The X-Files: I Want to Believe (Theatre) - Jennie

I’m not really the biggest X Files fan. I watched it when I caught it, but was never too enthusiastic about catching it. My wife, to my knowledge, is also only the smallest of casual fans. So why did she want to see it? I’m not entirely sure. Part of the reason had to do with it being the only five dollar movie we hadn’t watched and still wanted to see, but Jennie genuinely wanted to watch it. So with only an inkling of interest we sat down to view this film.

I had read that it was going to be a Monster of the Week (MotW) movie. To explain: some of the best X Files episodes I have seen had nothing to do with conspiracy theories and aliens, but simply highlighted a weird group of people, or a particularly interesting unexplained phenomenon. Mulder and Scully would investigate, get to the bottom of it, though sometimes the resolution was vague, and that would be that. These were dubbed MotW episodes, and as had been reported this film was just such a story.

Scully is approached by a federal agent inquiring about the whereabouts of the, now underground, Mulder so that he may be brought in on a case that had supernatural elements. The following two hours was a very procedural resolution to the case. Mulder and Scully slept together, told each other that they loved one another, but couldn’t act on that love, and eventually came to the conclusion that each of them, in the vaguest of terms, brought out the dark in each other. But other than the slight nods to the series this movie was simply an extended MotW episode.

What baffles me is – why bring the series back to the big screen for something like this? They aren’t trying to resurrect the series to my knowledge. This could have easily been shown on television as a reunion type special and many people would have been happy. And my speculation is that that is what this was supposed to be, but when Fox found out about it they thought they might be able to make some money off of it. But then why release it in summer. It certainly wasn’t the blockbuster popcorn selling edge of the seat thrill ride that summer movies are thought to be. It felt like a fall movie. I could have lengthy discussions on the release of this film, but ultimately I point the finger at Chris Carter.

4 out of 10 – an alright thriller with familiar characters. I’m not entirely sure why or how this movie even came to be, but there it is in all its mundane glory.

The Dark Knight (Theatre) - Both

Many people have been talking about Heath Ledgers performance as the Joker. The internet has been hot with debate discussing if it will be the definitive version of what Wizard magazine once called the most horrific villain in comic books. The Joker has had many iterations throughout the years; he has been a childish prankster, a mastermind of Gotham’s criminal underworld, and even in one deranged moment of glee killed one of the many Robins floating around. I begin this review of the Batman movie by talking about the Joker because to put it simply this is not a Batman movie. It is a movie about the Joker and Batman is only a side character.

Remarkably, the writer/director Christopher Nolan allows the Joker to be a visitor dropped into Gotham with no back story. I applaud this open ended origin. I feared an origin story that granted humanity to the Joker. I feel that is one of the downfalls of Tim Burton's Joker. The Joker is twisted and foul, amusing and dangerous – extremes. There is no beginning. One of the beautiful little nuances of this character is the Joker’s story about how he obtained his scarred grin. Was it an abusive father? Did he do it to himself because of his disfigured wife? The mirror that the Joker provides in this film to his nemesis propels the action and the drama. The point I’m trying to make is that while Ledger’s performance is fantastic, the writing and story is equally artistic.

This film makes art out of a blockbuster. It still has blockbuster elements that degrade some of the more subtle moments, like the Batpod, or whatever it is called, whipping through the streets of Gotham taking out trucks and generally being ridiculous, but in that same sequence we see the Joker in all his sadistic glory simply climb out of the broken truck and maniacally approach the deadly vehicle in quite defiance. The film is almost all climax.

There is one glaring chink in the Bat armor. One thing that picks at my brain and makes me want to take the perfect rating from this almost perfect film. When Christian Bale dons the cowl and cape he brashly lowers his voice and whisper/screams his dialog rendering every scene with Batman conversing unintentionally comedic. It could be argued that Christian Bale is the best Bruce Wayne, but his Batman is certainly the worst.

Despite this glaring problem Nolan has done what very few, if any, could do – make art out of a commercial product. Much like Alan Moore did with the comic book itself, Nolan has achieved here – an example that a blockbuster could be both artistic and crowd pleasing.

10 out of 10: Near perfect film, with the acting and writing that can top most films, I fear a superhero movie will never be made that can better this.

Back to the Future Part III (Dvd) - Both

See Back to the Future (Dvd) - Both for full review

6 out of 10: a rather episodic adventure for Marty and the Doc, but retains the feeling of the previous films.

Back to the Future Part II (Dvd) - Both

See Back to the Future (Dvd) - Both for full review

7 out of 10: a relatively interesting look at the future with some heady time travel to keep the fun going

Back to the Future (Dvd) - Both

In the world of movie trilogies I believe, for most people, Back to the Future (BttF) ranks somewhere in the middle. For me it ranks somewhere near the top. I was the perfect age for this to blow my young mind when I first watched it and to this day it holds a place in my heart as being the first set of movies I really could not wait to see as each installment came out. Granted I believe I watched the first one on VHS and caught the last two in the theatre, but still. Jennie had never seen these films so to catch her up on great eighties flicks we watched this on our bored Sunday afternoon. Ghostbusters is next!

The first BttF film still holds up with few glaring eighties moments. These don’t necessarily take away from the enjoyment of the film, but they do date the film. The story holds up as a unique and imaginative plot that reflects the creative decade in which it was made. The intricacies of time travel are dealt with in a theoretically logical way and an attempt at an explanation of time travel allows this movie the latitude to hold my disbelief. While the fact that Marty is lusted after and stalked by his mother may have been a risky plot device, the relationship is played with such delicate humor and innocent teenage angst by Lea Thompson that it is impossible to get too dirty with it. The tightrope that Bob Gale and Robert Zemeckis, the writers, walk is awe-inspiring compared with the clunky work of today’s blockbuster scribes.

By not taking the visual effects root and having time travel be an instantaneous blip the movie’s look and feel is only dated by Michael J. Fox’s hair and colloquialisms. The DeLorean still looks like a very cool way to travel through time, and overall the film is as exciting and fun as I had remembered it to be. This is an example of a good story with thoroughly imagined characters being able to hold up against time.

The saga continues with back to back sequels produced and written at the same time. Bob Gale sets up a myriad of dominos to topple as the series completes itself and finds satisfying ways in which to end the tale. I remember as a child liking the second film better than the third film as the second film actually went to the future. Doc explains at one point in time that he has always wanted to explore the future to see where mankind takes itself. This is in fact, why I would want to visit the future and thus my bias is reveled.

Now that I have seen it again I believe the second film is still my favorite but for an entirely different reason. The film has a relatively convoluted plot that twists in and out of itself and even into the first film. The second film holds to the trilogy doctrine as it is the darkest of the three, and this twisted dark tale is satisfying because of its refusal to take the easy road and be The Time Traveling Adventure of Marty and Doc. The third film, while entertaining certainly feels like just such an episode.

The future that is displayed in part two is a bright happy place with a color palette of extreme hues and synthetic clothing. While most of the technologies displayed in this vision are impossible and impractical I found the most glaring inaccuracy to be the clothing. Though I can’t help but think that is simply due to the hyper colors of the late eighties and early nineties bleeding into the clothing designer’s consciousness.

The third film seems to be a self contained adventure that features Doc and Marty in the old west. This isn’t to say that I would have enjoyed another film with Marty fixing 1955, so I guess this is the best that could have been, but I still find it somewhat episodic in nature. There are some lovely call backs to the previous films, some of which are glaring, while others are subtle. One that I feel I missed the first time round was in dark 1985 in which Biff rules Hill Valley as a casino lord he is seen watching a movie in which Clint Eastwood saves his life with a bulletproof vest in an old west shoot out. Tannen loves this at the time but his relative is then fooled in the third film by the very same trick when Marty defeats Buford Tannen. These subtle call backs are what really make this film fantastic as it feels like the adventure is truly a continuation.

I believe this trilogy stands the test of time relatively unscathed. Jennie seemed to really enjoy her first viewing and that is saying a lot as Jennie usually hates older movies (read older than 1995). I myself was completely entertained and was left wanting more as I feel all good movies do. I am glad they have yet to tarnish the honor by making a sequel recently as they have with Indiana Jones, but I anticipate somewhere in Hollywood is a young scribe who is penning the continued adventures of Doc and Marty as I write this, or, hush my mouth, a remake!

Back to the Future - 7 out of 10: still a great film that contains the fun and excitiment I still look for in my blockbusters

Back to the Future Part II - 7 out of 10: a relatively interesting look at the future with some heady time travel to keep the fun going

Back to the Future Part III - 6 out of 10: a rather episodic adventure for Marty and the Doc, but retains the feeling of the previous films.

Enchanted (Dvd) - Jennifer, Natania

Jennie and I had already seen this movie when it came out in theatres last year, but since my sister and her four year old daughter were coming to visit we decided to rent this with them. So, this will be a short review.

This movie was originally brought to Disney as an R rated film that poked fun at its history. Obviously Disney didn’t like that, but thought the overarching themes were smart enough. The next couple of years brought revisions and cast changes until you get the homogenized version that they released as a vehicle to get the young girls to spend money on princess merchandise. Giselle isn’t really a princess, but the idea is floated about with a quick marriage to a prince, but she never actually marries him.

The songs in this film do remind me of the golden era of Disney musicals (i.e. Beauty and the Beast (1991), Aladdin (1992), Lion King (1994), etc.). They even retain some of the jabs that I’m assuming the R rated version was full of: as Giselle begins “That’s How You Know” Patrick Dempsey’s character questions how both singers know the song when in fact he has never heard the song before in his life, and Giselle, seemingly, has never met the man she is singing with. This sort of irreverent humor gives this movie its best moments, but they are few and far between.

The film has a paper thin girl empowerment message which seems forced. The Disney princesses aren’t really role models in any since of the word. They all seem to find trouble and need to be rescued by a man. With Giselle, Disney rectifies this idea by having her save Patrick Dempsey all while in a lovely purple evening gown. A girl has to look her best. And despite the anti-love message of the first half of the film they all live happily ever after in perfect marital bliss. I can only imagine how the R rated version ended.

5 out of 10: Disney is finally able to capture the magic of its previous musicals, but as always melts it down till there is only a shadow of originality.

13 going on 30 (TBS) - Jennie

This should be a quick one. This is Jennie’s favorite movie. I’m not entirely sure why, but I have a feeling that it something to do with Jennifer Garner being Jennie’s favorite actor. She loves her. And this film is pure Jennifer Garner gold.

I actually don’t mind this movie. It has a nice little plot device, and gull darnit if I don’t love me a time travel tale! A quick summary is that a young girl gets made fun of at her thirteenth birthday party. She wishes she was thirty. It happens! Hilarity ensues. It’s Big (1988) but with a girl.

The film has some pretty good elements in it including one of my man crushes Mark Ruffalo. Don’t ask me why – he falls in with Ron Livingston (Berger from Sex and the City) as a mundane nice guy that I would most likely be friends with. Who knows – but, for some odd reason I always find myself wanting these guys to succeed. The film is pretty well written for a Romcom. This includes scenes where Jennifer Garner has to see a man naked (Gross!) and when she interacts with a girl who is thirteen:
Becky: I like your dress.
Jenna: That's because I have these incredible boobs to fill it out!
Garner is fantastic in this role. She plays the character with wide-eyed innocence that few could pull off. I dare say she even got the best of Tom Hanks with his role in Big, as I believe it would be harder to pull off a thirteen year old girl than a thirteen year old boy.

There are only one or two complaints I had. The first one is the fact that “young” Matt (Ruffalo’s character) is played by a somewhat chubby brown haired kid who looks nothing like Ruffalo, while the “young” Jenna Rink (Garner’s character) looks to be every bit the part. Maybe they didn’t know who the leading man was going to be at the time, but couldn’t they have reshot? I also find it frustrating that they gave Ruffalo’s character a fiancé. He basically cheats on his fiancé and then ends up marrying her because – well, I guess, that is what you do when you get older. You marry a person who you don’t really love. Wait. What? Really? I guess, Romcoms gotta have some sort of spur to action. Don’t worry she goes back to when she was thirteen and gets him back from that hussy fiancé of his.

4 out of 10: probably the best score a Romcom can get. Light and fluffy – empty calories.

Hancock (Theatre) - Both

Will Smith is back to his July 4th blockbuster shenanigans once again. And as with his previous efforts this film smacks of mediocrity. It is inventive, interesting, and still somehow vacant.

The opening scene is boisterously ridiculous with a Michael Bay flamboyance - too much for me. It shows Hancock (Will Smith) drunkenly apprehend a cadre of thugs while showing that he is an asshole. This becomes a catch phrase ala Marty McFly’s dreaded nickname “chicken”. Don’t call Hancock an asshole or you will get what is coming to you.

This sort of lazy writing humbles this promising popcorn flick along with Will’s lackluster performance. However, along comes Jason Bateman’s P.R. character to save the day and the film. He befriends Hancock after being saved by him and works pro bono to build his rep. This is when the movie shines – Bateman is his affable self (I fear Bateman may be a one trick pony, but, oh - what a trick) playing against Smith’s cardboard cutout of a self-loathing man.

At this point in time the film has quite a lot of potential. The scene is set for a quality ending as Hancock rises to the occasion showing he is a worthy hero. This is until the small twist rears its ugly head. Every encounter Hancock has had with Bateman’s wife, played by Charlize Theron, has been filled with confused stares and glaring eyes. There is a history there, a lumbering gorilla in the room; these two mean something to each other. The film takes a detour on the way to becoming a hit as Theron throws Hancock through the room displaying her hidden superhero powers. Oh, my – what a twist!

This hack doesn’t completely ruin the film and on the positive side navigates around any attempt at creating a supervillain for Hancock to fight. However, I somehow disliked the addition. The film never really addresses the fact that Theron’s character could have been a superhero too, but chooses domestic life instead. They then simply avoid the fact that Theron and Smith obviously have an unrequited love, but she is married to Bateman. And the film ends on a horrible candy coated note that almost ruins the film entirely. I will be fascinated to get my hands on the disc and see what kind of alternate endings this film had (read: the endings before the homogenization). The garble of ideas that come after the twist do add to the story giving Hancock a background of sorts and allowing the leads to display some emotional growth, but I find it hard to swallow the incomprehensible mess that they force on the audience. I won’t say I hated it, because I didn’t, but I also can’t say I’d recommend it.

5 out of 10: I appreciate the novelty, and can see where it could have been good, but the second half betrayed the first half’s promise.