The Secret of Kells (2009)

A Saint Patty’s Days tribute:

Here is a movie I made no claim to knowing anything about before I sat down to it. I had no basis for observation except that of a critical movie viewer, watching for substance and meaning as well as entertainment. This is reviewed solely from the eyes of a man who enjoys ‘Cowboy Bebop’, loved ‘The Princess and The Frog’, and regularly enjoys an animated film such as ‘Up’, ‘The Incredibles’, and a pretty selective taste in anime. I regularly take in these jewels vicariously through the eyes of my daughter, whom I have been steadily introducing to more and more feature-length animation.

Watching the Oscars, the standard fare of animated movies I had seen throughout the year were nominated and shown.

But then, there in the mix, was a pair of two eyes through brush. Those eyes were the first mystery to me. I jotted the title down, and anticipated a chance to catch the movie. I purposefully do everything I can to avoid reviews of these movies, which is really counter to the trade I have here. I wanted to see how an otherwise unknown Oscar-nominated animated film fared against the titles I already knew.
I was pleasantly surprised at what I got.

‘The Secret of Kells’ is based on The Book of Kells, a Christian relic of the 9^th century that was created by monks at Kells Abbey. This setting is the background for the story unfolding in the movie.

The story follows a little boy, Brendan, and the discovery of his love of “illumination.” The backdrop of the threat of Viking attack puts his reasonably overprotective uncle (voiced by Brendan Gleeson, one of my favorite actors) on edge. He is leading the charge to fortify the abbey the monks live in. While doing so, a master illuminator from another abbey arrives on the Kells doorstep. And so begins our little hero’s quest of discovery.

There is a small quest, which will soon reveal the owner of those aforementioned eyes. There are Vikings, wolves, a snake god, and moments of visceral honesty all wrapped up in this surprise animated classic. The animation is sharp; different and initially perplexing to look at. Once used to the style, it really became quite beautiful, interesting; different. I initially watched this with abandon, no understanding of the history behind the story. I’ll admit to having no context to judge the movie on. However, after researching the back history, I found the movie to be very true to source, and give light to the sequence of events, making this more myth than story. It’s a fantastic little film, and a worthy contender against all the big studio productions. I’m a better person for seeing it. If you care to learn the history behind the story, you will be, too.

A. A colorful, enlightening story behind a piece of Christian history. Honest and interesting, beautiful and moving, this gem is worth a watch if you have the cultural background to understand it.

The Crazies (2010)

“Holy crap, that was crazy!”

It wasn’t intended at the time, but that was a bit of a ridiculous exclamation I made walking out of the movie, you know, ‘The Crazies.’ Starring Tim Olyphant, the movie was a fantastic jump-fest right from the start. Having seen the commercials, and watched some of the brief action sequences in those, I had to chuckle then raise an eyebrow in surprise. The movie makes no bones about jumping right into the action. Less than three minutes in, we have a satellite snapping pictures from the sky of a lazy little town called Ogden Marsh, and shortly there after a crazed ex-drunk lunatic coming out of left field (which I suspect is an ode to the phrase)on a baseball diamond , pump-action shotgun in tow. He looks like he just got out of the sewer, and whenever Smell-O-Vision becomes a technical reality, he’ll probably smell like it too. I was NOT expecting the gunshot wound to the skull like Olyphant’s character has to deliver before you’ve had time to process your first few bites of post-light-dimming gorging.

It was not until after I saw the credits roll did I realize that this movie is actually a remake of the original in 1973. George Romero, classic zombie film producer/writer/director and otherwise plutonic necrophiliac, originally produced the very first. With the success of Zach Snyder’s “Dawn of the Dead,” Romero has figured out that remakes can strike box-office gold if he can translate the zombies and other ill-to-dos to the big screen for this generation. “The Crazies” is his latest producer roll, giving the directorial rights again to an up-and-comer, Breck Eisner. The remake of the 1977 classic, “Dawn of The Dead”, was given to, at the time, a little known director by the name of Zach Snyder. Snyder delivered such a raw and visceral remake, the new “Dawn of The Dead” still stands out as one of Romero’s highest grossing films. Zach Snyder won fame from his execution of the script, and has since gone on to direct a little known movie, 300, and a classic adaptation of ‘The Watchmen.’ I believe “The Crazies,” once embraced by the general public, will go the same route.

But enough on Snyder. This movie shines as a “jumper,” employing camera tricks and otherwise wicked sequences of events that make a grown man such as myself jump and squeal in utter surprise. Hell, there are even moments you know it’s coming, and being lost in the sequence of events, concern for the characters, or the otherwise loud-screaming woman three seats from you, you still get caught with that moment where your hands come up and you heart races and you’re immediately wrapped back up in the suspense of the moment.

Another aspect that really interests me as a watcher of horror movies is the aspect of the virus/biological weapon/unknown infection idea. The classic horror movies didn’t try to explain themselves. “The Crazies,” along with latest zombie horror flicks, has a catalyst that starts things into motion. In “The Crazies,” there is a plane crash that occurs about a week before the events start to place. The story arc is fascinating and eerie, a group of hunters finding the distended remains of what looks to be an Army pilot. “Where there’s a pilot,” says our antagonist, “there’s a plane.”

The spooky really starts to kick up at that point, the cinematography, dialogue, and acting notching up the fear to another level. Olyphant’s character, David, accompanied by a deputy and someone driving the boat go out into an aquifer to search out the plane in question. Someone had reported a loud crash about a week ago, but the plot makes this man out to be a chronic liar, and it was summarily disregarded. There’s a moment, that even as I write this, I get goose-bumps.

David signals to stop the boat. There is a momentary pause for effect as his eyes peruse the waters. His eyes light up in enlightenment and a cursory fear. The boat is coasting to a stop. Another character states “We haven’t found the plane.” Olyphant disagrees and has an intense look into the water.

“Yes we have. We’re right over it.”

The other characters look around, still trying to figure out what’s in the water.

“And it’s huge…”

Camera fades back and up, and the boat is swallowed up in the shadowy outline of the plane lying there in the water. This is a tanker or other subsequent transport aircraft and it’s HUGE.

There’s a clear revelation that something is amiss in Ogden Marsh. This is clearly a military aircraft, and there has been nothing in the news, no one investigating the situation. The camera zooms out further, out of the atmosphere and into the eye of a camera on a satellite. A simple phrase runs across the terminal.

Begin containment procedures.

As an avid zombie movie fan and otherwise post-apocalyptic stories, this gave me a giant grin as I sat there. The first thought in my head was “It’s ON.” This movie has me. This movie is running a unique path through the virus-infected zombie subset, and this is as fresh as it gets. Danny Boyle’s “28 Days Later” reinvented the zombie creature feature, and I believe “The Crazies” takes that idea and notches it up a few levels. In Boyle’s game-changer, the threat was solely the zombies, with a sub-plot of a military influence. In “The Crazies,” the military plays an equally insidious and unapologetic killing machine as well. The duality of the threats, coupled with shotgun-wielding rednecks, the threat of infection among the group, a couple sub-plots that play out in character interactions, and the craziest car wash/Hellcat missile sequence you’ll ever see on film makes this to be a FANTASTIC movie.

A.

The Road (2009)

This review has been haunting me for weeks. After seeing The Road, the feel-good movie of the year, I was depressed for the better part of a week. There were not words for the emotions it conjures; the world dead and a man who’s only warrant is to keep his ten year old son alive for no other reason than to live on. The haunting performances and the world in which these characters had me in an introspective funk for days, pondering, the real meaninglessness of the movement of our daily lives when faced with true and final adversity. It is rare that a movie will take a man down a notch; make him stop and reevaluate everything that is important in lieu of loosing everything.

The story follows “The Man,” played by Viggo Mortensen, as he is named in the Cormac McCarthy book by the same name. The world has died, for whatever reason, and he and The Boy are surviving together ten years on. The world is dead, The Man explaining in a voiceover: “There was a bright light, followed by a series of loud booms.” The movie, and the book I’m told, takes no time to explain why the world is dying; it simply is, and these two are the only thing each other have. They take to the road, The Man’s wife suggesting that if they move south, they can get somewhere where it is much warmer.

The movie, from my understanding, is far bleaker than the book. Nothing has survived. Cannibalism is running rampant. There is no food; our protagonists are eternally hungry. They scavenge and they move and they hide from the prowling marauders of cannibals that move across the countryside.

Really though, these plot devices are really only used to show the relationship between The Man and The Boy. The Man is eternally suspicious of everyone, anticipating the worst for him and his son at every human interaction. The Boy, born into this world, has a far less sinister observation of the world, and yearns for human contact outside his father. The dynamic puts the two at odds. As the two move across the landscape, the father attempts to instill into his son the lessons of a world long since dead. This is counter to the reality of the world they live in now.

In one particular scene, The Man tries to explain to The Boy what a Christmas tree is. The Boy, born into a world that knows no Christmas, looks at him blankly. What would be to us a charming nostalgic moment demonstrates the disconnects between realities; The Man trying to hang onto parts of his world, and The Boy trying to process the reality that history, as we know it, is dead.

Another moment finds them on the beach, looking out at the water. The Boy asks “What’s on the otherside?” The Man simply answers: “Nothing.” There is no need for a lesson here; it has no use to their current survival.

This movie makes you think. This movie challenges you. The current fad of Armageddon end-of-the-world movies is supplemented by Mortensen’s intensely personal and emotionally wrecking performance. There is a whole sequence of flashbacks regarding Charlize Theron that will emotionally crush you. I didn’t have a moment of disbelief when watching a new star in the making, Kodi Smith-Mcfee. There is a story that the boy got the part by recreating the scene where The Man shows The Boy how to commit suicide by putting a .45 in his mouth.

Yeah. It’s that kind of smiles and sunshines that keep this movie going. There is a hook at the end of this movie that has led me personally to much speculation. There is discussion by The Man discussing what happens when they dream. Pay particular attention to this at the end. I have theories, but I will not spoil here.

All in all, the end is worth the means. Take a few hours and travel “The Road.” You may find yourself reconsidering what is important to you, and anything that can do that is worth a watch.

A. Moving. Disturbing. Lost in the world that Director John Hillcoat brings to life, you’re with these two as you can’t help but hope for them through the gray.

Crazy Heart (2009)

This one is just in time for the Oscars:

To all my hard-livin’ friends in the honkey-tonks and dives, I raise a glass and a review. This next one here was written just for you.

I did everything I could to avoid finding out about what “Crazy Heart” was about. When I had heard Jeff Bridges had given an Oscar-nominated performance, like every other male in the 18-25…ish demographic, I wanted to know what The Dude had done. Or, El Duderino if you’re, well, you know.

What I discovered was nothing less than the dusty jewel of what I can only imagine every country singer wishes to capture in the words and music of the art they perform. This story, this journey of Bad Blake, a man apart, spoke volumes to anyone who has ever called a honkey-tonk dive a home and fifth of the cheapest sour mash whiskey a blanket. This movie empathizes with those who have traded, as the song goes, ”wedding bells for the sound of clinking glass”. This movie hazards an observation of the most talented among us, the artistic undercurrent of those who lived life the hardest and sucked deep at the dusty wind of a spring morning and were chewed up by the demons they made their bets with. These poor trubadors just never took the time to die, roaming the countryside, singing their songs of truth, and love and pain.

“Crazy Heart” takes a strong, hard look at the life of a man lived in regret, seeking some redemption for the mistakes he’s made and some inspiration to harness what he once had into something new. Saturated with whiskey, women, and more talent than any one human deserves, he’s meandering through life, failed marriages and relationships scattering the countryside. His strength is his charm, but so is his weakness. He’s an entertainer, a consummate performer and a tribute to this trade. Even if he does stumble off a stage to puke mid-song.

With a surprising performance from Maggie Gyllenhall, sudden “what the Hell?!” moment(s) from otherwise movie bad boy Colin Ferrel, and an accapella from none other than Robert Duvall, it’s a heart-warming and heart-breaking ride through the life of a man who’s most prized possession is his classic guitars and his ’78 Chevrolet Suburban, ‘Bessie’. Anyone who’s known anybody with too much talent and too much time, with a good heart but an old, sad soul, will understand this movie on a different level.

The added bonus of the movie is Jeff Bridges does all his own singing and playing of the guitar. The same for an aforementioned character. I was actually a little distracted by that question, and it made it all the more powerful when I realized that it truly was Jeff Bridges letting loose on the ballads. The music director and an executive producer on the movie is none other than T-Bone Burnett, the great Nashville record producer (he’s produced many number one hits and was once married to Shania Twain). He wrote and produced almost all the music in the movie, and the quality shows. Bridges lent his voice, and there wasn’t a question to the validity of his ability. The man has chops.

So does this movie.

A. Jeff Bridges delivers with a surprise supporting cast and the heart-breaking truth prevails over any Hollywood dream.

Superman Returns (2006)

(Originally posted at grioghar.blogspot.com on June 28th, 2006. This is my very first movie review ever put online. Moved here for posterity.)

In the same way Christopher Nolan reinvented the Batman franchise, Bryan Singer has made Superman a relevant movie franchise again. Singer, poised with his co-producers and writers, has brought Superman back from a 19-year hiatus from the silver screen with all the integrity, emotion, action and competency we've all come to expect from a comic-book-to-big-screen adaptation. The movie length was pleasantly unnoticeable, initially annoying to me to discover it was a lengthy 2 hours, 37 minutes. The movie's pace, from galloping action segwaying into emotional sentiment never found me checking my phone's clock for the redemption of the popcorn stand (read: Pixar's Cars).

The CG was the best I've seen this summer, with the singular exception of Pixar's summer smash. A sequence involving two airplanes coupled together was arguably the coolest cinematic CG sequence I've seen this summer, if ever. I won't go into detail as not to reveal plot or action, but I found once the action had subsided, I had to scoot back into my seat.

Another item of interest in this scene was something that I think was aimed at all the space geeks: It APPEARED that Richard Branson was the third pilot in the space ship. Watch for the bearded third pilot with just a few lines. For those that don't know who Richard Branson is, ever heard of the Virgin corporate empire? I thought it was a very cool add-in to have Branson, who's currently trying to make commercial spaceflight possible, an Easter egg for those who knew what to look for.

Brandon Routh has successfully succeeded Christopher Reeves as Superman. There's no questions the "the son has become the father" in this respect. I don't capitalize the nouns, but I'll get into that in a moment. I have to say, not knowing who Routh was previous to this performance probably made him more believable as The Man of Steel. That being said, however, I don't want to downplay Routh's performance; his kinetic and sure-footed Superman, clumsy, socially underdeveloped Clark Kent and the crazy, bi-polar predicament the world's greatest man and more endeared alien find himself in. Routh executes with a touch of lovable humility that has made the Superman comic so successful for the last 70 years.

I've never been much of a fan of Gene Hackman, except for an honorary mention in last year's fiasco of a book known as 'A Million Little Pieces'. That same disdain carries into Hackman's original portrayal of Luthor in the original movies. Comparatively, Kevin Spacey's humanized, intelligent and distinctly much more machiavellian Lex Luthor was... believeable, but something was lost. I don't know. Spacey's performance was even; an exchange between him and Lois Lane was classic Luthor. I just didn't get the shear evil that Smallville's Michael Rosenbaum's Lex portrays. Lex on Smallville is still making the descent into the malevolent, self-serving destroyer of Man that he ultimately becomes. In the process, he loses all that is good to become the ultimate Superman-universe evil. Compared to the Luthor Singer gives us, Spacey's Luthor is childish, playful yet maniacal. Sinister wouldn't be a word I would use to describe Lex; resourcefully annoying is more accurate.

Kate Bosworth makes a satisfying enough Lois Lane. I wasn't moved one way or the other, though I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. Her looks were demure, a modest but beautiful and her acting was well enough done; I won't reveal plot, though her conflict external and internal concerning her feelings for Superman were done with the proper amount of exposition by the other, lighter characters.Jimmy Olsen's comic relief and dialogue in Act 1 helped jumpstart Lois' character for us from the end of Superman II, which is what has been rumored to be where this story is supposed to start from.

I'll not comment on James Marsden. I'm not a huge fan, and this guy being a core character throughout the movie made for rather arduous internal grumbling. I wasn't a huge fan of him in the X-Men series orThe Notebook, so I'd rather not tear into him unneccesarily due to a personal dislike.

Now that I've segwayed from favorite to least favorite character, I'm going to go into some things I observed about the movie that were... lacking... This section of the writeup may be better suited for you once you've actually seen the movie; some of the observations here may and probably will give away plot and plot devices.

* I'm going to have to watch Superman II again. I don't know HOW Lex was able to figure out where the Fortress of Solitude was.
* Also, is it just me, or did no one in the movie make the correlation between Clark being gone for five years and Superman being gone for five years? Where's Clark been this whole time? "Off talking to llamas" wasn't a good enough explaination. Why doesn't Jimmy further persue Clark when he steps out of the bar, only to run down the alley and fly off to save Lois?
* I believe the sickly little boy that is ultimately revealed as The Son of Superman is being constantly poisoned by Kryptonite somewhere in Lois' home.
* Where is Clark? I mean, seriously? There's a good hour of this movie where Clark is unaccounted for, and Superman is running around.
* There are shots with the airplane that seem to have been left out of the digital effects editing. Given the dense accumulation of all the crystals throughout the water, some of the scenes just didn't make any sense.
* The boy flies the plane up. Pure and simple. His fear kindles a small part of his ability to fly.
* Superman is not Jesus Christ. There's a sequence later in the movie where I couldn't help but roll my eyes. I understand the director's message: Superman is the savior of man, back, sacrificing himself to save all of humanity. More important was the aquisition of the crystals that I believe Kitty would have grabbed. The heavy-handed moments of the arms extended hanging-on-the-cross style, followed by his death, and resurrection and the "stone being moved away on its own" was a little more cheesy than I was expecting.

Overall I loved the movie. I'll own it when it comes out on DVD. I don't write movie reviews, if that's any indicator of how it moved me. Nothing really now to look forward to in the comic book world for a while except the potential Wolverine series, Ghost Rider, Joss Whedon's Wonder Woman, and of course, Spider Man 3!