The Fighter

The Fighter is the story of "Irish" Micky Eklund, a boxer from Lowell, MA who overcame long odds and a difficult family to become Welterweight Champion of the world. Marky Mar . . . I mean Mark Wahlberg plays Micky, and when we pick up the story he is stuck fighting no name fighters in an effort to get noticed so he can make real strides in the boxing world. His trainer is his troubled brother Dicky, played by Christian Bale. Dicky is also a former boxer, whose career highlight was knocking down Sugar Ray Leonard in a 1979 fight, but who let his personal struggles with crack addiction ended his career. Micky's manager is his mother Alice, played by Melissa Leo, who is the matriarch from hell, and a barely competent boxing manager.

Micky meets Charlene, played by Amy Adams, a local bartender that encourages and challenges him to be a better boxer and rise above his family problems. Most of the movie centers around this family dynamic. Micky struggles with balancing trying to train seriously for his fights with his loyalty to his brother, who taught him all his in ring moves. He further struggles balancing his newfound love and devotion with Charlene with finding how to properly involve his unreliable family in his boxing life. We watch the depths of Dicky's addiction, from disappearing for hours at a time when he is supposed to be training Micky, to going to jail for a stretch for impersonating the police in a money-making scheme. We watch Alice expertly manipulate her children so that she can continue to benefit financially from Micky's boxing career. Truly a messed up family dynamic.

During the middle of all of this family drama are some nicely shot boxing sequences. Director David O. Russell (who made one of my 50 all time favorite movies, Three Kings, coincidentally starring Wahlberg) expertly handles the actual fight sequences to feel authentic and realistic, which is unlike a lot of other films of this genre which stylize these kinds of fight sequences (such as Million Dollar Baby, for example); the boxing matches felt like they were out of an ESPN 30 for 30 documentary. The boxing is grounded in realism. And Wahlberg looks like a true boxer, with his body giving the physical nuances you expect from a professional. Beyond the ring, Russell really embeds us into this world and the Lowell, MA area. We become part of the community that Micky is fighting for, which makes us root for him throughout, particularly his climactic fight for the title.

The acting is top notch. The true standout of the movie is Bale, who totally encapsulates the well meaning but drug addicted Dicky. I think that in lesser hands this role could have easily been overracted, wooden, and archetypal, but Bale has the creative chops to flesh the character into someone we want to care about despite his struggles. I wouldn't be surprised if he gets an Oscar nod for Best Supporting Actor, and he could win. I also enjoyed Leo as the mother of mindgames (pun intended). Another Oscar contender, she will make you thankful that she is not your mother. Wahlberg and Adams are also solid, as usual, but, they just fall into Bale and Leo's shadows. To use boxing as an analogy, Wahlberg and Adams are stuck up against the ropes while Bale and Leo dance around the ring - which would you find more interesting to watch?

The Fighter is not in the same category as other legendary boxing movies (Raging Bull, Rocky, Million Dollar Baby), but I think it settles nicely into that second tier, with films like Cinderella Man or The Hurricane. I think what sets this film apart from the others is how grounded in realism it is (it is after all based on a true story), the de-stylizing of the fight scenes, and the interesting family focus that it has. I think most fans of boxing and sports movies will enjoy it. Only time will tell if The Fighter gets a shot at the title with the heavyweights of the genre.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 (HPDH1) is the 7th film in the HP series and the first part of the epic finale. It is based on the massively popular book series that was finished in 2007.

Prior to this film, my only experience with HP had been the 6 previous movies. For me, they were all about on equal footing. They all gave you fairly interesting characters, solid visuals, some funny moments, and an intriguing overarching story with Harry vs Voldemort, with each individual installment offering its own interesting plot. I didn't fall all over myself in love with them, but I enjoyed my time with them.

This summer thanks to the suggestion of a friend I decided to read the books. I enjoyed them all very much and not only did it remind me of all the important plot points I had forgotten over nine years, but it filled in lots of story elements left out of the movies.

As I've said in numerous previous posts, I don't like to compare films with their literary sources beyond whether or not the motion picture encapsulated the spirit of the written word. It should be commonly accepted amongst all society that the book will be better than the movie with almost no exception (I can only think of 2 - The Green Mile and The Lord of the Rings). So I won't do any comparisons here. What I will say is that for me, HDHP1 does capture a bit of the spirit of the book, even though I think that spirit is a bit hollow. I thought the first half of the book was a bit meandering and unfocused; this book took me the longest to read because I had a hard time really getting fully invested in the first half, and I think that is because that's what Harry was going through (in the book, Harry and Ron's big fight is around this entire concept). I think that if the book had been just a bit more focused, it would've made for a more focused movie. Alas, twas not to be.

HPDH1 does what it is supposed to do: it gets a bunch of the exposition about why Harry, Ron, and Hermoine are on their quest out of the way, it sets up what many characters are going to need to do for the final chapter, and it also puts Harry and Voldemort in a collision course for their inevitable showdown. While I thought the place where they decided to end the story, with Voldemort finally acquiring the Elder Wand, was a curious choice, as I thought the book presented lots of other more suitable stopping points, I think hindsight may show more insight into the filmmaker's thinking.

Anybody with no previous knowledge of HP will be hopelessly and utterly lost. The filmmakers have wisely decided that anyone interested in HPDH1 is already a fan and, at a minimum, seen the previous 6 movies, so they jump right in with the story and keep it moving. I appreciate that, as some studios try to re-establish certain characters or ideas in the hopes of orienting new audience members. This keeps the story moving forward. While at times it did feel like the filmmakers were trying to check off all the events in the plot like it was a "to-do list," the film, for the most part, kept rolling forward.

Honestly, there's not much more to say. If you love HP and you were excited about HPDH1, you should be satisfied, as the movie did everything it was supposed to; yes, some character points or plot events from the book were modified or combined, but nothing that was detrimental or mangled the storytelling. If you have no interest in HP, you probably aren't even reading this. Here's hoping HPDH2 is a magical finish.

Tron: Legacy

Tron: Legacy (TL) is the long awaited and anticipated follow up to the cult, sci-fi, nerd fave Tron, released in 1982. The original Tron was a visual and technical achievement for its time, which is one of the reasons it holds such a hallowed place in the hearts of geeks everywhere. The plot? Eh, not as forward thinking as its visuals, but that is no matter for fans. The iconic images of the cycle race, the pi-looking space ships, the evil orange vs heroic blue color palette have cycled through the minds of its fandom for almost 3 decades.

Unfortunately for Disney, the original Tron was a box office disaster. It was such a flop that Disney has barely released it on any home video format; in fact, when I logged on to Netflix to grab the original again in anticipation of TL, I couldn't find it as they didn't have it (which is highly unusual for them). Disney basically buried the original in its coveted vault and spoke little of it again, getting what I like to call the Song of the South treatment.

(Which probably leads you to the following question: Alan, what do you mean the Song of the South treatment? Well, here's a random aside/film history lesson for all you inquiring minds: Song of the South was a 1946 Disney movie that combined live action with animation. The movie, which if I remember correctly - it's been almost 7 years since I've seen it - was set in an older time (late 1800s?) and was about an African American man named Uncle Remus, who was kind of a caretaker of a young Caucasian boy whose parents were separating. He would cheer up the boy by telling him stories of Br'er Rabbit, who would consistently outwit the dumb Br'er Fox and Br'er Bear. If this sounds familiar it is cause this movie was the inspiration for the ride Splash Mountain at Walt Disney World; this movie is also where the song Zipadee Do Dah came from. What's that you say? What's the big deal? Here's the thing: since the movie is set in the South during what I believe is a older time, the Br'er Rabbit stories and many of the scenes involving Uncle Remus are really bad racial stereotypes of African Americans. The movie was heavily protested when it was released, with the NAACP calling for a total boycott from the African American community, was heavily protested the first time it was released on video, and was heavily protested when Disney considered re-releasing it in 2007. Heck, people heavily protested the opening of Splash Mountain because of its association with the movie. Because of this, Disney rarely speaks of or references this film ever because of the public animosity towards it. So if you ever hear me refer to something as getting the Song of the South treatment, it means that the studio basically acts like the movie never happened. Glad you asked)

Because Tron got the Song of the South treatment, I was surprised that Disney decided to make a sequel, but I knew that they could make a good movie. And when I saw the trailers, I was jazzed.

With good reason. The film is a visual wonder, offering tons of quality special effects that bring you right into the world of TL. Unlike its predecessor, there aren't that many games played in TL, but they do re-create the classics: the pong-like disc throw and the motorcycle race. In each of these games the advancements in technology make it possible to ramp up the action and suspense. The blue and orange glow from their suits is wonderful, and the look of all the spaceships and locales is stunning. I was very impressed with the overall look of the film.

The plot? Well, it is not rocket science, but it's not a quick explanation either. Rather than try to detail the entire thing, I'll hit the high notes: Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges) disappears in 1989. 20 years later, Flynn's friend Alan gets a page from Kevin's old office. Alan tells Kevin's son Sam about it. Sam goes exploring and boom - he's in the Grid. He finds his dad with the help of Quorra. Dad explains that he created a program, Clu (which looks like a 35 year old Jeff Bridges), who has taken over the grid and is trying to get Kevin's master key disc and jump into the portal that Sam opened to take over the world. Kevin, Sam, and Quorra have to stop Clu and beat him to the portal. Believe me, that is the heavily edited version of the storyline.

As kind of ludicrous as the plot is, it does its job. The plot serves as a facilitator for the filmmakers to bring the audience into TL's world and let it feast on the visuals; for me, this was no different than what Avatar did, although that film's visuals were much better. If you can be ok with the film visuals taking center stage over the plot or characters, you'll be fine - otherwise you'll be bored.

There is one thing, visuals and special effects related, that I do have a bone to pick with. The filmmakers used cutting edge technology to make Clu look like a young Jeff Bridges. The problem is that they use it to try to get a "performance" out of him. In my estimation, no matter how much technology advances, no matter how close we get to capturing human faces, no matter how great computers are, they will never, ever be able to duplicate the subtlety, the nuances, the indescribable "it" that actual human performances give. Every time I looked at Clu I was simply reminded I was looking at something manufactured. While that's probably partly the point, it is a little bothersome. I'm sure that crafting "CGI performances" will be a growing trend in the movie business; I'm just not sure I'll ever believe it.

I also need to give some quick dap to the music. Daft Punk does an amazing job of creating music that has a definite 80s feel but is still somewhat rooted in modern techno. It was unsettling, intoxicating, and somewhat hypnotic, and I mean all that in a good way. It was like they were the snake charmer and we were the snakes, moving along to their harmony. It absolutely enhanced TL's presentation. For me, that is one of the hallmarks of great movie music - if I'm able to notice it, it is almost always great.

TL is a solid movie, but I think that it will be a polarizing film. I said to the friend I saw it with that TL is what Tron would've been had our technology existed in 1982. I don't think he liked it as much as I did, and he replied, "I'm not sure that would be a good thing." That is for you to decide. Game on.

Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader

The Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader (CNVDT) is the 3rd movie installment of the popular book franchise, following Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe (CNLWW) and Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian (CNPC). In the last decade, ever since The Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, and Twilight found success at the box office, Hollywood has rushed to adapt numerous book series for youngsters into a family movie-going experience, and the Narnia book series has been no exception, turning in 3 installments in the last 5 years.

I am a fan of the Narnia books, with CNLWW being mandatory reading in 5th grade. It was such a delightful experience that I chose to read the rest of the series on my own. Some I enjoyed immensely - CNLWW, The Silver Chair, and The Last Battle stand out; others, not so much - CNPC and CNVCT's book versions weren't necessarily my cup of tea. Sadly for me (or maybe fortunately, depending on how you look at it), my memory of the literary stories is not solid. I don't remember all the subtle details and plot points from the books, and I don't have the time (nor frankly the inclination) to re-read them just to watch the films. And I have seen the movie versions of CNLWW and CNPC only once, so any narrative threads weaved from those films to CNVDT were most likely lost on me.

Honestly, I went into CNVDT with fairly low expectations. One reason was my aforementioned lack of enthusiasm for the source book. Best as I can recall it, the book wasn't heavy on action or worried about the main "plot", but more focused on the epic voyage that Lucy, Peter, and Eustace take with Caspian on the Dawn Treader. This made me wonder how they could craft an interesting, engaging plot when the book didn't exactly ooze it. The other source of my trepidation was CNPC. While I enjoyed CNLWW, as I believe they were pretty faithful to the novel that I loved, CNPC departed greatly from its source. Besides being visually unimaginative, it was also long and boring, with a meandering plot that was unfocused. Wasn't going to Narnia supposed to be fun? Weren't you supposed to be transported to a wonderful magical place? Not in the Narnia of CNPC. In a conversation I had with a friend about the film series, he rightly pointed out that in CNPC Peter, Susan, Edmund, and Lucy had to re-learn all of the lessons from CNLWW because they either couldn't remember them or the White Witch magically wiped their memories. I'll let you decide which happened.

And I wasn't the only disenchanted fan - CNPC bombed out at the box office. While some of its demise was due to moving its release to the overly cluttered summer season, it was also the distinct drop in quality that kept fans away (with good reason). And I think that was the main feeling I had throughout CNVDT - the filmmakers realized that they needed to win fans back to the movie series, so they focused the film on the essential plot elements without much deviation for some of the whimsy and charm that make up the book.

And what is the plot you ask? In this installment, Lucy, Edmund, and their irritating cousin Eustace magically get taken back to Narnia, where they immediately hookup with (now King) Caspian on the Dawn Treader. He's on his way to find the missing 7 Lords of Narnia so that they can head to an island of Aslan's where they will all present their magical swords so they can undo the evil on another island, or something to that effect, as they never stop long enough to fully explain the importance behind ending this evil or the island or anything. But it gives us a reason to be there and that's what's important I guess. And at just under two hours, this is a greatly focused, somewhat distilled version of the CNVDT book plot, which again, is to be expected as the movie series is trying to win back fans.

You say you want interesting character development? Sorry homeslice, you won't find that in CNVDT. The only characters that they "develop" is Lucy, Edmund, and Eustace - I use quotes because their development is so basic and quick that it's hardly development at all. Lucy is jealous of her older sister Susan's beauty, Edmund believes himself a leader and is still haunted by the White Witch, and Eustace just doesn't know how to be anything but a douche. Each go through their "journey" to realize that they can become better people at the end, which, no surprise, they do.

There were lots of deviations from the book (too many to list them all), but only one really bothered me: the return (again) of the White Witch. Why is she still here? Why do they keep bringing her back? I know that Edmund as a character needs to grow, but why do they have to keep using the White Witch? Do they not have any better ideas? Does Tilda Swinton need the money? I just don't get it. None of the other changes were so egregious that it significantly bothered me, (they mostly combined events or used shortcuts to keep the movie moving), but it still irks me that CNVDT's filmmakers have to do it in the first place. I know that screen time is precious and you can't literally adapt the novel into a movie as that's impractical, but you can make the movie while keeping the spirit of the book. That's what the film adaptations of the franchises mentioned in the first paragraph do so effectively, and it's why they're so popular. Any modifications, deviations, or new creative choices are done so with the spirit of the source material in mind. They actually attempt to honor the source material. It seems like the filmmakers of CNVDT were so desperate to get back a viable paying fanbase that they changed things for simplicity and audience accessibility rather than the spirit of the Narnia novels.

Which brings me back to my first and overarching point with CNVDT. Everything that is done, everything that you see, and everything that you experience is designed to win you back. It essentially says "we know we screwed up with CNPC, but look, we can turn this around and make a solid film franchise of this series - just stick with us and keep coming to the theatre." I think at times Hollywood forgets that the reason we loved the books in the first place is because authors like C.S. Lewis knew how to craft a story with interesting characters and engaging plots. Too bad they don't.

I enjoyed CNVDT better than CNPC as it was at least easier to sit through, but it's still not nearly as good as CNLWW was. We'll see if the filmmakers efforts to turn the film franchise around literally and figuratively pay off - if they don't, we may not see any more Narnia films, which would be a shame, because if they could just capture the spirit of the books, they wouldn't struggle to make money; fans like me would be lining up to see them. Which isn't to say I won't see Chronicles of Narnia: The Silver Chair if they ever make it, but I might need Aslan to roar at the filmmakers before they do.

Unstoppable

Denzel Washington is the acting equivalent of Tim Duncan: he is probably the most underrated star at what he does even though everyone acknowledges how great he is, even from an "all time" historical perspective; he is paradoxical in that way. What I mean by that is that he is always great. No matter what the movie is about, no matter what the character he plays, he so rarely has a bad outing anymore, you almost forget that he is one of the greatest actors of all time. Same thing with Tim Duncan. No matter what's going on with his team or what he is doing on the court, people forget he is one of the greatest players in NBA history (btw, Denzel would love that corollary as he is an avid NBA fan).

Unstoppable is no exception. Denzel turns in another great performance as Frank, the engineer on a railroad train who, along with Chris Pine's Will, the train's conductor, decide to catch up with and stop an unmanned train operating under its own power, guided by the railroad company supervisor Connie, played by Rosario Dawson. Denzel is effortless as Frank. We immediately embrace him as this character - an older, wiser, experienced man who has spent his life doing what he does, staying where he is at, and then is expected to teach Will the ropes even though he doesn't really like the rookie and questions his advancement on the rails. Denzel could've very easily let this character be a broad, by-the-numbers template of a character, but with a bit of subtlety, charm, and grace (and just a dash of that killer Denzel smile), he elevates the character, and by extension, the movie. That's the genius of guys like Denzel and Tim - they are able to make even the most mundane, basic jobs great, even when those jobs are actually more complex than the surface would indicate.

Chris Pine and Rosario Dawson also do a good job, although Chris's performance was the least noteworthy. I actually thought the 2nd best performance of the movie belonged to Kevin Dunn, who played the infuriating railroad executive. Just like in Transformers, he has a knack of making whatever screen time he is given memorable, which is a great gift of character actors like him (I'll give that same praise to Ethan Suplee, who is in this movie as the baffoon railroad employee that lets the train get away, but not for this movie. Check out his work in the sublime TV show My Name is Earl).

The one thing about Unstoppable I will give it credit for is that it is a fairly unique idea for a movie in that there are not a whole lot of action films set on railroads, particularly in the 21st century. Despite the unusual setting, the film does a good job of ratcheting up the tension and building to some pretty suspenseful moments, although the end of the film - how the train finally stops - is somewhat of a letdown. But that is a minor quibble.

Tony Scott has shown himself to be a good filmmaker and has a good rapport with Denzel - this is their 5th movie together. I enjoyed this film, and once they stop making movies together, Unstoppable will probably be among my favorite of their collaborations, with Man on Fire. Their synergy seems to be, well . . .

Nope, I'm not gonna say it. You know what I mean.

Quick Entry: Chloe and Waiting for Superman

Yet another quick entry hits my blog and this time it is not because I saw Chloe and Waiting for Superman (WFS) ages ago (I actually saw them this past week), but because I only have a few thoughts on each and I figured trying to expand them into separate, expanded blog entries would be foolish.

If you're not familiar with each, here's my quick synopsis of both:

Chloe is about a woman named Catherine, played by Julianne Moore, who suspects her husband of cheating, so she hires a young woman named Chloe, played by Amanda Seyfried, to tempt her husband and report back to her. Slowly but surely Chloe draws Catherine into her web and threatens to destroy her family. I will say that part of my thoughts contain spoilers, so SPOILER ALERT.

WFS is a documentary film about the deficiencies in K-12 public education in the US, and it also illuminates what are the factors that contribute to successful, sustained learning in a classroom.

Here's my notes on each:

Chloe:

• I like the three principal actors of this film, Julianne Moore, Amanda Seyfried, and Liam Neeson, I just don't like them in Chloe. They all seem to be going through the motions and it makes me feel like they were only there to get a paycheck. The effort from these three was lackluster, particularly from Moore. I was disappointed by that, even if they did have mediocre material to work with.
• I saw the big plot twist, which is when Catherine finds out Chloe was lying about the entire affair with David, about 20 minutes into the movie. That makes getting interested in the remaining 75 minutes very difficult, which is why the lackluster effort by the actors was even more apparent and disappointing. I can tolerate a blasé plot if the acting is solid, and it just wasn't here.
• My biggest problem with the movie was that I didn't understand why Catherine chose to see if her husband was cheating in this way. There was very little groundwork done with her character that made it believable that she would do this. That's shoddy screenwriting right there.
• The one scene that explains why Catherine and David have a strained relationship with their son is deleted. I know this because I watched the deleted scenes and saw the one where he explains why. I cannot fathom why this was cut, as it is a pretty HUGE character development point. Just unexplainable.
• I have enjoyed a few of Atom Egoyan's films (most notably The Sweet Hereafter and Exotica) but this one was terrible. I hope he rebounds with his next film.

WFS:

• I should start by saying I'm biased: my mom is a 4th grade teacher in a public school. This film made me appreciate that much more the hard work and passion she has for the students she teaches and the idealism she has for education. I love her so much and am super proud of her.
• Man, public school is screwed up! That's what I thought first when I left the theatre. WFS does a phenomenal job of clearly and easily laying out the problems with public education, how those problems arose, and what are some steps we can do to fix them. You can't ask for a better formula from a documentary.
• This film packs an emotional punch. You feel sad, shocked, and appalled when they outline the problems with public education (many of the people I saw the movie with cried at some point); you feel invested in the futures of the kids they profile, you feel optimistic when you learn about KIPP schools, and you may, as I did, feel inspired that we can do better for our kids when the credits roll.
• I think this is one of those films that everybody should see. I don't usually say that because with most movies I recognize there will be something that will not connect with everyone, but I think that this is one of those movies that everyone can learn from - even the teachers unions. One of the best documentaries I've ever seen.

So there you have it. Skip Chloe and track down WFS. If you'll excuse me, I need to go call my mom.

Quick Entry: I Love You, Man and The Informant

In the interest of full disclosure I considered not posting on the movies I Love You, Man (ILYM) and The Informant (TI) as I saw them almost 2 months ago, but the whole point of this blog is for me to write at least a little something about the movies I see, so here I go.

Why did I not write about them earlier? Honestly, I don't know. Sometimes I have no strong feelings about a movie one way or the other, and that would be the best way to sum up my feelings about both ILYM and TI. They were fine viewing experiences, but nothing that made me want to write a blog entry immediately.

And so with that, here are some quick notes about each movie, as best I can remember:

ILYM:

• Jason Segel is good, but Paul Rudd is great. I think in comedy, and most comedians will back me up on this, that in any comedy team it is exponentially harder to play the straight man. Playing the goof ball is easy in that you can do crazy, outlandish stuff and it seem appropriate. As the straight man, you have to be just silly enough for the goofball to bounce off of and just smooth enough to make the comedy work. Rudd has proven over and over again (Think The 40 Year Old Virgin) that he is a master at this, and he does it again in this film.
• I'm a Rashida Jones fan and wish she got more leading roles and wasn't on the God-awful Parks and Recreation.
• I like that comedies like the aforementioned Virgin and this movie treat its audience like adults and talk like I do with my friends. How refreshing that they didn't edit it to get a PG-13 rating and suck all the originality of it.
• The first hour is pretty good, but the last 45 minutes or so are a bit lackluster. But the first hour makes it worth it.

TI:

• This is a REALLY quirky movie and has a very specific sense of humor, so be warned in advanced that this definitely won't be everybody's cup of tea. It wasn't mine, and I like to think I'm pretty quirky. I just got continually frustrated by the film's narrative approach, particularly the voiceover, to the point that at about halfway through I was just marking time til the film was over. One of my least favorite Steven Soderbergh and Matt Damon movies that I've seen.
• I applaud Damon's effort, but this character is not very likable, particularly when you get to the last half hour when what's really going on is fully revealed. I won't spoil it, but he is not going to be winning any popularity contests. The only reason I even remotely liked him is because Damon works overtime to make him at least slightly sympathetic.
• The visual look that Soderbergh gives the movie is very sepia-toned, which I'm not sure I would've done with this film, but I will give him credit in that it definitely sets the mood and tone for TI, as it is a slight period piece. The sepia-toned choice makes me think he was trying too hard to be a "filmmaker" and wasn't focused on telling an interesting story. Lately in his film I've been thinking that he needs to get out of his own way. I don't know how else to say it.

That's all I got. Don't judge.

The Karate Kid (2010)

The new Karate Kid (KK), based off the 1984 film of the same name, is part of the continuing trend in Hollywood to remake classic films and TV shows. The main impetus behind this trend is almost purely economical: people that cherish the 84 classic KK (and really, who doesn't cherish that flick) will be likely to lineup for the remake. A film with a built-in audience is more likely to make $$$.

And it works. The new KK is the perfect example, as it made box office gold when released earlier this year.

The difficulty for any film that is a remake of a previous film or TV show, especially one that holds a reverential place in the collective American heart is that since you're familiar with the source material, you go in with certain expectations of how the film should make you feel. You also can't help but compare the remake with the original. It's inevitable.

For me, the new one just doesn't stack up to the original. Now before you start saying "but Alan, you grew up with the 84 KK; of course you're biased," hear me out. I actually have reasons for why I'm not a fan of this one.

My first and biggest issue with this movie is that it is not karate they use - it's kung fu. Now some may think this is no big deal, but the name of the dang movie is The Karate Kid. Why would there not be karate in it??? It makes it feel like the filmmakers are just capitalizing off the franchise's name (which they are, as I stated earlier), which is just unfortunate. The Karate Kid, yet there's no karate. I shake my head.

My second major issue with KK is the length. At 2 hours and 15 minutes, this film is about 20-25 minutes too long. I find it ironic that a film that has Jackie Chan's Han trying to teach Jaden Smith's Dre about focus has surprisingly little focus throughout. There is a lot of extra material in this movie that has nothing to do with the central focus of the movie - Dre preparing for the kung fu tournament while learning how to deal with the issues in his life. It almost seems like the filmmakers decided that since they were filming this in China they should also teach us about Chinese culture. I'm not opposed to learning about Chinese culture, but that's not why I'm watching this film. I want to watch Dre mature.

(Random Aside: on the DVD on which I watched KK, hardly any of the Mandarin was translated via subtitles into English. I don't know if this was intentional by the filmmakers to make us feel lost and confused like Dre or a flaw in my DVD copy. If it was intentional, then the filmmakers were successful in sucking all the dramatic tension out of some crucial scenes, like when Han visits Cheng's dojo, because I couldn't understand what they were saying, which was supremely annoying. If it was a flaw in my DVD copy, then ignore this paragraph)

And KK's dragging pace kills any momentum it tries to build while heading for the climatic tournament. In the 84 KK, the film's pace, like a drum cadence, keeps getting slowly but progressively faster until you hit the end and are on the edge of your seat for the tournament. In this one, the constant detours prevent us from getting that feeling. There are a few moments during Dre's training that make you think "yeah, we're getting to it now". Nope. We follow up those scenes with Dre going with Mei Ying for an afternoon on the town, and then to see her audition, and then to see her dad so he'll let her watch him in the tournament. Major Buzzkill reporting for duty.

My last issue is something I heard a reviewer from the now gone film review TV show At the Movies say as a point of contention with KK. The ages of the main folks in the 84 KK save Mr. Miyagi were high schoolers, which means somewhat adultish. In this film, they're all 12-13 middle schoolers. There's something odd and unsettling about watching kids of that age beat each other up, and while I like Jaden Smith, it is just a little icky to watch him kiss a girl, no matter how sweetly the film handles it.

There are some good points in this movie. Jaden Smith is engaging and charismatic - you can see a lot of his dad in his acting. Jackie Chan is solid stepping into the Mr. Miyagi role of Han, and I always love Taraji P. Henson. But even with their solid performances, you can't help but feel they're not quite as good as their 84 counterparts, and some of the scenes they harken to (hang the jacket evokes wax on, wax off and Jackie Chan does a variation of the strange Mr. Miyagi-is-drunk scene) don't pack the same emotional punch as its predecessor.

Ultimately, if you want the emotional strength, courage, wit, charm, and inspiration that KK is supposed to have, watch the original (the 84 KK is ranked on the American Film Institute's list of the 100 most inspirational movies. Check it out for that reason alone). This KK feels like what it is - a slick, updated, inferior "update".

The Proposal

I'll be honest - I wasn't totally excited about watching this film.

Not because of the cast. In fact, I like all of them a lot - Sandra Bullock is reliably good, Ryan Reynolds, while not my favorite, usually does strong work, Mary Steenburgen is always a sweetheart, Craig T. Nelson, whom I enjoy, and Betty White, who, let's face it, is Betty White. The only cast member I had concerns with is Malin Ackerman, because she's been in a lot of junk (Watchmen, The Heartbreak Kid, Couples Retreat).

My trepidation with the film is the fact it is a romantic comedy. Me and the rom com genre have big beef.

Why you ask? Because it is soooo predictable. Every rom com follows this basic formula: boy and girl meet; boy and girl have attraction but for some reason (girl or boy already taken, boy and girl pretend they don't like each other, boy or girl's family won't "allow" their forbidden love) they spend the next hour to hour and 15 minutes fighting/apart/unhappy/longing for each other before ten minutes before the end one of them realizes "oh snap, we should be together" and they do. Big smooch followed by the credits.

Sound familiar? I know. Exactly. And that's why I generally avoid romantic comedies. All predictably the same. Hence my hesitation with The Proposal.

But I thought I'd give it a shot. Honestly, I had nothing else to do with my day and there were no other On Demand movies to watch.

And I'll admit it - I was pleasantly surprised. There were some moments of genuine humor, mostly revolving around Sandra Bullock's character being a foreigner in Alaska. Sandra Bullock genuinely shines as a cold hearted boss, and Ryan Reynolds does a great job as her foil. And Betty White is Betty White.

It's a cute hour and forty five minutes. I expect that if you like the romantic comedy genre, there won't be any surprises and you'll get the requisite warm-fuzzy feeling you expect by the end. There was nothing about The Proposal that was memorable, but there was also nothing objectionable, which, for me, is a huge compliment. If you're not a rom com person and you've got nothing else going on, this isn't a waste of your time.

Inception

Well, it looks like the summer movie season is complete.

I say that because all the movies I've been waiting for this summer have been released. Usually, I can identify at least 6 or 7 movies during the summer that I am legit excited about. This year? At the start of the summer, there were only 3 movies that made me think, "I need to see that." The list? Toy Story 3, Iron Man 2, and Inception. How sad is it that I'm really not enthused about any more movies this summer?

TS3 & IM2 hopefully require no explanation for my anticipation. If you know me, Inception shouldn't either. I am a big fan of Christopher Nolan, Inception's writer and director. You might've heard of some of his last few films: Memento, Insomnia, Batman Begins, The Prestige, and The Dark Knight. If you haven't seen any one of these movies, stop, go seek them out, and watch them. They are legen - wait for it - dary! (Shout out to How I Met Your Mother, which I've been netflixing lately; they use that phrase a lot. You can thank HIMYM and crappy summer offerings for my lack of more frequent movie posts.)

So when you tell me that Nolan is doing his first original work since his early film Following and is working with a few staples of his previous hits (some of this film's stars include Michael Caine, Ken Wantanabe, and Cilian Murphy), sign me up. I'm there.

And the film delivers on so many levels. The acting is absolutely top notch. Leonardo DiCaprio, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ellen Page, Marion Cotillard, the aforementioned Murphy and Caine and Wantanabe . . . it was practically impossible to mess up with that cast; most are Oscar winners or nominees. The visuals are really strong and help bring the fake yet real world to life. I also appreciated the film's score. It added to the drama.

The plot . . . well, I really can't get into the plot too much. Essentially, DiCaprio plays Cobb, a man who can use your dreams to access information in your mind. To say much more would ruin some of the film's core surprises, so I won't do that.

What I will say is that when I finished it reminded me of two things. First, the dream argument, which anyone who has studied philosophy should be able with reasonable recollection to recount. The dream argument has been philosophized by the likes of Plato, Aristotle, and Descartes, all of whom beg the question, "how do I know that when I am awake I'm not dreaming and that when I'm dreaming I'm not really awake? Which then is my reality?" Philosophy 101 baby!

The second thing I thought of was how I felt after this film like I did after watching the first Matrix movie for the first time. It was like, "I think I know what happened, but I'm not sure; I'll have to watch it again. And even if I thought I knew, it would be darn near impossible to explain it to anyone else." Suffice it to say that you just need to see it and judge it for yourself.

Inception requires its audience to be mentally engaged throughout, so if you're one of those people that goes to the movies to be entertained without having to do any thinking, which is fine, then skip this one or wait for DVD. While I appreciate every once in a while watching a movie that does not require any of my brain fuel to be burned, I appreciate that much more a film that requires me to keep my thinking cap on the whole time. Why you may ask. Because the mind-numbing films severely outnumber the thought-provoking ones.

Inception solidifies Nolan as one of the best filmmakers out there right now. And it only makes me more excited for Nolan's future projects, the next of which will be his third entry into the Batman mythology. My mind eagerly awaits.

Toy Story 3

One of my all time favorite movies, animated or otherwise, is Toy Story. I love the premise: toys that come to life when their owner leaves the room. The head toy, Woody, feels threatened when his kid Andy gets a hot new toy, Buzz. Over the course of the movie Woody helps Buzz realize that their main purpose is to be available for Andy, and they become as close as brothers by the end. That movie has an indescribable quality about it. Whether it is the fantastic plot, wit, humor, charm, or pure joy, Disney and Pixar captured absolute magic. It is hard to imagine that one movie could perfectly encapsulate such a full gamut of emotions. It totally revolutionized movies, animated or otherwise.

I was nervous when they made Toy Story 2. The first TS was a classic. Sequels hardly ever work as well as the original. Hollywood tends to forget what made the original great and try to "improve" the sequel. Why? I don't know. But it angers me. And that's why I was worried about TS2. How could they possibly capture the magic a 2nd time? No way right?

Wrong. They nailed it. The 2nd film explores what happens when toys feel abandoned by their owners. Woody is stolen by an evil toymaker who wants to sell him as part of a vintage set to a foreign museum. Buzz and the gang save him and remind him about his ultimate purpose: to bring joy to Andy. The magic and the genius returned: it was funny, exciting, endearing. TS2 was almost as good as the first - like how the Godfather Part II is almost as good as the Godfather. I breathed a big sigh of relief.

So naturally when I heard Toy Story 3 was being released, it was a bittersweet feeling. While I was pumped to be revisiting the world of Woody, Buzz, and the rest of the gang, I had that same previous anxiety about a sequel. But I have more trust in Pixar than any other movie studio working today. They haven't had a misfire yet and there's only one film in their canon I didn't really enjoy (Ratatouille. I just didn't enjoy it). So I walked in with cautious enthusiasm.

Boy, was I once again blown away. TS3 continues the magic started 15 years ago. In this adventure, Andy is grown and off to college. As before, the gang is worried about being abandoned and not played with. Through a series of mishaps, they end up at a daycare, which is both a blessing and a curse: a blessing because they are never outgrown and kids always want to play with them, but a curse because they never make a deeper connection with one kid.

When the toys arrive at the daycare, Woody immediately decides it's time to go back to Andy, but the rest of the group decides to stay. When they do, it appears like they've arrived at Shangri-La. Barbie finally meets Ken, and the crew meet Lotso, the leader of the daycare toys. He welcomes them and puts them in the infant room, where the toys get roughhoused. But when they ask for reassignments to the main room, where kids play with toys in a civilized manner, Lotso shows his mean streak and shows them that the daycare is like Shawshank.

Meanwhile Woody gets picked up by one of the daycare girls. When he spends the night at their house, he learns the true nature of the daycare and decides to go back and help them. He reunites with the rest of the toys and they make a break for it. At the end of the day, the gang gets back to Andy, and Andy decides to give them to the little girl who took Woody home with her. They all get a chance to love another kid.

There is so much to like in TS3 it's hard to know where to start, so I'll go with my favorites. My favorite part is when Buzz accidentally gets flipped into Spanish mode. Everything about that whole sequence is funny. I also appreciated the commentary they filmmakers make about the ruthlessness of toddler playtime. Barbie and Ken's relationship, particularly when she ties him up and uses his fashion obsession to torture him is great. I was touched when Woody, Buzz, and all the rest of the toys band together in the face of certain incineration. And Buzz's tango with Jessie during the end credits is fantastic.

TS3 solidifies for me that Pixar is the New York Yankees of animation studios. They cannot be beat. They continue to pump out films that stimulate both kids and adults on a deep emotional level. I think TS3 continues the Toy Story legacy. I'll be happy to add this film to my toybox when it comes out on DVD.

Crazy Heart

I am not a big fan of country music. I'm trying my best to get into it (Kenny Chesney and Rascal Flats are pretty good), but there's just something about it that prevents me from getting into it and I don't know why. I've heard a wide range of country artists and groups and it is nearly impossible for me to really like them. I continue to try.

I say this because my only trepidation about watching the Oscar-winning film Crazy Heart (CH) was that it focuses on a country singer. I was worried that no matter how much I may have enjoyed the acting performances or the story, I wouldn't really love the movie because of the focus on country music.

Well color me tickled, was I wrong.

I really liked CH, and I really enjoyed its music. Produced by T Bone Burnett, the mastermind behind the music of O Brother, Where Art Thou?, CH showcases some amazing country tunes, including the Oscar-winning "The Weary Kind". I found my foot tapping and my head bobbing along with the audiences inside the movie. The music is the soul of this movie, and it is really exceptional. The film at points almost plays like a concert movie, complete with audience shots and interesting stage camera shots, and the music was so good that it made me wish I was there. What a pleasant surprise.

But please make no mistake about it, the heart of CH (no pun intended) is Jeff Bridges. He is outstanding as Bad Blake, the past-his-prime country singer that the movie focuses on. His performance alone takes this movie from pretty good to great in the same way that Jamie Foxx's performance in Ray elevates that movie a couple notches. I completely agree with the Academy's decision to award him the Oscar for Best Actor. And this isn't just a lifetime achievement Oscar win for him either - this is probably the best performance of his career. He earned his Oscar.

In my note on Facebook, I wrote that I would've given the Oscar to George Clooney for Up in the Air. I must now recant that pick after seeing this performance. Here's why: Up in the Air would still be a good movie with another actor other than George Clooney as the lead (I think Edward Norton also could've done a great job) because the writing in that movie is so strong - Clooney's performance didn't enhance that film. That's not true with CH. Without Jeff Bridges, this movie is rudimentary and cliche. It could've and probably would've fallen into the usual music biopic traps, but Bridges' performance makes this film different. Using a sports analogy, Jeff Bridges was the male acting MVP. He deserved the trophy.

That's not to say that Bridges is the only strong performance in CH. Maggie Gyllenhaal did a great job as Blake's love interest Jean, deserving of her Oscar nod. She brings a lot of warmth to the movie as a single mom who loves her son and Bad Blake, in that order. And Colin Farrell as country music superstar Tommy Sweet was a nice surprise. He reminds you that when you don't worry about his off-screen antics he is a fine actor. And props to both him and Bridges for doing their own vocal work in the movie. Couldn't have asked for more from this cast.

The story of CH following Bad Blake in the twilight of his career is really interesting and, as I mentioned, avoids a lot of the music biopic cliches. It has lots of heart and charm. The movie progressively makes you more invested in Blake and his struggle to succeed in both his personal and professional lives. You follow Blake all the way to the bottom and then accompany him as he climbs out of the holes he digs himself in. Not only do you cheer for him, you want to cheer for him. For me, that is the essence of the movies at their best.

I think CH is the American equivalent of Once, another fabulous music movie; great music centered around a very touching and somewhat tragic love story that rewards anyone who watches it and goes by way too fast (seek out the Irish film Once; it is so worth your time). At the end I almost wanted to put on my boots, don my cowboy hat, and giddy up to my local honky tonk for a rowdy good time.

Almost.

The A-Team

I wish there was some way to play the old A-Team theme song throughout this entire post. Alas, we're not there yet. Just hum along with me as you read (bum bam bum baaam, bum bum buuuuuumm . . . .)

Unless you're really young, oblivious, or smoked a whole lot of weed (or maybe some combo of the three), you already know that this movie (AT) is based on the 80s tv show of the same name. Hannibal, Face, Murdock, and BA Baracus have finally made their way from the small screen to the big screen.

Random aside: I know others have pointed this out, but the release of The A-Team and The Karate Kid coupled with the Lakers vs Celtics in the NBA, anybody else having an 80s flashback? Maybe I should start riding my bike around the block again.

AT is about a group of four elite Army Rangers: Hannibal, the group's leader and mastermind; "Face" Peck, the master of disguise and ladies man; Murdock, the insane (literally) pilot, and BA (stands for Bad Attitude) Baracus, the guns specialist and all around pimp. Individually they are all the best; as a collective group, there's nobody better in the world. Kind of like the ideal NBA team.

The movie starts introduces us to the characters and shows us how they come together with a little adventure in Mexico killing an evil Mexican General. We then flash 8 years into the future as they go on a tough mission in Baghdad at the tail end of the war: the team must covertly recover US money plates before Iraqis use them to print billions in illegal and unbackable US funds. The operation goes off without a hitch - until the vehicle carrying the General who "orders" the mission explodes and the plates are stolen by a private military group led by the evil Pike.

Our heroes are wrongly blamed for mission going south. They are court martialed and sent to separate military prisons. Of course they escape, assisted somewhat by the shady Lynch, to recover the stolen plates and bring Pike to justice.

Now the film does not worry too much about its plot, and it doesn't have to: you don't come to AT to be intellectually stimulated. Yeah, you'll see all the "plot twists" coming from a mile away, but you won't care cause you didn't come for that. You came to see guns, explosions, good action, and the occasional laugh. And the movie delivers all of that. AT moves along at a really good pace; the two hours fly by. It doesn't try to be serious and tries to capture some of the spirit of the original tv show, which it does to a certain degree.

I especially enjoyed the acting efforts of all four of the principles. Liam Neeson is reliably good as Hannibal and is believable as the team's leader. Bradley Cooper's star continues to rise with a great summer follow-up to last year's The Hangover. Sharlto Copley, who was genius as the man-turning-into-an-alien in last year's surprise District 9. But the biggest, most pleasant surprise is Rampage Jackson. I was concerned about his acting ability when I heard about his casting in this iconic role. But he does a really good job of coupling his natural aggression with well-timed subtlety to give Baracus way more depth than I expected.

I imagine if AT makes enough $$ that there will be a sequel; they definitely left it open for one. If they do, that is one mission I'll happily join.

Tropic Thunder

I don't know how I feel about Ben Stiller as a filmmaker.

Yes, he is a funny actor, particularly when he is being more subtle and not trying to hard to be the over the top Ben Stiller. I know, you're thinking "What does that mean?" Think of him in The Heartbreak Kid. He's ridiculous and schticky. But in There's Something about Mary, he is much more low key and relaxed. It's night and day between those two films (and I won't make any commentary about the difference in quality between those two movies). As an actor, Stiller is fine and I enjoy watching him.

I bring this up because as a filmmaker, unlike his acting work, it's much more difficult to nail down his effectiveness. Take Zoolander: I think of it as Stiller's opus on the absurdity and stupidity of the fashion industry and the materialistic and egotistical nature it inspires. I didn't find it all that funny, but it does make some interesting and poignant points about the subject matter. I wouldn't rate it very good, but it's worth a one-time look.

I think of Tropic Thunder (TT) as his Hollywood equivalent of Zoolander. I won't bother to summarize the plot because it doesn't matter; the plot is simply a vehicle for Stiller to do what he really wants, which is to take square aim at the ridiculousness of how Hollywood makes movies and what actors go through to get into the mind of a character or the atmosphere of a film's setting. And just like Zoolander, I didn't find it particularly funny, but it did raise interesting thematic ideas throughout.

I view TT as I do Entourage. It is an illuminating look behind the curtain of Hollywood and its workings. It gives me a sense of how movies get made and all the ridiculousness that studios and actors will go through for the "love of the craft" (which is code for the big payday or the brightness of the fame spotlight). Don't get me wrong, it's not like I feel like they portray Hollywood in a fair or honest light, but all of the absurdity is underlined with kernels of truth.

TT got a lot of attention for Robert Downey Jr., who plays Kirk Lazarus, an actor who decides to go under a radical surgery to play an African-American in the movie-within-a-movie. And don't get me wrong, he is good and fairly funny throughout the movie. But it is Tom Cruise, who plays movie executive Les Grossman, who steals the movie. He is very funny and owns every scene he is in. It's not that Downey didn't deserve it, but I think Cruise should've gotten the Best Supporting Actor nomination for this movie.

Besides the comedic lampooning of Hollywood, the only other reason to watch TT is Tom Cruise. I just hope that future Stiller-directed movies have more comedic substance and less social commentary in them.

Role Models

Role Models (RM) is the comedic story of two guys, Danny and Wheeler, played by Paul Rudd and Sean William Scott, respectively, that work for an energy drink company. When Danny has a quarter to mid life crisis and is frustrated with his lot in life, he, with Wheeler in tow, get into some trouble with the law (it involves energy drink, a "pep" talk to high schoolers, and a pickup truck designed to look like the fantastical minotaur. It is as funny as it sounds) and crashes his relationship with his long-time girlfriend Beth, played by Elizabeth Banks.

To avoid jail time, they opt to participate in 150 hours of community service with Sturdy Hands, a Big Brother-type mentoring program run by Gayle Sweeny, played with comedic slyness by Jane Lynch. Danny gets paired with Augie, a high school teen obsessed with being a fictional warrior in a life-sized fantasy-type role playing game which resembles a cross between Final Fantasy and Lord of the Rings. Wheeler gets assigned to Ronnie, a young African-American man being raised in a single parent household who can be, to put it mildly, a rambunctious handful.

At the start, as is expected, both men struggle to connect with their new charge. Danny's sarcastic, flippant approach to life doesn't bring any comfort or joy to Augie. Meanwhile, Ronnie brings all kinds of grief to Wheeler. But both men stick it out (the threat of jail would motivate me too) and slowly begin relating to the boys.

And doing so brings plenty of genuine hilarity along the way. Danny starts to become a member of Augie's army, and the scenes where he begins to learn all the ways of Danny's fake culture are great. But the heart of this movie is how Wheeler connects with Ronnie; I laughed long and hard throughout many of their scenes, like when Wheeler tells Ronnie that he loves the band Kiss because all their songs are about having sex; or when, while on a Sturdy Hands camping trip, Wheeler teaches Ronnie how to look at women's breasts as discreetly as possible. Their scenes play to the lower bases of being a man, but you can't deny how funny it really is.

There is a lot to like in RM, particularly throughout the first hour. I already mentioned Wheeler and Ronnie's relationship, but I really have to commend Sean William Scott. As an actor, his stereotypical frat boy, sex-crazed, over-the-top comedic sensibility (as seen in most of his films, most notably in the American Pie series) usually overwhelms and drowns any kind of potential performance he might give. But in this role, he gives it just the right amount of temperance to make his character thoroughly enjoyable, which I really didn't think he had in him.

The mood, pacing, and structure of the first hour is spot-on for optimally enjoying a crude comedy. The laughs come pretty consistently. and even though the last 40 minutes or so is fairly predictable and less comedically strong, it still gets the job done and keeps you engaged, which is better than I thought the film could deliver.

Oh, and how can you not love Jane Lynch? Even though she is now mostly known as the sassy Sue Sylvester on Glee, I've been impressed with her comedic brilliance since great guest spots in lots of other gems like Arrested Development and My Name is Earl. Her career is like that of a designated hitter in baseball; she's not a huge star, but is recognizable, talented, you respect her bat, and you get excited when you see her because you know she will deliver the goods. RM is no exception.

RM is a pretty good movie. It isn't a "as soon as it comes out I've gotta have it" DVD purchase, but if it was in the bargain bin, on a significant sale, or really cheap on Black Friday, I might pick it up. And when you get a chance, you should check it out.

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time (PPST) is the based on the video game of the same name. It follows the adventures of Dastan, played by Jake Gyllenhaal, a young peasant boy found in the streets of Persia by King Sharaman and raised as one of the princes of Persia. He grows up and becomes a great warrior with the Persian army, which launches an assault on the city of Alamur, a Holy city that Sharaman instructs his sons not to attack but which do so anyway at the behest of the king's brother, Nizam.

When they do, find the Princess of Alamur, Tamina, who is then promised to Dastan as a reward for his exploits. The King joins the group to celebrate the victory, but when he puts on a cloak that Dastan presents to him as a gift, he is burned alive. This prompts everyone to think Dastan killed the king, making him a fugitive. Dastan unknowingly stumbles upon a powerful weapon: a special dagger that, when filled with the appropriate sand and pressed in the right spot, can rewind time for about 1 minute, aware to only the dagger's user. Because Tamina has sworn to protect the dagger, they both go on the run.

The film then spends the rest of its time following each of them while they go on their journeys, try to figure out who is behind the king's death, who is trying to steal the Sands of Time dagger, and watching as they grow closer together. There's nothing about this plot that is surprising or dramatic, but I like that the film doesn't take itself too seriously: it has fun at each point along the way to its inevitable conclusion, and the way that the story wraps up is pretty clever considering the source material. For a video game movie, I was pleased - I got what I came for.

Along the film's journey Tamina and Dastan get in numerous scrapes with the Persian army and meet some interesting characters, including Sheik Amar, played with gusto by the always reliable Alfred Molina. While Gyllenhaal is the star of the movie, Molina is the acting standout. He shines in every scene he's in and is warm, charming, and funny. He continues to cement himself as one of the best supporting actors in Hollywood.

While the film does a great job of making action sequences that improve upon the fight sequences seen in the game, which is to be expected, one of the great charms and reasons for the success of the video game, the thought-provoking puzzles, is lost for the movie. That too is also to be expected; unlike an active gamer, who can control the advancement of the story and feel a sense of accomplishment by completing the puzzles, a passive audience member would probably get extremely frustrated by watching Dastan jump through puzzle hoops to get to the film's conclusion. Impatience with the "extra" would cripple the movie.

I have to give the film credit: it pays homage to the video game in certain spots without disrupting the flow of the movie. In the beginning they use a camera movement that mimics the beginning of one of the game's chapters; later on, Dastan shows some of the Persian soldiers how to walk up a wall, which mirrors how he does it in the game. These little nods are appreciated by me since it enriches the experience for anyone that has played the game.

I think when you compare PPST to other movies based on video games (Super Mario Brothers, Mortal Kombat, or Street Fighter, for example), it really is a standout. It's a quick two hours and doesn't insult the intelligence of its audience. It knows exactly what it is and sticks to its roots. Personally, I wouldn't use the Sands of Time dagger to rewind my experience. And you really can't ask for anything more.

Sex and the City 2

Let me start by saying that I was not a fan of the HBO series the two films are based on. It's not that I actively disliked it; I've only seen between 2-5 episodes (only seen 1 from start to finish - I've seen pieces of multiple episodes) of the show. But I know that this series is the Holy Grail for most women that I know in terms of enjoyment, fashion, and sensibility. So when the first Sex and the City (SATC) movie came out, I went to see it to see what all the hulabaloo was about, besides hopefully enjoying a good movie experience.

Unfortunately for me, SATC was not a very scintillating experience (probably will never do a SATC: Revisited as I don't plan to revisit it). I found it way too long, somewhat dry, and not particularly funny. But for all the die-hard fans out there they got what they wanted: more quality time with their fav girlfriends, Carrie, Samantha, Charlotte, and Miranda and to see Carrie's wedding to Big.

So you might be wondering, "Why on earth did you go see SATC2 then?" Well, I figured that there was no way that it could be worse than the first film. I also went with a bunch of female friends of mine and thought I'd go along for the ride.

And while I didn't hate my experience at SATC2, I didn't love it either.

Now I'm sure all my female friends will say, "That's cause you're a straight guy." Maybe, but I believe almost any movie has the capacity to entertain on some level. Even if it is basic, it still provides some sort of amusement. There were a few bright spots (Liza Minelli doing the "Single Ladies" dance, Charlotte and Miranda discussing the difficulties of motherhood), but you have to wait and sit through a lot of dreck to get them that it really is cumbersome to sit through.

There are almost no laughs throughout the movie. Honestly, did the filmmakers intentionally try to break the record for most menopause jokes in one movie? And the few laughs that do exist are usually either super-crude or done at the expense of the Muslim people. Much has been made about some perceived insensitivity the women show when in Abudabi. I wasn't particularly offended, but there was an underlying tone of "Look at these backward Muslims and their way of life. How can they live this way?" instead of trying to understand why they choose to adhere to such a life. Maybe that's why many around the world say the US reputation is one of arrogance.

The film couldn't even get its hallmark, its cornerstone right. The TV show made legendary strides in the world of fashion. I didn't notice the fashion of SATC, but a lot of the fashion was far more pronounced in SATC2. And although a few outfits in Abudabi were very lovely, many of the outfits in SATC2 were just ugly and looked like a Halloween costume that even Perez Hilton would've judged harshly.

I happen to think that this show has now outlived its shelf life. It's been 6 years since the original TV show went off the air. Neither of the movies has had the same kind of magic and charm that the TV show had, at least the glimpses I've seen. This honestly makes me wonder if the adventures of Carrie, Samantha, Charlotte, and Miranda are relevant any more and have aged faster than they thought.

I'm sure most folks will dismiss my thoughts as the unrelatable rantings of a straight man who doesn't understand the jewel that SATC is. But at this point only the die hard fans can honestly say that this franchise has any juice left. If they do decide to make a SATC3, then the filmmakers need to make everything, the story, the fashion, and the laughs, feel young again.

The Messenger

The Messenger (TM) is a story about a wounded U.S. soldier, played by Ben Foster, who is ordered to join the Army's Casualty Notification Unit and inform families when a soldier has been killed in action, generally in Iraq. He learns the ropes from his eccentric commanding officer, an exceptional Woody Harrelson, and he also takes a liking to the widow of one of the women he visits, played by Samantha Morton.

This is a solid film. I enjoyed Foster's performance as Will Montgomery. He does an excellent job of making his character feel like he can never fully get comfortable with what has to be one of the most difficult jobs in the military. As a result, we as the audience never get comfortable with that process, which I think is the way it is supposed to be; death should never feel comfortable. I was perusing one of the DVD's bonus features and a real life soldier said, "Grief is illogical." I can't think of a better way to say it.

Of course many accolades have been heaped on Woody Harrelson for his performance in this film, and I'll add to it. He is magnificent is Tony Stone, a man with numerous demons: he is a recovering alcoholic, he has a unique view of how relationships with women should be, he believes casualty notification should be a completely emotionless, by-the-book process, and he secretly wishes that he had seen combat during Operation Desert Storm. He plays this role so convincingly it's startling.

The toughest part of this film is watching the notifications that Will and Tony do. Anybody that has ever lost someone significant in their lives will relate to the shock and emotion that happens during these scenes. Be warned - this film packs an emotional punch and may make you cry. Have tissues handy.

Will and Tony, because of their very different experiences with combat, have very different opinions on how to do casualty notification. If I have a gripe with the movie, it's this: the film did not spend enough time having these two characters "face off" about this profound difference in approach; it is subtly hinted at a few times and crests in one scene. I think some interesting dialogue and arguments for both the characters and the audience were missed out on by not focusing some more on this.

There has been a real surge in recent years in the profile of the war picture genre. The Hurt Locker (THL) took home 6 Academy Awards last year, including Best Picture. Films like THL, Stop Loss and In the Valley of Elah and documentaries like No End in Sight remind us of the dangers our soldiers face on a daily basis. Even if the films made about the war are not of the highest quality (although all of the aforementioned save Stop Loss, which I haven't seen, are excellent), I feel like it is important that Hollywood continue to make these movies and that we continue to watch them.

Those of you that have seen THL will probably notice a lot of similarities to that film and TM. While an outright comparison is unfair, to ignore the similarities would be silly. Both movies revolve around soldiers undertaking an extremely difficult task, and both focus on characters that struggle to balance the chaos of battle and combat with the contrast of quiet domestic life at home. I think that though TM does it well, THL does it better.

I'll be interested to see how time and history treat TM. I think this is the kind of war film that can last long beyond its years and still resonate with audiences. I guess this mean's that the film's mission is accomplished.

Heat

One of the reasons I finally decided to join Netflix 2 years ago (one of the 5 best decisions I've made in the last 5 years by the way) was that I finally had a way to easily catch up on films that make me think, "Why haven't I seen that already?" Heat has definitely been in that category for some time. Not anymore. Dap to Netflix. (Other films on that list when I joined: Hotel Rwanda, World Trade Center, Gone Baby Gone, Jackie Brown, Zodiac, and Akeelah and the Bee).

Michael Mann's Heat, released in 1995, was a landmark picture because it united two of our country's best and favorite actors to share the screen. That was one of the reasons I had to see it: Al Pacino and Robert De Niro sharing the screen for the first time ever. A movie lover's dream.

And while obviously I would've loved to have seen them share more screen time together (only one scene that matters in this movie, the infamous diner/coffee scene), I felt like what I did get was impressive. If I had been able to see this film in 1995 and been a part of the pre-release hype, I probably would've been disappointed and upset at the lack of quality screen time together.

Fortunately, the film makes up for their being apart with a phenomenal story. Heat is one of the best crime films I have seen in a long time, and even though it is 2 hours and 50 minutes, you never feel like it is a bloated movie. It is one of the most durable films I've seen too. For me, durable means that no matter when you see it, the film holds up and you believe that it can happen in today's world. If you look at early 1930s crime films, they clearly don't hold up in today's world, but if you've ever seen a film like 1959's The Killing, you feel like in many ways that something like that can happen in today's world even though the movie is dated. Heat gave me that same feeling: with the exception of the beepers and Jon Voight's God-awful hairstyle, I embraced the plausibility of this story happening in contemporary society. That's one of the geniuses of the film's writing: it didn't depend on 1995-specific technology or cultural norms to make the plot work.

2 Related Side Tangents:

1. The Killing, one of Stanley Kubrick's first films about 5 guys who decide to rob a racetrack, is not just one of the best crime movies ever; it is also an obvious forerunner to films like Pulp Fiction or Go, where they tell the story out of chronological order. If you liked those movies, go find The Killing. It's worth it.

2. Another film example that fits the durable model: The Fugitive. Yes, they don't use cell phones and the computers in the film are super primitive, but when you watch it you never get the sense the film is dated or that it couldn't happen in today's world. At least I don't. Durable.

Heat does a lot of things right: it captures the spirit of LA, it does a great job of keeping both protagonists' separate stories very interesting, and the overall story keeps you guessing until the end. Of course Pacino and De Niro deliver, but they are surrounded by a really strong supporting cast. I continue to be especially impressed by Mykelti Williamson (for you 24 fans, he was the head of CTU New York this year) and William Fitchner (the bank manager Heath Ledger shoots in the opening scene of The Dark Knight) in anything they appear in. Quality character actors.

This film reminded me of another great crime movie: American Gangster. The similarities are striking: two strong famous lead actors, two separate stories punctuated by a strong scene featuring the two leads, two main characters whose choices and methods almost make them indistinguishable from a moral standpoint, excellent overall story, very solid supporting cast, and fully encapsulates the time and place where the film is set. I've never heard that Heat influenced AG, but honestly, how could it have not?

Christopher Nolan said that this film influenced The Dark Knight, particularly TDK's opening bank robbery scene. If you watch both films, it's easy to see the similarities.

And ultimately, that's why this film is great and worth checking out. When one film begins to impact how other people make their films, you know you've got something special. In Hollywood, imitation is the only form of flattery.

Iron Man 2

Iron Man 2, the sequel to the somewhat surprising blockbuster 2008 hit Iron Man, officially kicked off this year's highly anticipated summer movie season, and it has already made 1390851083 bajillion dollars. So my guess is that most folks have seen it by this point.

IM2 picks up where IM left off, with super wealthy playboy Tony Stark revealing to the world that he is in fact Iron Man. This revelation is the final straw for the Russian Anton Vanko, who worked with Tony's dad before being deported and left penniless. Before he dies, Anton tells his son Ivan, played by Mickey Rourke, that he has the blueprints for an amazing technology that Ivan can harness - the arc reactor, which is the source of Iron Man's power. Ivan decides to take the next several months and build his own weapon of sorts - whips that look like limp lightsabres from the Star Wars universe (I've been told they are liberally inspired by said lightsabres).

Meanwhile, Tony is having some personal problems of his own. The U.S. government is trying to force him to turn over his suit technology to them for defense purposes; this effort is led by a slimey US Senator played by Gary Shandling, and the head of a company that is Stark's biggest competition, Justin Hammer, played with equal used-car-salesmanship by Sam Rockwell. His exploits as Iron Man have taken away his attention from his defense company, so he turns the company over to his right hand gal, Pepper Potts, and hires a new personal assistant, the vampy and athletic Scarlett Johansson. And most importantly, his own blood is poisoning him thanks to the palladium that is supposed to keep his heart going.

But you'd never know it from Tony. Just like in IM, Robert Downey Jr. easily slips into the skin of a billionaire playboy who lives life to the fullest. Much was made about his genius as Stark in IM; he is equally great at playing this carefree, nothing-can-bring-me-down attitude in IM2. When I revisited IM, I felt that Downey was able to shine because he played his role brilliantly and had a wonderful ensemble around him that made his star shine a little brighter. In IM2, he just plain outshines everyone else, and I'm not sure if that is a good or bad thing.

That's not to say the rest of the cast is not solid; Gwyneth Paltrow was just as good in IM2 as IM, Johansson, Rockwell, and Rourke (especially) are welcome additions, and Samuel L. Jackson steals the few scenes he's in as Marvel continues to setup its Avengers project. I mentioned in my IM Revisited post that I was interested to see how Don Cheadle would do in taking over the role of Rhodey. I think that he was great, but for me he wasn't a noticeable upgrade from Terrance Howard. It's really too bad that Terrance couldn't work it out with Marvel and the filmmakers, because I would've preferred to see them keep that continuity. But that is a minor gripe.

My favorite part of the movie is when Ivan shows up in Monaco and first attacks Tony. He just did it so cool - no words, no fanfare, no fluff, just came out, put on his weapons and started whipping stuff. He and Iron Man have a pretty good mini-duel (which Iron Man wins, naturally), and then Downey and Rourke have a phenomenal scene together after that when Stark visits Vanko in jail. For me, this scene illustrates that when done properly, less really can be more in a great action sequence. It got me pumped for the final showdown that they would inevitably have.

It's at this point (about 1/3 to halfway through) that for me the film starts to breakdown some. Whereas IM had a pretty focused plot with an interesting and somewhat thought provoking message underlying it (see my IM Revisited post for my thoughts), this one just meanders and doesn't really do anything from Monaco to the part where Tony discovers how to cure his body's toxicity (which if you're paying attention is probably something you'll see coming). And unfortunately, this film's climax is as loud and brainless as pretty much any other major action movie you've seen in the last 5 years.

Downey specifically asked for Justin Theroux, his writer on Tropic Thunder, to be the writer on this film to play up the whimsical nature of the movie. Unfortunately, I feel like doing that made the filmmakers sacrifice one of the key elements that made the first movie so successful: a level of grounding that made IM feel like it could occupy the real world, something that never happens in this film. It's not that I didn't enjoy it, but I didn't enjoy it as much as IM 2 because IM stimulated my mind as well as my eyes, which is always the right recipe for best success.

In the end, while I thought IM was better than this sequel, I didn't think it was a major fall-off between the films. Hopefully for the 3rd installment the filmmakers realize that having a film more like IM than IM2 will give Iron Man his best suit to show off.

It's Complicated

I will admit that I did have a small bias against It's Complicated (IC) before sitting down to watch it yesterday. IC is made by the same filmmaker that made Something's Gotta Give (SGG), one of the surprise hits of 2003 that I really did not enjoy. But I said to myself that this was a different movie with different actors and convinced myself to keep my mind open to the possibility that this would be a different experience.

It wasn't.

The plot of IC is pretty straightforward: a fiftysomething woman, played by Meryl Streep, begins a torrid affair with her ex-husband, played by Alec Baldwin. They try to figure out what their hooking up means, why they are enjoying it so much, and whether or not it means they want to get back together. In the interim Streep takes a liking to the architect of her house remodeling, played by one of my favorite actors, Steve Martin.

You may wonder what my major objections to IC are. That is also straightforward: I'm not a woman. I'm not middle aged. I'm not White. I'm not rich. I'm not married. I'm not divorced. I'm not the child of a divorced household. I'm not a parent. I don't live in California. I don't have a "Sex and the City" type group of girlfriends. And I don't have unresolved ex issues. Other than that, I related to this movie on every level.

Basically, I'm not the demographic for this movie. And I'm ok with that. My mom poked fun at me when we talked about the movie afterwards; she thought that I should lighten up and just enjoy the humor and the movie experience. But at some point in every movie I need something, anything, that I can somewhat relate to or identify with in order to be even remotely engaged in the movie. And when I don't get that, I just can't enjoy the movie.

I guess my other issue is that I felt like the movie relied on really played out cliches to keep the plot going, such as the "gotta tell my girlfriends about my love life" scenes or the "mom and kids have a teary-eyed heart to heart talk" scene or the always hilarious (being sarcastic) "older people try to recapture their Free Love youth by smoking weed" scene. Notice how all these scenes sound like their from SGG? That shouldn't be. If I wanted that feeling from a movie, I'd just watch SGG instead of IC. And while IC doesn't really follow the all-too-familiar "romantic comedy" formula (would take too much time to explain here, but at some point I'll probably have to lay that one out), it's so close that it feels as familiar as those tired movies. I'm pretty sure you'll know how this one ends before you get there, and that is never a good thing.

And my disappointment was compounded because I was excited about the cast. Meryl Streep is a unanimous first-ballot acting hall of famer, if such a thing existed. But as I thought about it, Streep is no more effective in IC than Diane Keaton was in SGG, so I kept asking "what did she bring to the movie that any other actress of her age wouldn't have?" I couldn't figure it out, and that saddened me cause she is so good. Baldwin is usually pretty funny, and to be fair, he is in this film; he is the only actor to bring charm and genuine hilarity to this movie. And of course I think Steve Martin is always comic gold, or at least I did. Unfortunately, he is sorely and surprisingly underutilized (really only has about 5 quality scenes in the movie). The little of him you get is some of his recycled comedy from previous films.

Ultimately, if you liked SGG then you'll like IC. I didn't like either, but a part of me wants to watch these films in about 2 decades to see if my life experience will help me better relate to them. Until then, my relationship with these films will be . . . well . . . you know . . . complicated . . . (ending on a horrible pun - I'm ashamed of myself).

The Princess and the Frog

The Princess and the Frog (PATF) was the first 2D animated featured from Disney since 2004's poorly received Home on the Range. After that debacle, Disney decided to shut down that branch of the animation department and focus on its 3D animation. The studio then brought it back with last year's PATF, hoping to recapture the magic of previous Disney classics like Aladdin, The Little Mermaid, and The Lion King.

And when you see PATF, you'll see that all the major elements of its forerunners are there: a fantastic musical lineup, visually interesting animation, and a fairly engaging plot. While watching the film I thought, "why would they have shut down this branch of the animation department?" When it's done right, these Disney films are among the best films in existence, animated or otherwise. It was nice to be reminded that Disney still has great non-computer generated (to an extent) animation in them.

And the film has great moments too. I thought that there was great comedy provided by the supporting players Louis the alligator and Ray the firefly. Both characters brought great energy and life to the movie at moments when it looked like it was about to drag.

For me, there are 2 problems with PATF. The first is the villain, the Shadow Man. I didn't find him particularly scary or villainous in this picture. When you compare him to other great Disney villains (Jafar, Ursula, or Scar), he just does not possess their menace. For me, the film does not achieve its full potential because of the weakness of the Shadow Man. My other problem, which I will acknowledge is difficult to explain, is that this movie is missing a little of the Disney magic. Think about films like Beauty and the Beast or any of the 3 films I mentioned in the opening paragraph. When you finished watching them, you couldn't wait to see them again, sing along to the songs, and own them on video. I didn't get that feeling after watching PATF. My mom said it best; she said that when Disney announces that movies like Aladdin are going back into the vault she feels compelled to run out and buy them before they disappear, but with PATF, she wouldn't feel the same way. That's what I mean when I say there is some magic missing - it doesn't pass the vault test.

This movie is not only notable for the return of Disney's 2D animation, but for being the first Disney animated film to feature an African-American princess. Before I make my next statement, please understand that I do believe that this is an achievement that should be celebrated. Having said that, while I'm happy Disney finally got with the program and did this, it is somewhat sad that it took until 2009 to make that happen. If you mark 1928 as the start of animation (when Steamboat Willie is made), then it took 81 years for Disney to make history. Guess that means I'll have to wait until 2090 for Disney to make an animated feature with a Latina as the princess.

Don't get me wrong - I liked PATF. I just wish Tinkerbell would sprinkle a little more of that Disney magic on it.

Iron Man Revisited

You may be wondering, "what's this Revisited nonsense?" Well, I've felt obliged to post entries for films that I've already seen at least once or twice to offer my perspective on it as well as add any additional comments that I either missed the first time or gleaned from repeat viewings. So if you ever see "Revisited" in the title, you'll know it's a movie I'd seen at least once before.

For the first film I'm revisiting, I decided to re-watch Iron Man (IM) in anticipation of the forthcoming Iron Man 2. The first installment was released during the glorious summer of 2008, when comic book movies dominated the film landscape. And while I didn't think IM was the best movie of that summer (can't be convinced any movie was better than The Dark Knight that year), it is still a great standout.

Based on the numbers it seems like most everyone has seen IM, so I won't waste time with any plot description. I will say that the plot is, for a movie of this genre, highly believable and very engaging. I really liked the way the film tied into the threats and concerns that radical terrorism poses in today's real world without being preachy. I appreciated the moral journey that Tony Stark goes through when deciding to build the ultimate weapon to rid the world of all the other weapons he designed. Very heady stuff for a popcorn flick.

In general, I felt like this plot could actually happen in the real world; this is why I think Christopher Nolan's Batman movies strike such a chord with the audiences - they can easily imagine themselves inhabiting the world presented. That to me is the biggest battle comic book movies face: if the world is too cartoony or comic booky (making this up as I go - play along), you simply can't totally immerse yourself in the experience, and thus, the film never is as enjoyable as it could be.

I think one factor that contributes to the realistic feel is, obviously, special effects. IM's special effects are outstanding; it is often difficult to tell where the real life stops and the digital takes over. You never get a sense of where the special effects are. For me, the best special effects are unnoticed, and IM succeeds at this in the best way possible.

(momentary aside: this is why I cannot get into the Incredible Hulk as a superhero. Let's ignore the fact that the only thing he can seem to do is break and smash stuff without helping people in any way. Neither of his movies ever gave me the impression that it could realistically happen and the special effects were amateurish at best. The result? No emotional resonance whatsoever. I'm sure the comic book Gods will now strike me down with the power of Thor.)

Enough has been written about Robert Downey's performance, and it is great. But in revisiting the movie I really appreciated Jeff Bridges performance as Obadiah Stain. In comic book movies it can be really easy for the villain to be way over the top and ridiculous. Bridges played his character very subdued and low key, which for me made him more menacing. He did not get enough dap the first time around.

Most folks also probably know that Terrance Howard was replaced for the sequel by Don Cheadle. No disrespect to Don cause he is one of my favorite actors today, but I didn't see anything wrong with Terrance's performance to merit his replacement. I can only guess that it was due to Don being a more "bankable" star. But with Downey and Gwyneth Paltrow already headlining and everyone already sure IM2 will make 2983471306432 billion dollars, why replace him? What is gained? I'm sure we'll find out, but if it was nothing or not much, I'll be disappointed. Terrance is a good actor who deserved better treatment. And I personally dislike when the continuity in franchises are unnecessarily tinkered with.

At the end the revisit was worth it and got me pumped for the sequel. I'm interested to see how Samuel L. Jackson's Nick Fury (building for the Avengers movie in 2012 or 2013) and Mickey Rourke's Ivan Vanko add to the mix. I look forward to more action and great Tony Stark wit. I hope we see Gwyneth in a slinky dress (again). But most of all I'm hoping we get the kind of smart film we got the first go around, with some potential upgrades.

3 Pro Wrestling Documentaries

Let me preface this entry by saying that if you do NOT like or have any remote interest in pro wrestling, feel free to skip this entry. I will not be offended.

Waiting . . .

Still waiting . . .

Making sure . . .

Ok. For those of you that are still reading, I'll actually be posting thoughts on 3 different "movies" (you'll see why I use quotes momentarily) that are all centered around one topic: pro wrestling. You may be wondering why. Well, when I was a wee young boy (and teenager and young adult) I watched pro wrestling religiously. I loved the grandeur, the spectacle, the artistry. Yeah, I know it's fake, but you know what, it's no more fake than a live theatrical Broadway play and has way more athletic artistry. So for all you haters that are like "people who watch this fake crap are stupid," you obviously don't understand that the roots of pro wrestling come from carnivals, which feature bearded ladies and fire eaters. Moral of the story: don't be a hater.

Anyway, two of the documentary features, On the Road with Jake the Snake Roberts (JTS) and On the Road with the Honky Tonk Man (HTM), are distributed by RF video, which is so low budget you can't get it on Netflix; you'd actually have to seek these videos out at their website (props to Kelvin Rodriguez for loaning me these videos). Off the top that brings up one of my biggest problems with these videos: these guys do not know how to make a documentary to save their lives. Either the guy operating the camera is a moron or they don't have the requisite video editing equipment to at least make it look moderately entertaining. As a result, you get a ton of nonsensical camera angles, zooms, pans, and a whole lot of extra material that is unnecessary and outright boring (I don't care that HTM bought coffee on his way to the show from the airport. Move on).

As for the actual content, HTM is pretty good while JTS is pretty awful. If you know anything about JTS you know he's had a hard life and all those years of partying, pills, drugs, and booze are showing, and not kindly I might add (if you're interested I strongly recommend the WWE documentary JTS: Pick Your Poison. Very illuminating). Throughout JTS, he mumbles, is somewhat incoherent, and seems like he might still be on something (he does drink an entire bottle of Jack Daniels before heading to the ring). His in-ring performance is lackluster at best; this is due to age and the aforementioned drinking. Had I been a paying customer to that show, I would've demanded my money back. Jake got beat up for 10 minutes, did a DDT, then went backstage. Not exactly thrilling. If he had at least shared some of his knowledge of the business or his memories of his long career I would've enjoyed it a lot more.

HTM is a whole different story. His documentary is filled with all kinds of insights into his career as "The Greatest Intercontinental Champion of All Time" and of his days now on the independent circuit. He shares lots of insights into the business and shoots (speaks truthfully) about many wrestlers, promotions, wrestling incidents, and the WWE. If you have been a fan of pro wrestling since the glory days of the 80s, you'll get lots of goodies from HTM. While his in ring performance didn't exactly set my world on fire, the film was at least moderately entertaining, as was he.

To their credit, both HTM and JTS give fascinating looks into the current state of independent wrestling. It's interesting to see how these independent promotions try to operate considering the lack of deep talent and notoriety. If you want to hear some legends speak on different wrestling issues or get an inside glimpse into independent wrestling, pick these up (preferably HTM).

The other documentary I saw, or rather revisited (see my Iron Man post for my definition of revisited), was Wrestling With Shadows (WWS), an inside look at Bret Hart's last year with the then-WWF before and through the infamous Montreal Screwjob.

Now, no matter what your opinion of Bret Hart, Vince McMahon, and WWE, if you follow pro wrestling you have an opinion on that infamous night in Montreal. This documentary, which profiles many of the events and key players leading up to the event, probably won't shed light on any new information or change your opinion.

What it might do is give you a new appreciation for Bret's career, his legacy within WWE, and what it takes to run a huge pro wrestling enterprise such as WWE. If you watch WWS or are a tremendous fan of Bret Hart's (I am), I strongly recommend you watch what I believe is a great companion documentary, Survival of the Hitman (you can see it in its entirety on youtube). This documentary does a more in-depth profile of the Hitman's career and chronicles his last 12 years since the Screwjob, as well as gives insight into his motivation for finally returning to the WWE. Greatness all around here.

If you like pro wrestling like I did (and still do to a great extent), I think HTM, WWS, and Survival are worth your time. Otherwise, you'll probably wish Jake would do a DDT on you.