his name on the credits as director, 51% of the movie had to be his, so he cut major sections of Donner's version and put in his own. Lester, who also directed Superman III, had a campier (read: crappier) vision for the series, so Puzo's more serious script was rewritten to include more "jokes." Marlon Brando also wanted an insane amount of money for his scenes (already filmed) to be used in II. The studio didn't want that, so Brando was cut out completely. The movie was released in theaters and started the downward spiral of increasingly bad Superman films.

Fast forward almost 20 years and people on the internets started talking about what Superman II would have looked like if Donner could have completed his vision. I knew nothing of this, so I assume these discussions were buried under the arguments about how much more awesome Batman is.

Anyway, after going back and forth on it, Donner settled the legal issues and restored/ re-edited his vision of Superman II. Or at least as close as he could get since he couldn't go back film any more (Rest in peace, Christopher Reeve). He also didn't want to Lucas-ize it and add today's special effects into an 80s movie, so he just cut together what he already had.

So how is it? From a big picture perspective, it's fascinating to see what happens when a studio gets in the way of a director's vision. Donner's version fits a lot more closely with the original Superman and expands some themes from it. Over half the movie is "new" and with Brando's scenes back in, there's a lot of added character development that helps set a new tone to the story.

Not all is perfect, though. Donner originally intended for the first movie to end in a cliffhanger with the three super-villains escaping from their mirror prison and wreaking havoc on the moon. That scene got moved to Superman II, so I ended with Superman rolling back time (remember Supes flying backwards around the earth?). However, that was supposed to be the ending to II. Since this is Donner's version of how II should have looked, you have Superman I and II with the same beginning and ending. That's odd, to say the least, but taking the series as a whole, it's neat to see "what should have been."

There's not many of you who will be interested in this. And that's ok. But for those of you who enjoy listening to the director's commentary on DVDs, this is a must see. If you are a Superman fan, rent Superman I, then this. Or, if you have lots of spare time, rent Lester's Superman II and watch it before this one. For everyone else, just read the Wiki.


Grade: B+