A Nightmare On Elm Street (2010 Movie Review)

I didn't grow up watching the "Elm Street" flicks like many of my friends. Although throughout the years I've caught bits of them on TV and figured out pretty quickly that they aren't my kind of movies anyway. In early college I did finally see the first film in the franchise(the only one Wes Craven planned to make at the outset) which I thought was not so bad.

My problem with the original franchise is that it failed to remain scary. From the get go, Freddy was a villain who was there to entertain the audience as much as he was there to scare them. Before long, he failed to be scary and turned into a walking bad one-liner machine, breaking the fourth wall to connect with the audience in a way that drains power from any movie monster. This couldn't have been demonstrated much better than in the last Robert Englund Freddy movie, "Freddy Vs. Jason", which I saw in theaters out of morbid curiosity. (And yes, it was about as bad as you're imagining.)

Seven years later, Hollywood is taking another crack at reinventing the character. (The first attempt was in "Wes Craven's New Nightmare".) And this new vision is one I can say I really enjoyed! Jackie Earl Haley is unsurprisingly wonderful as Fred Kruger. He shows an unexpected softness in the flashback sequences about his origins and couldn't be more different as the genuinely frightening nightmare creature that haunts and stalks the protagonists.

The changes in make-up for Freddy were a big plus, as he now looks much more like a real burn-victim. There is a strange touch of sympathy I felt for Freddy as I looked at his scars, but this was vastly overwhelmed by the way he creeped me out. Freddy is not here to entertain in this movie. He is here to torment and kill. Although he does have a few lines flavored with gallows humor, they weren't designed to make the audience laugh, but to remind us of how disturbingly evil Freddy is.

There are no big names (aside from Haley) in this film, but a few familiar faces. For a film of this genre, the performances are solid and certainly a vast improvement over the standards set in the 80's. Special effects are also enjoyable, without many tell-tale CGI moments.

A downside of this movie is that it is a remake, rather than a re-imagining of the original "Elm Street". Several scenes and shots have been pulled from the original film and redone with new effects and from different angles, but there are not any creatively original effects gags in this movie. The plot is also nearly identical to the original film, though with a better script that focuses more on Freddy and his motivation to do what he does.

There are no strong philosophical themes in this movie, but one reference is a bit peculiar. One character is wearing a cross of some kind. Non-typical in design, it is not a cross that evokes traditional Christianity. When the character is asked why he wheres it, since he doesn't seem like the "religious" type, he says that "you've gotta believe in something, right?" Near the end, this character gives the cross necklace to a friend before she attempts to do something she is frightened of and he again says, "you've gotta believe in something, right?" Neither the necklace nor cross play any role in the resolution of the story. It just seems injected without purpose, except perhaps as a subtle nod to the "Freddy Jump-rope Song" used in this movie: 5, 6, grab a crucifix. The line is a reminder again that in the self-defeating philosophy of "pop-spirituality", belief in itself is what is important, while the object of belief is irrelevant.

This is a genuinely scary move that both fans and non-fans of the original franchise should check out if they are in the mood for a fright or if they just love a good monster movie.

Rated R for strong bloody horror violence, disturbing images, terror and language.

Quality: 9.0/10

Relevance: 7.0

www.spiritblade.net/paeter
www.spiritblade.net/podcast

The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus (Movie Review)

Heath Ledger’s last movie seemed to sneak in and out of theaters somewhat quietly, and I missed my chance to see it the first time around. So when it was released on DVD yesterday I jumped at the chance to check out what looked like an imaginative modern fairy tale.

Doctor Parnassus made a deal with the devil over 1,000 years ago that grants him immortality. But in exchange, his daughter belongs to the devil on her 16^th birthday. He now has two days to make good on a new deal with the devil that will spare his daughter: Find five souls who will choose good over evil before the devil does.

Subjects are put to the test by entering a fantasy world created by the mind of Doctor Parnassus. They are given a choice between something self-serving and something more pure or noble.

The race to find five who will make the right choice drives much of the movie, but as is common in Terry Gilliam films, the experience is more about strangeness and spectacle than it is about plot. Fans of Gilliam’s earlier work like Brazil and The Adventures Of Baron Munchausen will find “Parnassus” to be a welcome return to a style they enjoy.

The visual design of the film is very inviting. The rickety old stage-wagon of the traveling troupe and the renaissance inspired wardrobe of the performers serve up a portion of timelessness that will age the film well. The special effects of the dream-like Imaginarium are by no means realistic, but the film doesn’t require them to be. The world of the Imaginarium is filled with unexpected yet very fitting imagery. A major highlight of the movie.

Christopher Plummer delivers some of his finest (and possibly most sympathetic) work as the title character. He is supported by Heath Ledger (who turned in a fine, if not memorable performance), Tom Waits (an excellent “Gilliam-type” devil and great casting choice!) and model turned actress Lily Cole. But the standout performer for me was supporting cast member Andrew Garfield. He is the love interest of Cole and a fellow troupe member and figures prominently in the story. Every scene he was in seemed to elevate the realism of the characters around him. His scenes seemed marked by improvisation that gave credibility to the awkwardness and emotions of his character.

As you may know, Heath Ledger died after filming only one-third of the movie. But the decision was made to move forward and recast Ledger’s role with Johnny Depp, Jude Law and Colin Farrell, who played the same character as Ledger as he traversed the dream-like Imaginarium. With a subtle change to an early scene in the film, it is quickly established that one’s personal appearance can change while inside the Imaginarium. So the transition to new actors for the same role is prepared for. Even so, the change is a bit distracting to the film, especially knowing the reason for it. Though all three guest stars perform admirably and are fun to watch.

Gilliam does not seem interested in having people understand his films from top to bottom and often leaves things unexplained. The same is true of this movie. But none of these unexplained elements are crucial to the plot and it seems as though Gilliam doesn’t want you to take his film that seriously anyway.

Thematically, this movie deals with death, morality and even the foundational nature of the universe.

It is explained early on that the existence of the universe is sustained by stories. As long as someone somewhere is telling a story, the universe will remain intact. Combine this with numerous architectural reference to Eastern religious tradition and you can take a guess at the philosophies that inspired this story. The concept of human-told stories sustaining the universe would indicate that humans are the ultimate power in existence. In another scene, the deceased are even referred to as “gods”.

Morality is murky at best and the line between good and evil is pretty blurry in this movie. These are further indications of Eastern religious influence or at least relativism in general.

The lack of logical consistency is fitting for the fairy tale nature of the story and Gilliam is probably not trying to “say” anything with this movie. But it still never hurts to recognize the weakness of relativistic philosophy when applied to anything outside of fairy tales.

This is an enjoyable movie that combines both dark themes and light-hearted fun into a modern fairy tale worth checking out. The characters and story are fairly forgettable, but the experience created by the visuals presented and the carefree atmosphere of the film is easily worth a one dollar rental. Probably a five dollar rental, too!

Rated PG-13 for violent images, some sensuality, language and smoking.

Quality: 8.5/10

Relevance: 8.0/10

www.spiritblade.net/paeter

www.spiritblade.net/podcast

Strategy Guides: A Longer But Tedious Experience?

Last night I just finished playing "Dragon Age Origins: Awakening" and clocked out with a total game time of about 22 hours. I was hoping for an experience that was closer to the length of the original game (which was also a teeny bit short) but no such luck.

Overall, it was an extremely satisfying experience and I'm positive I'll be playing through the original game and the expansion again with a different character. (A mage this time!) Still, I wonder if I might have missed some opportunities for side-quests.

I used to buy strategy guides (or use free ones online) for every RPG I played. I love these kinds of games so much that I don't want to miss a second of potential play time! But in the last few years, my interest in strategy guides has rapidly faded. These days I'd rather risk missing something if it means I don't have to sit and "read, then play, then read, then play". For the most part, it's been very satisfying. And I've become a thorough enough player that I am confident I'm not missing much, if anything, in the games I play now.

But then along comes a game like "Dragon Age" that I just can't get enough of, and when the experience is over I'm left with the nagging doubt over whether I should have used a strategy guide or not.

I think I might use one the next time I play through. But for now, it's on to "Mass Effect"(I'm FINALLY getting around to playing the first one!) and then "Final Fantasy 13"!

Kick-Ass (Movie Review)

Although I’m a huge comic book fan, I never got around to reading the original comic book version of “Kick Ass”, so I can’t review this movie from that perspective, only on its own merits. And this movie merits a ton of praise.

The story centers on a shy high school geek who decides that the best way to attract girls and attain meaning for his life is to dress up in a costume and fight street crime as the superhero “Kick-Ass”.

The movie starts out feeling like a small, quirky, high school comedy with a healthy dose of realism regarding the practicalities of trying to be a superhero in the real world. But little by little, the movie has more money thrown at it until it becomes a hugely explosive action-fest in the last third of the film.

A number of other heroes and villains enter the story and help to flesh out a small but interesting “comic book world”. The movie does not seriously attempt to create a realistic depiction of superheroes in the real world, but contains far more realism than any mainstream superhero movie.

The performances are a strong part of this movie. Aaron Johnson plays the title roll and it fits him like a glove. His awkward personality and breaking voice made me forget I was watching an actor many times. Nicolas Cage flexes both comedic and dramatic muscles well enough to make me literally both laugh and cry. (He also has some really cool superhero moments!)

The actor I walked away most curious about was 11 year old Chloe Moretz, who played the ninja-like “Hit Girl”. Her acting chops are very good for her age and she pulled off some incredible action choreography, not counting what may or may not have been handled by a stunt double.

The song selection in the soundtrack of this movie is very clever and added to the already brilliant execution of the visual material in a way that made me want to jump up and applaud. Not since “Iron Man” have I had this much fun watching a movie in the theater.

The action is fun and at times crazy-cool in the way it is choreographed and displayed. In more than one scene I laughed out loud for the sheer joy of watching the action unfold.

The story is funny, but also very touching at times. Of particular interest is the relationship between Hit Girl and Big Daddy. Although their introduction is strange and off-beat, as their back-story is revealed their subplot becomes a very touching part of the movie’s core.

I have to shave a little off my score for this film for the use of some brief, sexually themed humor that was a little overstated and wasn’t necessary for the kind of story being told.

Justice is the undercurrent of this movie, although it never quite makes it to the surface as a purposeful theme. Still, the problem of evil is presented well and it is extremely satisfying to see the bad guys get their due.

What I thought would be a fun, quirky little movie turned out to be a fun, emotionally involving, intense and funny ride with some added thrills and extremely cool action that I never expected to see.

Quality: 9.5/10

Relevance: 8.0/10

www.spiritblade.net/paeter

www.spiritblade.net/podcast

Defendor (Movie Review)

I do not consider myself a fan of Woody Harrelson. Outside of his character way back when on "Cheers", he seems to play creeps and unlikable types. But in "Defendor" he breaks from this pattern to play the role of a mentally handicapped man who is driven to fight crime on the streets as a superhero.

The first thing you should know about this movie is that it is not a comedy. Although it has been marketed as a dark comedy, it is actually a dark drama with a few comedic moments.

Arthur Poppington (AKA "Defendor") is possibly mildly retarded, although I lean toward seeing him as autistic or clinically insane given that there are some things he creates for his super-heroics that require high functioning mental capacity. He lives under the delusion that he is a superhero seeking out the arch-villain known as "Captain Industry". His sole purpose is to find and defeat this villain. As the story progresses, we learn more about Arthur and how he came upon the delusions he suffers. And with every further insight to his character, I wanted to root for him more and more.

Although it would have been easy to play his character for exploitative laughs, the movie never does this. Instead, Arthur is a character who sees the world as we all should, in one sense. He has not adjusted to the fact that there is evil in the world. His sweetly innocent and naive personality is a constant reminder that although we have worked for centuries to create efficient systems of justice, our system is broken and flawed. It may be the best we have, but it is still a tragedy that we are unable to do better and justice is often left undone.

This movie would be a great jumping off point to talk about the concepts of evil and justice. I think we have largely become numb and deaf to these concepts in our day to day lives and this movie serves as a wake-up call, pointing out the existence of evil and lack of justice while pleading for a better world. Several times in this movie I felt moisture gathering in my eyes as I empathized with Defendor. I mourned the presence of evil along with him and cringed as he was unsuccessful in his attempts to vanquish it. Arthur repeatedly pays a high price for his efforts in this movie, and it is discouraging to watch. His ideals are pure and good, but he lives in a very dark world. Our world.

In many ways, this movie is a great compliment to "Watchmen", though it doesn't contain the same kind of flashy action as the Snyder film. This movie is down to earth and steeped in realism from beginning to end. And sometimes the realism is brutal. You may not want to live vicariously through Defendor, but you will likely root for him from beginning to end.

The performances are wonderful across the board and Harrelson especially shines. It's early in the season, but I hope the Oscars don't forget about Harrelson and this movie.

More than any film I've seen before, this movie captures the concept of a superhero in the real world effectively and realistically. It also serves as a wake-up call, reminding us that the world is not such a great place to live in much of the time. We are in desperate need of rescue.

Don't miss this one.

Rated R for drug use and language throughout, violence and sexual content.


Quality: 9.5/10

Relevance: 9.0/10

www.spiritblade.net/paeter
www.spiritblade.net/podcast

The Trial Continues...

My service on a trial jury continues! We hope to be done by the first half of next week. Thanks for your patience as I drop off the radar for a bit longer. (There WILL be a podcast this weekend!)

-Paeter

Clash Of The Titans, 2010 (Movie Review)

Although the original "Clash Of The Titans" was among my childhood fantasy movie favorites, my memories of it are dim at best. Though I've seen enough clips of it in my adult life to be reminded of what the movie looked like, it's general feel, and the state of special effects. Because of this, I was able to make a few comparisons to the original when I saw the 2010 remake, but not enough that the original, or it's plot was constantly on my mind. I went to see the new "Clash" because I'm a die-hard fan of fantasy sword and sorcery flicks and this looked like it could be one of them. And it was. With both the good and bad that comes with that sort of movie.

Despite the sometimes edgier dialogue and advanced special effects, Clash Of The Titans feels much like several fantasy movies of the 70's and 80's. The characters are 2-dimensional with Sam Worthington's Perseus and Liam Neeson's Zeus being the only two with any discernible traces of character development. The acting is generally shallow and the plot extremely simple. But there are many classics in this genre that share these traits. Nostalgia may cloud our judgment, but if we're honest, these attributes were the rule, not the exception of fantasy movies in the 70's and 80's.

The action sequences are very cool and have the visceral flair common to fight scenes since "300", though without the same extravagance. The creature effects look very much like CGI and the Medusa painfully so. To my eye, this new Medusa looks just as artificial as the original, only for different reasons. A considerable let down. However, the magical effects in this movie were stunning in their best moments. Hades looks awe-inspiring in the midst of his dark, smoky splendor, and this movie may end up on my shelf someday for that reason alone. Make-up effects are also fascinating to look at, the witches and the D'Jinn being among my favorites. On the whole, this movie has a dark, slightly washed-out feel that conveys a bleak despair uncommon to film portrayals of Greek myth. A welcome change of pace from the sterile white togas common to classic depictions of Greek mythology.

Despite these strong points, the movie needed 15 minutes more of something. Either more character development, or more special effects and adventure. After some exciting opening sequences, the movie slows down and introduces characters without fleshing them out before they die or leave. And although the giant CGI scorpions were cool, I would rather have seen less of them and made more time for an additional unique obstacle for the heroes to overcome.

Regarding 3D. I opted to see this movie in 2D when I learned that, unlike Avatar and other recent 3D films, "Clash" was not intended to be in 3D but was hastily converted to 3D in a mere 8-weeks. Multiple reviewers (and my parents) mostly agree that it's not worth the money to see it in 3D and some have said it even makes the movie worse because of the poor conversion and the unintended side-effects it has on the film. I apologize for not braving the 3D experience on your behalf, but before a reviewer I am a geek first and foremost. I wanted every chance to enjoy a new fantasy film as much as possible.

A very strong theme in the first act is that of "humanity verses the gods". The gods are blamed for every ill that comes upon man and deservedly so. The way the gods are portrayed in this movie likely paints a good picture of how many people view God. I would wager that for many people the only difference between the "Christian God" and the gods in this movie is that all of the character traits split up between multiple gods in this movie are present in one God in Christianity. A great question on the drive home from this movie might be, "If God exists, in what ways do you think we are like him and in what ways do you think we aren't?" To a certain extent, we have to see God in human terms, comparing his characteristics to human ones. But if this is taken too far, we wind up with a view of God very much like the gods of this movie. Impotent, needy, petty, and ignorant. In other words, more like us than we'd like to admit. And by contrast, we view ourselves as basically good. Maybe we even feel, as the humans do in this movie, that a certain deity needs to learn a lesson and we are the ones to teach him. "Clash Of The Titans" provides an easy springboard for finding out a person's view of God's characteristics.

Rated PG-13 for fantasy action violence, some frightening images and brief sensuality.

Quality: 8/10

Relevance: 8.5/10

www.spiritblade.net/paeter
www.spiritblade.net/podcast