John's Movie Musings

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+

Any of you remember Payback? I saw it years ago when it came out, and now it's back for a Director's Cut. Why should you care? Read the blurb:

Payback is bad guy Porter's MO after his wife and partner steal his heist money and leave him for dead -- or so they think. Director Brian Helgeland was cut from the project upon negative reactions to his originally dark, more violent action thriller. Seven years later, he was allowed to re-edit and re-score the film for this gritty director's cut with a different ending.

Sound awesome? Yeah, I thought so, too. The problem was I had no recollection of the original cut. As this one went on, I remembered a few scenes, but for the most part, this was like watching a completely new movie.

Turns out, this is a completely new movie (I cheated and looked up the differences). Most Director's Cuts just add a scene or two, but this has new music, a new look (the bleach effect is gone), and a new villain. Kris Kristofferson's character is gone and several scenes change because of it. The ending is completely different. It's not even close to what it was.

So how is it? Well, it's hard to say. I think it's a better version of the film, but I'll forever be comparing revenge flicks to Chan-wook Park's Oldboy, Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance, and Lady Vengeance. All three of those are brilliant because they cut deep into your emotions. I had no emotional response to Payback: Straight-Up. I didn't really care if Mel got his money back so I'll probably forget this version just like I did with the first.

If you're interested in this one, I'd suggest watching both cuts back to back. I've also heard the special features on Straight-Up are really good, but I found that out after I'd sent it back.

If any of you see this, let me know what you thought about it. And for those looking for a good revenge flick, go watch Park's movies. All three of 'em.

Grade: C+

A few months ago, I rented the first two Bourne movies to rid my temporary amnesia of the storyline. I knew they were great films, but I'd forgotten just how good they were. The action was great, the storyline never grew stale, and Matt Damon showed that he can genuinely pull off badass. All this from one of the most clichéd story devices ever. Go figure.

For The Bourne Ultimatum, we get the origin story. It's odd getting there in the last act of the trilogy, but it works out because it finally answers a few questions left lingering from the previous two. Not all of them, though. I liked Julia Stiles's character in these movies and even though she has a larger part in this one, they never flesh out her role. She seems important, but at the end I was asking, "but what about Julia?" That could be just 'cause I'm a guy, though.

That's all just minor quibbling as the movie is excellent. But the best part of this one? They issued Ritalin to all the cameramen. The plague of Hollywood that is Shaky-Cam is reduced to minor Wobble-Cam. It comes back in a few scenes, but I could follow the action without audibly yelling for the camera guy to push the "Steady" button.

If you've never seen any of the Bourne movies, do so. The next long weekend you have, rent all three and watch 'em back to back. It truly is an excellent trilogy. I only worry about Hollywood stretching this into a never-ending series. This year, we'll get Star Trek 11 and James Bond 22. Bourne is good with three. Hopefully they let it rest in its goodness, untainted by a fourth...or fourteenth.

Grade: A

Because Netflix is treating me like an addict and cutting me off from the good stuff, I had to make a visit to the dealer down the street. Mr. Redbox ain't always reliable, but when I need a fix, the man comes through.

I missed The Kingdom when it came out last year and it's been near the top of my "Must See" list ever since. Like most movies I really want to see, I kept away from all reviews and plot elements and went into it pretty clueless. All I knew was that there were guns and sand and Jamie Foxx. And if I knew anything about movie taglines, that would have been it. The Kingdom. Guns. Sand. Jamie Foxx.

The movie is as good as I hoped it would be. The first two acts play like a good crime thriller with act three hitting you like the mother of all Holy Craps. It's crazy intense. And in a good way.

I did have a small problem with Jennifer Garner, though. Through the whole movie she looked like she was confused as to how to use the gun in her hands. So I'm thinking to myself, "I know you know how to use that. I saw four seasons of Alias and you didn't have any problems with 'em then. Why now?" Actually, it's probably just great acting on her part with the character she was playing and I'm just sad and bitter there's no more Alias.

If you check this out, be sure to look at the bonus features. Like all graduates of American High Schools, I know nothing about Saudi Arabia and there's an informative timeline that steps you through that nation's history. It's fascinating. There's also another feature that let's you watch the third act from an uninterrupted viewpoint of each character. It's neat to see how it was filmed and what the editor had to work with as he pieced it all together. Cool stuff.

If you couldn't tell, I really enjoyed this one. If you haven't yet, be sure to check it out and keep the disc spinning for the bonus features.

Grade: A

OK, so I was surprised when Netflix shipped me this. First, that I had actually put it into my queue and second, that it was at the top. It was then I noticed that the top 15 movies in my queue had a "Long Wait" or "Very Long Wait" status. Curse you Netflix. Curse you and your stupid long wait queues.

So anyway, there's only one of you who even knows what this movie is about, so I'm gonna spoil it. Why? So you can enjoy the hilarity buried within two hours of putrescence. It's like a cream-filled crapcicle and I'm gonna spare you from the crap.

DOA is a movie based on a video game. Not just any video game, a fighting game. Think Mortal Kombat without the kool. Like every fighting game ever made, there is no story so they go with generic fighting plot number 1: invite people from around the world to a remote island to compete in a winner take all contest of skill and endurance. Blah, blah, blah.

But here's the good part. The maniacal crazyman living on the island is played by Eric Roberts. Yeah, that Eric Roberts, who's like 80 now. Anyway, when all the fighters arrive on the island, he injects them with nanobots that analyze their fighting styles. Actually, the movie calls it "moves" but I just couldn't bring myself to say it.

After the tournament has almost wrapped up, Mr. Evil Old Man downloads the remaining fighters' "moves" into a pair of sunglasses. Read that again. While wearing the sunglasses, Eric Roberts is a badass and cannot be defeated because he knows everyone's moves. Seriously, I can't make this up. Eventually, Eric Roberts's Sunglasses of Ultimate Badassery (ERSUB) go flying off his head and the heroes finally beat him. I then realized that if this were a better movie, they would have "finished" him. Oh well.

The one person I know who has played this game may find the movie somewhat hilarious. For the rest of you, you've been warned.

Grade: F