Carriers (2009)

The Post-Apocalyptic genre is becoming this generation’s Freddy Kruger, Michael Meyers, and other subsequent boogey men. When the ‘80s had Jason, the ‘90s had Skeet Ulrich, and now, the 2000s and subsequent ‘10s (‘one-ohs’ or ‘tens’, depending on the vernacular) have Scorched Earth Theory. There is a strange and almost disturbing cultural undercurrent of curiosity and introspective assessment with regards to the destruction of the world. With the world getting larger in population, smaller in geographic density, and seemingly more calloused and dehumanizing, creative minds from across the spectrum have been ramping up the subsequent lore of a world, post-Homosapien. Long before the advent of film, Man has been envisioning his eventual demise. Film brought the visual, visceral ability to let Man envision a world where consequence met vice; where Man’s sins of science and the metaphysical became manifest.

‘Carriers,’ starring Chris Pine, Piper Perabo, and Christopher Meloni, bears that flag of reflecting human consequence, but invents nothing new along the way.

With a title like ‘Carriers,’ knowing the film is of the horror genre is generally enough to pique the interest. Then there is knowing Chris Pine, who captained the Enterprise as the re-imagined James T. Kirk in the Star Trek reboot, in this movie. Law and Order: SVU fans would be interested to know that Chris Meloni has a bit part in the first act of this film. The lovely Piper Perabo, best known for her work in Coyote Ugly, rounds out the notables as our main protagonist’s love interest in this world-gone-to-hell post-apocalyptic movie du jour.

‘Carriers,’ on the surface, is just another B-Movie, straight-to-DVD horror flick. There is a general subset of the movie-going audience that is eager to consume these types of films. Where ‘Carriers’ truly shines, however, is the performances of Pine and Perabo, and the dynamic those two bring to the screen. Opposites attract, and these two are essentially polar emotionally. While Brian (Pine) is holding onto his humanity by a thread, Bobby (Perabo) is maternal. Bobby is the thread, in a world where eighty percent of humanity is dead or infected, that keeps Brian attached to what is left of his humanity. Ironically, Brian is a Chosen; immune to the infectious disease that is ravaging the land and killing everything human. How Brian discovered his status has resulted in a secret that has been slowly consuming him.

There is also the subject of Brian’s brother, Danny. “Ivy League,” as he keeps calling his little brother, has no intestinal fortitude. Only, it seems, by the strength and guidance of a thick-headed brother is Danny still alive. Danny has not had to make the hard decisions; his alpha dog brother has made them for him. Danny is an intellectual, but Brian will not let this fact get his brother or anyone else in the group killed. Whereas Danny wants to think out situations, Brian is more capable and comfortable using blunt force or emotional detachment to get the job done. Yet again, Brian is working towards a goal of hardening his little brother; making him ready and capable if Brian is unable to be there. This, too, is harbored in a painful secret only Brian carries.

Pine, it appears, is a character actor. Now that is not to say that this is a bad thing. In his 'Star Trek' role, he is known for the same behaviors. If there is anything to complain about, it is that Pine lacks imagination in script choice, not acting skills. His waning attachment to humanity is believable; his continued ambivalence to the human condition coupled with a sardonic view on what is left. Brian’s machismo shields him from vulnerability. Pine executes this role well.

Perabo and the supporting cast attempt to elevate the cast and movie to an emotional level that never gets there. The movie tries to stir emotion, but something in the directorial style keeps the film from ever pushing the right emotional triggers. The closest scenes would all involve Christopher Meloni and his daughter, who, in the first act, are used by the writer and directors to ask what the viewer would do if it was their child. While every good movie of this genre has scenes like this, something in the execution brought it up flat. That is not to knock Meloni’s performance; the melodrama was just predictable.

In most of these types of films, there is a level of gore and otherwise putrid visual exposition. ‘Carriers’ focuses less on the gore and mostly on the psychological possibility. Death and the sometimes nascent decomposing remains are used for making a point, not merely shock value. This makes for less visceral, sinewy visual abuse of an already desensitized viewing audience, but moves the experience to just outside the frame, leaving the mind to speculate what’s in the body bag, under the sheet, or behind the door.

While this movie was never released as a major motion picture, it does lend some credence to a study in human nature in a post-human world. Pine’s performance, coupled with a supporting cast, raises the bar on what a good straight-to-DVD movie can be. While some of the action and the lines can be formulaic for the genre, the story and character arcs keep the story moving. For a spooky, if somewhat unoriginal, look at what a world could look like if something like H1N1 was to wipe out almost all of human kind, this movie is worth a watch.

Hot Tub Time Machine (2010)

Somewhere, deep in the bowels of the corporate offices at MGM Studios, there is a paralegal. That paralegal works in the Trademarks Dept. One day, a brief came across his or her desk, and the outer edge of the manila folder simply read: “Hot Tub Time Machine.” One can only envision the thoughts that must have run through their head: “I don’t get paid enough for this,” “Jesus, really, in this economy?”, or more likely, “I wonder if Rob Cordy’s going to be in it?”

Well apropos to this intern’s preponderance, he is! Coupled with John Cusak, Clark Duke, and an absolutely hilarious Craig Robinson, this “It’s a Wonderful Life” homage takes a tack through the old “What would you do if you were given a second chance” waters while still being the over-the-top R-rated comedy the classic 18-25 year old demographic is looking for.

Lou’s (Cordy) life is booze and banzai, a lost regard for anything sacred. His is a life of balding, sagging sadness. Adam (Cusak) has just been through a heavily contested divorce where she even took the TV. The TV! Even when it had a red dot on it! Nick (Robinson) has a love of animals, but is on the ass-end of a terrible job. And Jacob (Duke), Adam’s nephew, is living in Adam’s basement, living out a Second Life, because, let’s face it, his first life is fat and dorky.

The three former best friends' lives are all at crossroads. They intersect on the self-destructive shenanigans of one. Lou accidently tries to kill himself. This results in an ill-conceived idea to travel to Kodiak Valley. This also results in a scene with a catheter that won’t easily be forgotten. Kodiak Valley is a ski resort where the men had spent their drug-addled youth ripping the mountain and getting laid. Things, however, are not what they used to be.

Kodiak Valley appears to be on the verge of bankruptcy. The rooms are in disrepair. Their creepy bell hop Phil (played with running gag perfection by Crispin Glover) is hilariously disfigured. The mountain is as broken as the men who are on it.

Ah, but what will these men do to relieve the pressures of the real world? A dip in the hot tub sounds nice. Combine some booze, Chernobly (you’ll see), a montage of swirling water, Chevy Chase, a giant bear, and a squirrel, and our anti-heros end up in 1986.

First off, there’s way too much of Rob Cordry’s ass in this movie. That’s neither a positive or a negative attribute, it’s just a stated fact. The pop culture references are cliché, but fantastic: “I can’t wait to go to prison to tell everyone I came back from the future and killed my father!”

“Alright, Terminator!”

This movie also nods its head to the trailblazers before it. Just having Crispin Glover in a movie about time travel to the 1980’s is enough to bring up visions of the Back to The Future trilogy. And with one of the characters flickering in and out of existence, Marty McFly would be proud. The Butterfly Effect gets it’s due. Hell, even Red Dawn gets an honorary and necessary mention.

Let’s not pretend anything about plot holes in a movie like this. There’s nothing to be said for that, though there are some continuity issues that were missed in editing. I won’t break into them, because… well, I mean, seriously? Are we really going to dissect “Hot Tub Time Machine” for plot holes and story inconsistency? The story is solid; it missed a few small points, but in the greater scheme of things, it works for a movie like this.

B+. Grab a towel, drop your pants, crack open some beers (or your favorite illegally imported Russian Nitronium-laced energy drink), and crank up the bubbles. You’re in for a fantastic dip in the ‘Tub.

Batman in Cinema - An Observation

Preface - This was written for a college class in '09. A simple compare-and-contrast paper.Moving this here for posterity.

In 1988, Tim Burton released the movie 'Batman' onto an unsuspecting public, and forever changed the face of the Batman series. With the subsequent sequel 'Batman Returns'¸ his dark, harrowing shooting style brought us a revised vision of that world with lead director Burton at the camera and actor Michael Keaton behind it as the lead protagonist. These two movies set the stage for the campy, ridiculous, and generally over-the-top sequels that would follow. While, in comparison to today’s Batman, Burton’s vision was clearly modeled against his own vision of film making and not the Batman universe and lore, the Joel Schumacher-funded train wrecks of the 1990’s known as 'Batman Forever' and 'Batman and Robin' nearly destroyed the franchise’s relevance. It was not until twenty years after Burton’s interpretation of Batman did the Dark Crusader get properly reintroduced to the world with 'Batman Begins' and the subsequent 2009 comic-book masterpiece, 'The Dark Knight'. There are clearly some differences between the two sets of movies that set them apart and make director Christopher Nolan’s works the superior, relevant Batman lore.

First, Batman would not be who he is without the money, skills, and psychological damage that shaped and defined Bruce Wayne. The first four movies moved through this plot line as a side point, unnecessary to the action and plot progression. The Nolan films plumbed the depths of Bruce Wayne’s psyche, explained not just that he was Batman, but why he is Batman. The stability of actors also dimmed the effectiveness of the personal trauma Bruce experienced in the pre-2000 films. Shifting between Michael Keaton, Val Kilmer, and lastly, George Clooney as Batman took away from the experience, and changed the element of delivery of emotion. With Christian Bale, current Batman, and director Nolan committed to take the series as far as DC Comics and Warner Brothers want to take the franchise, the consistency in vision and character presentation will make the gritty, realistic representation of Bruce Wayne and his broken alter ego a relevant portrayal for all time.

When Bruce Wayne slides into the Bat Cave and transforms into The Dark Knight, his defining characteristics are three things: His suit, his cowl, and his “wonderful toys,” as The Joker said in the very first movie. His best “toy” is his car, the ephemeral Batmobile, which every kid has ever wanted and can be identified on sight by hardcore and casual fans alike. In the 1988-1995 versions of the movie, the car is much like the other qualities of that generation’s Batman: over-the-top camp, and unexplained in feature or function. The 88-95 model Batmobile is a jet car, a rolling bullet-proof limousine with room for two and a plethora of tools and functions available at the press of a button. Compare this to the Tumbler, Nolan’s vision of a cast-aside Wayne Enterprises military project, stuck in a closet, until the heir to the company happens to find a surprisingly useful application of it in an urban environment. The Tumbler, this generation’s Batmobile, brings relevance and realism to an otherwise highly unexplainable vehicle used in the Batman Universe.

Batman’s suit was a point of contention when Batman and Robin came out. George Clooney is still embarrassed by that suit, which was less Bat-Suit and more stylized S&M gear. The suit was mostly leather, anatomically incorrect in all the wrong places, and had nipples. This was, and is, still a hilarious ode to just how ridiculous the costume design crew went with the outfits in the movie that nearly killed Batman forever. Contrast this against Batman Begins, where Bruce Wayne, digging through Wayne Enterprises’

Military Research facility, finds prototype body armor designed for use in military combat. The suit is designed for function and modified in the movie to support Batman in his urban endeavors. It has been argued in many tabloids, blogs, and other publications that this sequence was written into Batman Begins to help clear the palette of fans who were disturbed and saddened by the ridicule their beloved Dark Knight went through at the hands of Producer Schumacher and others.

In any story, there is no protagonist without an antagonist, seen or unseen. Jack Nicholson’s Joker was amazing for his time, a psychotic madman with a penchant for clown suits. His smile, presence, and sadistic goofiness made Burton’s presentation of Batman’s arch-enemy unlike any villain seen on film. Stealing another actor out of One Flew over the Cookoo’s Nest, Danny Devito scared and disturbed everyone who watched him as The Penguin. Noone can forget Michelle Pfeiffer as Catwoman, and the interplay between her and Keaton’s Batman. This is where Burton’s movies really outshine the Schumacher-produced films. Burton tookthe time to flesh out the characters, and really build the evil, nuanced, and crazy aspects of his villains. One low point for Burton was the poor decision to parade The Joker up and down Main Street to extremely bad ‘80’s music. Otherwise, Burton’s presentation of his antagonists was much more palatable than that of Jim Carrey’s spandex clad Riddler, Uma Thurman’s painfully over-the-top Poison Ivy, and Tommy Lee Jones’ ill-conceived Harvey “Two-Face” Dent.

All of these Batman villains pale to Nolan’s Rhaz Al-Gul and the unforgettable, tragic performance of Heath Ledger as a much darker, scarier, crazier and modestly hilarious revamp of The Joker. In the first of the reboot films, Batman Begins, a little known mentor-turned-villain from the Batman lore is introduced to audiences. Liam Neeson brought intensity to the role, giving Bale’s Batman a foil to operate against. The existence of Rhaz Al-Ghul explains the existence of Bruce Wayne’s abilities, and more so, the creation of Batman. Even more memorable than Neeson was The Scarecrow, a standard character in the Batman saga. With Nolan’s direction, CGI, and a well-written script, Scarecrow’s character was larger than life and exponentially darker and more disturbing than any of the villains before him.

Overshadowing all the villains in the Batman franchise that had come before him was Heath Ledger’s Joker. A character of limitless evil and sadism, it has been argued that Ledger’s Joker is the best villain of all times, not just the Batman series. Giving his last full measure to the art of acting, Ledger brought a squealing, variable tone to his voice and a haphazard lackadaisical mania to the Joker. His Joker was real, his Joker was insane, and his Joker had no campy misgivings to the matter. The Joker in The Dark Knight took a good Batman reboot, and made it amazing; magical even. Ledger posthumously won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor in a genre that generally never wins Academy Awards for anything more than CGI or Audio work. This alone should be testament to amazing performance found in Ledger’s reinterpreted Joker.

From his original conception in 1939, Batman has been delivered in many forms: Comic books, television shows, movies, animated television shows, and video games. There have been many interpretations of Batman, his life, his world, and his enemies. There have been varying quality results of these interpretations. Clearly, Burton’s two first films helped whet the appetite of the cinema-going masses for Batman. Schumacher’s legacy in the Batman franchise is marked as well, if for all the wrong reasons. It can be argued that without Schumacher, there may have never been a desire to give the franchise a reboot. With that reboot, Batman fans were given the ultimate tribute: Nolan’s Batman Begins and The Dark Knight are the most realistic interpretations to date, and, as evidenced, the best.

Alice in Wonderland (in 3D) (2010)

“Who is this giant person?!” the Red Queen asks of Alice, naked and hiding behind a bush.

I was asking myself the same thing as the lights came up and the music went down. Previously in the week, my three-year-old and I had partaken in a refresher course of Disney’s 1951 version to refresh characters and story arc. My silly child thought we were watching it for entertainment value.

The story of the original Alice is a story of growing up; that nonsense gets a person nowhere, and that everything Alice supposes in exposition at the beginning of the animated film turns out to be flawed in execution. Her’s is a story, at its simplest, of growing up.

In the latest iteration of ‘Alice’, she’s older and coming out to society. There is a marriage proposal on the table. However, Alice, while older, is still aloof as ever. Those careless enough to not pay attention to the symbolism should take notice of a discussion about white roses, a set of twins, and an aunt. Tim Burton takes the moment to point these out in obvious fashion to those willing to observe.

Once Alice is confronted with the coming marriage proposal, her world begins to unravel. I would venture a guess that Alice has a disassociative disorder as her stress-coping mechanism. A good sign would be the metaphysical manifestation of a white rabbit moments after she learns that she’s going to be asked to be married in front of a large group of her “peers.”

So, like any good mentally-ill person dealing with feelings of anxiety and possible momentary agoraphobia, she bolts. The only way I can get away with a line like that is to understand those feelings with uncomfortable empathy. Panic can make a person do any number of odd behaviors, but Alice’s is reversion into a world she once knew but has since long forgot. She remembers this place only in dreams, and lands with a thud in a world once familiar but since changed and bent by the wills of a big-headed little Red Queen played fantastically by Helena Bonham Carter. My fears, after seeing the poster, was that Johnny Depp was going to channel his inner Michael Jackson again per his horrific Willy Wonka. I was thankfully and appreciatively wrong. He’s crazy in this movie, not stupid.

The movie’s simply OK. It is standard fair Tim Burton, adding his flair and twist to a world that seemed destined to be touched by him. The artistry and direction were excellent; this is definitely an upside-down world for an upside-down girl, and Burton took us there. I can say, however, that nothing will be lost if you avoid this movie in 3D. I found nothing gained to watching it with the glasses on. It is simply too soon to call 3D a fad, but after Avatar, I think studio and producer alike will beat this technology into the ground implementing it where it is simply unnecessary. I felt that with the action, illustration and environment in this movie, more is lost than gained utilizing 3D. Opinions will differ on this.

The Jabberwocky was fantasticly scary, and not in a good way. I was grateful my little girl didn’t have bad dreams, because this isn’t your Care Bears’ Jabberwocky. This is the real deal, and his life and death is graphic and horrible. Before taking small children, or those with active imaginations, I would encourage you to speak with others who have seen this movie.

I’m not personally moved by this movie. It was fun (The Hatter’s Futterwaken is not to be missed!), but it dared to take classical characters and reinvent them. I don’t think it succeeded. There’s even a name change of one particular place that takes so much more artistic license than I’m willing to give them. The movie was good enough. I would have preferred to catch on DVD, sans the glasses and the ticket price. It wasn’t the tender treatment of Alice I was expecting, it wasn’t the farcical nature of the world we know, and character utilization was unusual. New characters were introduced, the lore was changed, and the story was, to me, sub-par. I can’t call the movie “bad” per se, it just felt untrue to the original, be it the book or the animated film, and to me that’s a shame. Merely, it was more just disappointing.

The flowers growing during the credits were neat, though.

B. I liked it. I just wasn’t moved by it. Nothing new of long-standing value added to the Alice lore. With performances by Alan Rickman, Crispin Glover, and Anne Hathaway, it’s worth watching for what it is.

Shutter Island (2010)

I show you not Leonardo DiCaprio, star of the aforementioned title, but Sir Ben Kingsley, in the moment I started to feel as though I was understanding the subtext of the plot. I pointed out, in a blurt of inconsideration to the others watching, “… And that right there is the most important line in this movie."

For "Shutter Island" to be the length it was, every scene must have a purpose, either to give us subtle clues, or to seemingly to misdirect us from the truth. This moment, frozen here for posterity, is the connecting puzzle piece, a phrase uttered in passing that comes back to be the underlying plot device of the whole movie.

And I could not love it more.

If you’re not already aware, this movie is a thriller. Suspenseful, ever-changing, and based in a mental institution. It’s got all the elements of creepy just waiting to happen. However, there is no jumping gag, no camera angles to get things to pop out at you. No, there is a plot line, running its course, and generally unpredictable for the most part. There are the clues, and as with every psychological thriller, nothing is as it seems. I was expecting that. Anyone paying for a ticket for this movie should.

A woman has gone missing off an island mental institution. The island in and of itself is a fortress. No one can get in or out except at the ferry. Somehow, this woman slipped the walls, shoeless, and vanished into thin air. So the Federal Marshals were called. This is where Marshals Teddy Daniels (DiCaprio) and Chuck Aule (Mark Ruffalo) come in.

The performances were fantastic. I cannot imagine another person playing Dr. Cawley (Kingsley), as he delivers the grace and understanding of a psychiatrist way ahead of his time. His philosophies on mental health are controversial to the time, when pharmacology is just developing and psycho-surgery has been in full swing for some many, many years. His unorthodox approach to psychiatry makes him highly regarded, and highly suspicious. Without giving too much away, he is a genius beyond regard in his field. In a time when a violent offender would be lobotomized and handed a mop and a drool bucket, he takes an alternate tack.

Ruffalo is excellent as Teddy’s sidekick. His role is complicated by the events that play out, and he takes a pretty steady course to his part. He’s the perfect foil; cliché in all the best ways for the role he needed to have. His part in all of it is relatively innocent, yet the most necessary. His unassuming nature and genuine loyalty to his boss, Teddy, makes for his character arc’s full transition and complete understanding.

A favorite scene for its own merit pits Teddy and the Warden against each other in conversation. The warden leans over and asks him what he would would do if the warden tried to bite his face off? This, in and of its self, is strangely hilarious and gives an otherwise out-of-place chuckle.

DiCaprio just delivers. It is almost underwhelming to watch him act. There’s a mystique to his characters; you know the man, the actor, will not take simple roles. So automatically, and maybe unfairly, the bar is automatically set higher. DiCaprio long since disappears into the wet, determined and “violent” man Teddy Daniels is expected to be. Teddy Daniels gets the job done; he gets his man, and he’ll cut through the red tape to get there. He and the job are one, and he’s not one to not finish the job.

But there’s more. There’s a reason Teddy came out to this island. There’s a reason Teddy’s here, now, at this moment. His assignment is not by pure circumstance. You’ll just have to wait and see.

Prediction: Kingsley gets a nod or at least honorable mention for his role in the awards nominations.

A+. Psychologically deft and suspenseful. A mind-bender, turning into a completely different movie the second time through. What do you choose to believe? You would do good to keep Kleenex close for the third act.