High Come Down – The Colossal Disappointment of “The Green Hornet”

Have you ever been excited about the idea of something so much that when you eventually got to experience that it ultimately let you down in unimaginable ways? Of course you have. It happens to all of us. We’re movie fans because the good ones elicit a certain joy and giddiness in us that we strive for. It makes us feel a high different from other types of excitement and we’re on a continuous search to find a new way to feel the same thing. Some choose drugs. Some choose movies. Some combine them and watch “Trainspotting.”

The goal of this series is to highlight movies that carried high expectations not necessarily by the movie-going public at-large, but by me, that for any number of reasons, I felt were colossal disappointments. Since you’re undoubtedly wondering, the title of the series refers to a Chico & Coolwadda song featuring Nate Dogg (listen here). It’s about the times our dreams are dashed, placed on the street and given the “American History X” treatment. There are many reasons why I can be excited about an upcoming project. It could be the director, the stars, the concept or any other myriad of possibilities. I’ll highlight what excited me about the film in the lead-up to seeing it and then accompany it with why it so went so horribly wrong that I felt I needed to write a piece about it.

I’ve struggled when deciding if I wanted to go forth with this series (even though this if the first installment). Being negative is easy. And being negative on the Internet seems like its sole purpose. It’s so rampant that I can’t bring myself to read comments. Not just on my stuff, but anyone’s. Every idiot is allowed to have a voice and ten times to one (if not more), that voice is one of criticism. My goal is not to add to that. However, I realize a series about “Colossal Disappointments” isn’t particularly an exercise in positivity. However, my intent isn’t to rip or tear down. The reason these films disappointed me is because I wanted to like them.  Not only wanted, but expected to like. And because my expectations weren’t met, I was disappointed. I like the filmmakers involved. They’ve already won me over and I root for them to continue to do so. In these instances, however, my excitement came to a standstill.

“The Green Hornet,” you made my high come down.

Why I was excited:

At the height of this site posting movie news, “The Green Hornet” information had just been breaking. I was all over it. I wanted to cover every tidbit and angle, purely due to the very first morsel to come down the pike: Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg were writing a “Green Hornet” movie and Rogen was slated to star.

I might have expressed ambivalence about the news, initially. I remember “The Green Hornet” having a campy ‘60s show in the vein of the Adam West-starring “Batman,” and that Bruce Lee played the title character’s sidekick, Kato. But I had no special connection to the series. The casting of Rogen as a “superhero,” was odd, but so was Heath Ledger as the Joker and Robert Downey Jr. in “Iron Man.” Out of the box casting decisions had been knocked out of the park before.

However, the casting (to this point) was inconsequential to my excitement. I was excited for the script. Ever since “Knocked Up,” I’d been a huge Rogen fan (yes, I’m fully aware he didn’t write it). He was about my age and had a writing career I envied, starting with writing for “Undeclared” at 20 years old, in addition to “Da Ali G Show” (which I think is one of the weirdest and coolest credits to have). He and Goldberg had written “Superbad,” which I fully enjoyed and “Pineapple Express,” which I thought had some moments (the trailer alone was one of the best two minutes of the past several years) and thus I was happy to welcome another project from the duo with open arms, figuring I was in for another laugh-fest.

Then, there were discussions about who should direct the movie. I remember Harry Knowles voting for James McTeigue (“V for Vendetta”) and when Stephen Chow (“Kung Fu Hustle”) was considering starring as Kato, he was also in line to direct. Neither choice would’ve moved me, but it also wouldn’t have negatively influenced me purely because of my thoughts on the potential script. Then, they made such a radically brilliant choice, I could hardly contain myself (just look at the exclamation points on this headline).  I think Michel Gondry is a bit of a genius. His in-camera creativity is so much more special than any CGI effects. One of the most frequently popped-in DVDs I own is the disc of his music videos that was released. $100 couldn’t get me to part with it (unless it could be used to buy a new one).  I’d also seen “Human Nature,” “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind,” “Science of Sleep” and “Be Kind Rewind.” “Eternal Sunshine” is undoubtedly great, but I’d only seen it once. For me, my excitement was almost completely based on those music videos.

The combination of Rogen and Gondry was I all needed for the film to be one of my most anticipated of 2010 (when it was originally slated to be released), alongside only “Inception,” “Toy Story 3” and “The Social Network” (semi-coincidentally, those three films landed as my three favorites of the year, “The Green Hornet” obviously did not), but they decided to throw in a bonus, as well. The film had originally cast Nickel Gage Cage as the villain, but due to “creative differences” (the rumor was Cage wanted to speak in a Jamaican accent), he exited the project. Stepping in was Christoph Waltz. He had just come off winning Best Supporting Actor for my favorite film of ’09 (“Inglourious Basterds”) and was absolutely one of the many brilliant parts of that movie.

With three things I knew I enjoyed, coming together as one, I was primed for brilliance.

What went wrong:

Let’s start with the script. Not the text itself. I don’t know what the original drafts looked like. I don’t know what the studio demanded. I didn’t hear the notes Rogen and Goldberg were given. What I know is that what was on screen didn’t give me what I expected. When you hear Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg are writing a superhero movie, you expect an action-comedy based on their past credentials. I believe an action-comedy is what this movie is supposed to be, but there are two issues I see in that description. I don’t believe the movie contains much action, nor do I find it to be very comedic. I think the film tries for these things. I also think it doesn’t succeed.

I laughed exactly once during the movie. And remember, I think Rogen is hilarious. It was at the end of the film when Britt Reid fakes taking a bullet from the Green Hornet to completely dispense of the Hornet as a “hero” to be clamored for. Everything else fell flat for me. Remember when James Franco tries kicking out the windshield of the police car in “Pineapple Express?” That was funny because it subverts expectations (kinda like this movie. Maybe the joke was on me for watching it and/or expecting to like it). Here, there was none of that (save for the scene I just described as making me laugh).

What constitutes “action” is completely up for argument. I can understand that. However, I would contest that there’s essentially only one action sequence in the film. And it’s about a fifteen-minute stretch toward the end that entails the Black Beauty being bifurcated by an elevator. That’s not a knock. That’s fine. What’s disheartening (the punny definition) is until that sequence, the film seems to be sorely lacking any pulse at all.

And that’s where Michel Gondry comes in. You’ll notice I didn’t touch upon his films outside of “Eternal Sunshine” as being reasons for optimism. And that’s because I don’t hold them in much esteem. “I’ve seen “Human Nature” once, and while not hated, think it’s completely forgettable. I actually hadn’t made it all the way through “Science of Sleep” and “Be Kind Rewind” was the worst movie of 2008 that I had seen, largely due to my disappointment in it failing to meet my expectations (though I’ll spare you the “High Come Down” piece about that film). Now, it could be argued that I should have known what I was in for. Or that I should’ve known it was at least a possibility. However, the conclusion I decided to draw from “Science of Sleep” and “Be Kind Rewind” is that Gondry shouldn’t be a writer. A great visual artist, but not the guy you want in control of your story and dialogue. Rogen and Goldberg’s script was supposed to alleviate that issue.

Unfortunately, what I got was a film that was decidedly un-Gondry-like. For the vast majority of the film, you’d be hard-pressed to think anybody other than Directing Bot 5000 was behind the camera. As an ardent fan, I’d say there were only five moments in which Gondry put his stamp on the movie. Sadly, all of them probably add up to about four minutes of screen time and three of them were “Kato Vision.”

I had read about “Kato Vision” before I ever witnessed it. Rogen was interviewed about the choice of Gondry as director and he talked about Gondry developing a technique using different shutter speeds. This comes into play when Kato focuses on a weapon, it’s highlighted on screen, and he works to dislodge the item from the soon-to-be victim. It’s pretty similar to the technique used by Guy Ritchie to show off Sherlock Holmes’ intuitive brilliance in those films. As I said, it’s used three times and not for particularly long stretches.

One of the other two distinct Gondry moments came in the form of a killing-spree montage of Christoph Waltz’ re-dubbed Bloodnofsky, creating terror in the streets in order to grab the headline-attention away from The Green Hornet.

Speaking of Waltz, I don’t think he’s very good in this. To be honest, it kind of made me question if Colonel Hans Landa was just a lightning-in-a-bottle performance. Luckily, I was fully dsimissed of that notion in “Django Unchained,” for which he deservedly won a second Best Supporting Actor Oscar. Though that role was essentially written for him, he blew me away in his first minute on screen, completely making me forget his “Green Hornet” role ever existed. But why didn’t it work? He’s obviously a fantastic actor.

The character of Chud-/Blood-nofsky means nothing to anyone watching this movie. He has little screen time. I guess his sole motivation as a gangster is he feels disrespected by others in the crime business. He wants to feel intimidating and strike fear in people, but isn’t viewed that way by anyone. It’s what should be a somewhat comedic premise, but like so much of the film, the character is devoid of laughter. Quentin Tarantino can wring guffaws from a Nazi, Jew-hunting detective, but here, it’s nil. You have to blame the writing. I don’t think there’s any other excuse. I still don’t find Waltz compelling with what he’s given, so I can’t point fingers at any party in particular, but this is just a shame.

For something that didn’t disappointment me from an expectations standpoint, but certainly contributed to the poor final product, was Kato actor, Jay Chou. He’s not good. I don’t know if Bruce Lee was a brutal actor during “The Green Hornet” TV show, and maybe he was, but Chou is just distracting. It’s not just that he doesn’t speak English good (that’s the joke), but his emoting is so rigid and stiff. He was chosen mainly for whatever martial arts prowess he has and I’m sure he’s accomplished in that area, but he rarely gets a chance to show it off. That’s more of a fault of the filmmaking than it is Chou, but if they were going to rein that aspect in so much, they might as well have sprung for someone with better acting chops.

As much as I was let down by individuals, I have an aching feeling the movie could have been much different had it not been funded by an overbearing studio. This affects so many elements, almost no one probably made the movie they would’ve wanted to make. As Larry David says, “a compromise is when (all) parties are equally dissatisfied.” I’m positive delivering a PG-13-ready script was in Rogen and Goldberg’s contract. Obviously PG-13 films can be good and well-made, but past precedence shows their brand of comedy works best in an R-rated setting. It’s almost as if knowing they’d need to water down their style drained some life from them and they delivered a tepid mess.

Studio politics undoubtedly kept Gondry from being Gondry, too. Guy Ritchie is someone with a distinct visual style who’s been able to maintain a portion of his inventiveness working within the studio system. However, like Gondry, there’s at least an equal amount of directors who aren’t able to deliver their brand of goods when kept at arms-length from doing so.

The studio certainly appeared to want to swing for the fences in making big out-of-the-box choices, but I have a feeling they shoulder a large part of the blame for only willing to take so many chances. As a result, “The Green Hornet” is the movie that inspired this series. The epitome of filmic disappointment. However, as you’ll see, it’s far from the only movie to let me down. 

What to watch instead:

Now that I’ve relived the film breaking my spirit of expectations, I need to remind you and myself why there’s reason for hope with everybody involved again, just as there was going in. Instead of taking your time to rent and watch “The Green Hornet” or god forbid plunk down any hard-earned money on a DVD or Blu-ray, watch these instead:

The Michel Gondry music video DVD. Buy it here. Every White Stripes video is a piece of utter brilliance, but the unsung hero of the disc (although not all the interesting a song) is for Cibo Matta’s “Sugar Water.” It’s mind-boggling in its execution. You’ll become an instant fan and start anticipating Gondry’s next feature. Hopefully it won’t let you down.

The Tarantino/Christoph Waltz films (“Inglourious Basterds” and “Django Unchained”). Don’t waste time with sub-par Waltz. See him at his completely deserving, awards-worthy best. He’ll make you respect a Nazi, Jew-hunting detective and redeem himself completely by setting a slave free to seek vengeance on abhorrent slave owners.

Any Seth Rogen-scripted IMDb entry prior to this. You can also probably skip “Drillbit Taylor.” Let’s say this one marked a semi-fall from grace. Just remember this guy is capable of bringing huge laughs. He’ll do it once again. We just need to wait for the right moment.

There are several recommendations amongst those three paragraphs. Spend some of your life enjoying yourself by watching any or all of them. If you ever you get too high, “The Green Hornet” is your mental Visine.

2012-13 Oscars Show Wrap-Up With Thoughts

Now that Hollywood’s most important event is over, it’s time to chime in with thoughts on the show and some of the awards itself. You can check out the winners here or our winners with even better list, here.

As for Seth MacFarlane, I won’t rip him, as he did a fair job. Truth is, the show just will always handcuff its hosts and therefore, you are immediately at a disadvantage. He bombed many jokes but had a few hits. Ultimately, the show was just boring, as it continues to be regardless of what the Academy tries to do to spice it up. When Eddie Murphy was once considered as a host, even announced, that was cause for considerable intrigue if not optimism, but even then, the reality is that a host can only do so much with the limitations placed on the show, sponsorships, etc. The Spirit Awards by comparison is far more interesting and real on the surface.

The Oscars continue to dwindle in overall importance. There were 6 different winners in all the main categories. Yes, that means it’s an open playing field, but what does winning really even matter anymore? When a name like Ben Affleck can win almost every other directing award and then not be nominated in the category for the Oscar, it really makes one pause, right or wrong. Then Argo, winning it all was more of a media driven slight on his behalf than because it was a great movie. Good, yes. Great, no. To the Oscars’ credit, Christoph Waltz beat Tommy Lee Jones in the Supporting Actor category, a just and rightful victory. 

I had no problem with the award winners, really, but would rather see more of an emphasis on the performances and on the films itself than lame some skits as sideshows. Give me more Joaquin Phoenix as Freddie Quell, maybe even go MTV style and talk to some audience members during the show for some brief Q&A’s. Running out a thrashed looking Kristen Stewart and a likely drugged or drunk Renee Zellwegger to read lame pre-scripted awards briefs is tired. Let’s make this more real and informational, with less glad-handing and routine. 

The broadcast itself and the show itself should really be about the stars. We don’t need ubiquitous shots of a 9-year old flexing her muscles, we’d rather have reaction shots to the barbs that were flying from the host. The show failed miserably by not relying on the stars in the audience for these shots (fake or not) and the show suffered as a result. If it’s about the stars, then show the damn stars already.

The song and dance routines have become stale beyond compare. Seriously, this isn’t the 50’s anymore, or the 70’s for that matter. No need for Captain Kirk and no need for hokey show tune dance numbers. Bring back Oscar winners Three 6 Mafia and have Channing Tatum breakdance to their song. That would be better. The show needs to grow some balls to ever regain the relevance it once held so true.

On that note, how about incorporating some hashtags and social media importance. Every other show seems to do this nowadays and with a supposed billion people watching, let’s bring everyone in on the action. It’s overdue. If you have thoughts on this or anything in relation to the show, let’s hear it!

Spoiler-filled Mini Movie Reviews From Recently Watched Amazon Prime List

Tower Heist (2012)

The crew plans to dine and dash during their heist plot. If only I had done the same.

The return of Eddie Murphy. That is the only reason I saw this movie. That, and the fact that Nas’ song of the same name made me think there might be a decent soundtrack. Mistake. Sizable one. Murphy is mildly funny in a comedy mostly devoid of laughs. Brett Ratner (Rush Hour) directs Ben Stiller, Murphy, Tea Leoni and others in a film about a manager and his crew screwed over by a Forbes rich list penthouse dweller in “The Tower.” The plot is riddled with holes. The script lacks bite. Ratner does his best to keep the film moving at a nice clip and keep all the characters involved, but save for a somewhat interesting hijacking of a car from the penthouse, which goes all wrong, there just isn’t much to see here. It’s surprising that a studio can get all of this talent together only to jump off from a weak script or some poor directorial choices. It’s all for not. To top it all off, there is no soundtrack to speak of, save for a typical little score and Nas’ song doesn’t play until during the end credits. Needless to say, by then I didn’t bother to stick around to hear it. That’s why I have my iPod. Pass on this Heist gone awry. Thank me later.

Take This Waltz (2012)

Who wouldn’t think a girly man in short pants is the sexiest thing going?

Take The Waltz, from actress/director Sarah Polley (Go), has an interesting concept with a solid message but only so-so delivery. Waltz sees Seth Rogen’s Lou married to Michelle Williams’ Margot for 5 years of reasonable fun, but ultimately routine with occasionally troubling partnership (read: intimacy) issues. Sounds like real life. Margot meets Luke Kirby’s Daniel and sparks semi-fly. Okay, they are supposed to fly, but I didn’t see much really there. Nevertheless, that wasn’t this film’s big problem. Polley’s bland direction and the story’s snail’s pacing hurt. When you finally get around to what you are waiting to see – will Daniel and Margot hook up? – too much time has passed for it to matter as much as it should. Yes, Margot leaves Lou and ends up regretting it once the newness of her steamy relationship with Daniel cools. This is the lesson to be learned. Play with fire, you get burned or more appropriately, you make your bed, you sleep in it, or any other such metaphor for the grass isn’t always greener in the end. Waltz had good intentions, but it isn’t worth taking this dance. Puff, puff, pass.

21 Jump Street (2012)

B-b-b-b-booyaka shot!!

The remake of the former cult TV series hit stars Channing Tatum and a slimmed down Jonah Hill as screw up cops trying to crack a drug ring in high school. The film did big business, with gag attempts o’ plenty, most of which were huge misses. The film goes to the lowest common denominator, which I don’t have a problem with, but its story was fairly bland and predictable, even if I remained intrigued throughout. The payoff never really came though. Jump Street isn’t a bad film per se, it does what you expect it to, which is suck and be entirely average, mostly. The cops get high, party, chase girls, have role reversals and eventually crack the case. Sorry for ruining any suspense. This is your standard fare and the team deserves credit for trying a tons of jokes throughout, its just that none of them really made any impact. The heartiest (and really one of only a few at best) laugh was saved for the very end of the film, when something undeniably funny happens. Lorena Bobbitt would be proud. I’d pass on Jump Street unless you are really head over heels for Tatum, in which case, please indulge. He’s hunky, or so the film tries to tell us throughout.

Mini Movie Reviews From Recent Amazon Prime Film Viewings

Humpday (2009)

The stars of ‘Humpday’ have nothing on ‘Brokeback Mountain.’ Silly stuff.

Humpday is a film that was seemingly well received, by newcomer Lynn Shelton. She directs and has a small role in the film about two straight men who desire to make a porn art film. Yes, you read that right. These guys, one married and one drifter, decide that to better themselves they should fuck. Makes no sense. Unfortunately, the film collapses as a result. The guys don’t ultimately go through with the deed, I’ll spare you the suspense. Because, really, if you are straight, why in the fuck would you even seriously consider doing such a thing? No clue. The film is probably trying to get you to think about larger themes of openness and sexuality; of what is typical versus what is acceptable; things of that ilk. But you can’t present a premise, which is absurd in the first place, and then not have the characters conquer their deed. Stupid. Additionally, the in your face, low budget style of the film runs its course very soon. Sound crackles and the movie has absolutely no cinematic quality. It’s like watching a bad reality show, with smaller stars. I understand its attempt to try something deeper than what’s conventional, it just isn’t successful in this presentation.

Middle Men (2009)

Through luck, Luke Wilson’s Jack becomes an object of power in ‘Middle Men.’

Middle Men was made for $22mm and earned less than $1mm at the box office. That doesn’t add up to success. Strangely though, the film seemed to garner relatively positive reviews, so I was interested in seeing this for a few years. Unfortunately, quickly after watching, the movie lived down to expectations. The cast is notable in its heft, but the film, which is billed as a comedy, plays much more like a dark drama with voiceover. Loosely based on real people or events, Middle Men stars Luke Wilson as a business fixer who becomes involved in a billing company for porn sites on the Internet. The company shoots to great success and Wilson’s Jack Harris struggles with his relationships all around as a result. From his wife and kids to his business “partners” to the feds to just about anyone else, Jack teeters on getting in over his head throughout. The movie kept my interest, but only as a drama; the comedy aspect was next to non-existent. When Jack’s fate is wrapped up (along with his business partners) after cunning and double crossing, the end was met with a shrug of the shoulders. If this was billed as a drama, I would have enjoyed it more, but I was expecting some laughs and minutes into the movie I knew that they weren’t coming. Oh well, still an interesting enough of a tale to catch on a boring weekend I suppose.

Prometheus (2012)

Fassbender’s David uncovers an ancient hologram in the jumbled sci-fi effort ‘Prometheus.’

Ridley Scott’s quasi-prequel to Alien has incredible production values and amazing visual effects work. There are some gorgeous vistas and set pieces in this film. The movie has a generally solid cast, including Charlize Theron, Idris Elba, Michael Fassbender and Noomi Rapace. The film’s plot is even remotely interesting, about a group of scientists out to discover how mankind began – in the year 2089. Unfortunately, the rest of the film is kind of a mess. Fassbender is sterling as an Android named David with a sinister, chilling bent. Rapace is the true star of the film, as the story is really centered around her character. A bit of a surprise given the cast, which includes the heavily made up Guy Pearce as a very old Weyland. Prometheus, the name of the ship, lands on a rock in space and the story becomes jumbled and sophomoric too often. Its fun to see Theron kill someone by lighting him on fire; less so to see an alien birthed during a solo c-section procedure. The story is merely a loose string to attempt (poorly) to connect some beautiful scenery and sets. The film is worth seeing on spectacle and occasional fun, primarily from Fassbender’s David or Theron’s Vickers, but good luck trying to legitimately be moved by any of the events on screen. Too bad, in the end.

Mini Movie Reviews From My Recent Movie Watching

Safe (2012)

Jason Statham’s character plays it anything but safe in Safe, despite this pic.

Jason Statham continues to churn out low budget yet bankable action movies that gross in the high #20’s to low 30’s million on average. Safe, the latest in his oeuvre banked only $17mm domestically and $40mm worldwide. The film might have deserved better as it features Statham in a no-nonsense role as an ex-cop turned middle of the road MMA fighter turned homeless man turned would-be father figure. The Stath’s Luke nears suicide when he sees Mei, a young Chinese math savant with a photographic memory, which keeps Luke from killing himself and propels him to find out more about her predicament. Mei is caught between rival Chinese and Russian gangs, because she knows the combination to a safe, which houses $30 million. The plot is convoluted to the umpteenth power, but the film gets props for having relentless villains that do more killing than quipping. Everyone shoots first and asks questions last, which enhances an otherwise average movie experience. Also, this one is a little slow to get moving, but once it gets there, the foot stays firmly pressed to the metal. A decent action movie.

Pusher II: With Blood On My Hands (2004)

Tonny nabs a baby that is apparently his in Pusher II, the baby is not the “blood on his hands” though.

Pusher II, which was discussed in greater length years ago on The Film Nest, is director Nicolas Winding Refn’s follow up to his ’96 indie sensation. This film finds Tonny released from prison wanting to make himself a better man, but caught instantly getting involved with his disapproving father’s auto ring and a friend’s drug deal gone bad. To top it off, Tonny, ever the doofus, has a kid with the town whore, who loathes him. This film is slightly more mature than Pusher, with Tonny (Mads Mikkelssen) constantly trying to work things through in his mind, even while in a constant state of drug-induced stupor. The film crackles with a bit of humor and fire, even though the pacing is a bit more languid than the first film. When Tonny faces death or an opportunity to resolve himself in his father’s eyes, he chooses unfortunately. He thus, ends up with blood on his hands. Refn’s direction continually pushes intimacy with the characters and situations, which is a trademark of his style. The film leaves the viewer the option of ending the movie in their mind, which is a welcome solution in my mind. This is the best of Refn’s Pusher trilogy, even if it is a different film than the first.

All Things Fall Apart (2011)

50 Cent was denied his rightful Oscar nomination for his portrayal of a baller with cancer.

Former rap superstar turned quasi actor Curtis “50 Cent” Jackson stars as a college running back who succumbs to cancer. The film was notable for the lead’s dramatic weight loss, where he lost upwards of 50 lbs., transforming a typically imposing physique to a much more frail one. He deserves props for that – and for rocking genius dreads otherwise – but the film doesn’t have much else going for it. From the opening frame, you can tell this is a poorly put together film, which is kind of too bad, because it has the pieces to be something more. The execution is just “off.” Supporting players Mario Van Peebles, doing his best Ving Rhames in the superior Baby Boy; Ray Liotta, doing his worst and far too common iteration of a Ray Liotta character; and Lynn Whitfield – no comment, don’t help matters. The script has pieces and there are a few scenes here or there, but the unfortunate whole is simply not captivating. There is an element hard to pinpoint, which would make it all more palatable, but instead All Things Fall Apart feels like a film that fell apart. Its one that seems more suited to an afterschool special, sadly.

‘Wreck-It Ralph’ is the Car-Related Movie Pixar Should Have Made

By now, last week’s news of Disney acquiring the rights to Lucasfilm and all properties under that banner has undoubtedly reverberated through your mind and fired some synapses in your brain. There’s no reason to rehash the details here, but obviously this was huge news for film fans. It’s a deal that almost ensures Disney as the premier movie studio for years to come. However, it was more than six years ago now that Disney made a similar blockbuster deal that didn’t seem to make nearly as many waves, but was every bit as big an acquisition (that deal in 2006 was made for $7.4 billion, as opposed to the $4.05 billion mark paid to George Lucas). That deal of course was for Pixar. Although Pixar was their own movie studio, Disney had done their distribution, so perhaps that deal always appeared inevitable. In addition to now owning the animation studio, one of the terms of the deal was that John Lassetter, Pixar’s chief, was also made the chief of Disney Animation, spreading his considerable storytelling talents between Pixar and the Mouse House.

Lassetter was finalizing his directorial efforts on Cars at the time of the acquisition. Though the film went on to gross more than $460 million at the worldwide box office, it opened to the worst (actually, just “least good”) reviews of Pixar’s (at that point) seven-film life. A scratch on the box office gold woven by the studio finally emerged, but it proved to be just an aberration. In subsequent years the studio churned out Ratatouille, my favorite film of 2007; Wall-E, a film whose (along with The Dark Knight) snub from Best Picture consideration caused the Academy Awards to re-think its process; and two back-to-back Best Picture nominees in the form of Up and Toy Story 3.

But all the accolades came to a screeching halt again in 2011, when Lassetter hopped back into the director’s chair for the first time since Cars, for Pixar’s Cars 2. He had a chance for a do-over. Take a mulligan. He could have done something original. Instead he went back to the well. It reminds me of one-season-wonder reality show “On the Lot,” back in 2007. Contestants were aspiring film directors vying for the chance for a million dollar studio deal and were tasked with directing a new short film each week. The show had an astounding talent named Zach Lipovsky. Judge Carrie Fisher called him a “wunderkind.” Lipovsky blazed through the show, seemingly winning week after week. Until at one point he tried something the judges didn’t quite get. They never quite connected to his new short and he lost that invincible shield. They still loved him and his work. He just didn’t win that week. The following week, Lipovsky’s ego apparently overcame him, wanting to show the judges and everybody else how wrong they were for not fawning over his previous week’s work. He made sequel to it. And he was promptly eliminated. Like Lipovsky, Lassetter’s stubborn return to the one film in Pixar’s ouevre that wasn’t met with accolades all around ended up hurting even more. This time out, reviews were akin to not only a poor Pixar movie, but poor for any movie. And to this point, doubt continues to linger. Though this year’s Brave was good and competent, nobody’s mistaking it for the studio’s ten other non-Cars films. Ironically, what he failed to accomplish with the “Cars” franchise is made up for in the unlikeliest of places, in his alternate gig as Disney Animation chief, overseeing Wreck-It Ralph.

The Wreck-It Ralph video game smacks of Nintendo’s classic Donkey Kong.

On the surface, Wreck-It Ralph, hardly seems like a car movie at all. And indeed it is far more than just that. “Ralph” takes place in the world of video games. Arcade games to be exact. The title character is the co-star of a game called “Fix-It Felix Jr.” It’s like “Rampage” from the point-of-view of the city construction workers after King Kong, Godzilla and other monsters destroyed their beautiful buildings. Ralph would be one of those monsters. A “bad guy,” but necessarily a “bad guy.” His job is to destroy a high-rise building, leaving Fix-It Felix Jr. to make repairs with a tap of his magic golden hammer. At the end of the day, he is rewarded with gold medals and the fawning and admiration of the building’s tenants. Ralph is heaved off the roof, tumbling heels-over-enormous-fists all the way to the pavement. All Ralph yearns for is to be one of the admired. One of the medal winners. One of the heroes. And one accepted for who he is as opposed to being banished for who he’s programmed to be.

The world of Wreck-It Ralph allows for characters of the games in the arcade to interact with one another during their downtime, when the arcade is closed. Ralph shares the screen with classic arcade stalwarts such as Q*Bert and Pac-man. He roams the same halls occupied by “Street Fighter II’s” Chun-Li and “Super Mario Bros.” Bowser. He even game-jumps in the ultimate no-no of the universe, hopping into another game in search of validation of his existence in hopes of being more than an eternal antagonist. A gold medal would give him that validation.

‘Wreck-It Ralph’ Is Like ‘Toy Story’

It’s this aspect of the film and the blending of well-known characters from different areas and more troublesome, different copyrights, that has made Who Framed Roger Rabbit? the comparison du jour in reviews of the film. I don’t really understand it. To me, it’s far more reminiscent of the movie that started CG feature animation way back in 1995, Pixar’s Toy Story. Familiar toys from different toy lines and different manufacturers were all banded together in Andy’s room. You had a Speak N’ Spell, a Mr. Potato Head, Green Army Men and later installments of the franchise brought Ken and Barbie into the fold.

The game-jumping aspect of the film calls to mind not another movie, but a video game. “The Simpsons Game,” released in 2007, takes the familiar TV show family and places them in the world of video games. The characters find themselves in levels parodying familiar games like “Everquest,” “Grand Theft Auto” and “Medal of Honor.” Elements of other media can be found in Wreck-It Ralph, but they’re certainly not from Robert Zemeckis’ 1988 ‘toon noir.

Through his first game-jump, a first-person “Call of Duty”-type shooter called “Hero’s Duty,” Ralph gets his hands on a medal. His obtained, but unearned object of validation leads to a mishap taking him inside another game called “Sugar Rush” and that’s where the film leads into a car-related spectacle.

During talk of his game-jumping, characters warn Ralph about “going Turbo.” It’s a reference to an old racing game whose title character, Turbo, became jealous of being ignored in the arcade once a newer, more improved racing game came along. He game-jumped into that newer version and as you can imagine two styles of games being merged into one, caused the game to malfunction and soon become out of order, leading to its unplugging.

“Sugar Rush” is a cart racer, like “Mario Kart.” The user can select from a litany of characters to race against other users. During the race there are items on the track they can use either to boost themselves or attack their foes. Given that the game is called “Sugar Rush,” all of the items are dessert-laden or candy-themed. Homer Simpson’s fantasy “Land of Chocolate” (and “The Simpsons Game” level) would fit right in.

Ralph pops a cherry for his buddies, including Q-Bert.

Inside the game, Ralph meets Vanellope von Schweetz, a cute character with a button nose that reminds me of the female chipmunks from the “Alvin and the Chipmunks” TV show (though I’ve seen trailers, I have no idea what they look like in the Jason Lee-starring animated/live-action hybrid films). Vanellope’s one of the many characters inside the game with the big exception being she’s not playable. She’s a glitch. Because she’s not a fully functional game character, she’s not allowed to take part in any racing. If she were, she’d become playable, users would recognize she’s not working properly, complain to arcade management and the game would be labeled “out of order” and permanently unplugged in a similar fate to Turbo’s.

Naturally, racing is the one thing in the world she wants to do. Unlike Cars, which personifies the vehicles themselves, Vanellope’s desire to race doesn’t come from an innate ability to do so. It’s an external desire. For Lightning McQueen, racing is what he’s designed to do, but so, in a way, is Vanellope. She exists in a racing game, but her creator didn’t gift her with the natural abilities of the other racers. Alas, Christy Brown was born with cerebral palsy, but he still taught himself how to paint with his one useful limb in My Left Foot.

Bucking her handicap pointed in the direction of never letting her race for the good of herself and all other characters in the game, Vanellope builds her own car and enters the race, using Ralph’s ill-gotten medal to register her position. Once discovered, her vehicle is promptly destroyed by her would-be fellow racers, refusing to let her participate in any of their reindeer games.

Ralph is heartbroken. He sees the spirit of his new friend crushed for seeking to be treated the same as anybody else, much like he does. He vows to help her achieve her dream, as long as she makes sure to win back his medal. They construct a brand new car together via a mini-game sweets factory and its cookie wheels roll off the fabrication floor. Like a 15-year-old being gifted a vehicle by affluent parents, only once the new car is available does Vanellope reveal to Ralph she has no idea how to drive.

Ralph builds his mate a practice track to fix this injustice. The sequence is overlaid with Rihanna’s “Shut Up and Drive,” which fits so well that you wonder how it could have been written for any other context. It was the first time I’d heard the song with any fondness and I’m convinced it pleases the ears and will be requested far more often on child-lugging road trips than the Rascal Flatts version of “Life is a Highway” form the Cars soundtrack has ever been. This brief wind-in-the-hair moment may have satisfied Vanellope’s desire to drive, but it wouldn’t resolve the one thing she and Ralph both truly crave: acceptance.

Directed by “The Simpsons” and “Futurama” veteran, Rich Moore, Wreck-It Ralph features the familiar recontextualization of familiar objects to fit the world of the film you’d normally find in a Pixar title. Finding Nemo took the familiar caw of seagulls to mean “mine,” as they fought over food. Annoying flying bugs in Cars were Volkswagen Beetles. The monsters in every kid’s closet are actually real in Monster’s Inc. In this film, Ralph and all other characters from the arcade consoles convene in the surge protector, housing all power cords from the array of machines. The herky-jerky motions of underanimated characters we see in games are how their bodies actually move in the film. Even parts of the score are more readily associated with the sweeping electronic sounds of video games.

In the end, Ralph’s game, “Fix-It Felix Jr,” becomes popular again. It’s hailed as “retro” by the arcade-going public and suddenly being old or “classic” is considered cooler than new and improved. A lesson Turbo would have been wise to wait out. In that, the film accomplishes much of what Lassetter aimed to do with Cars. The theme of that film was to “slow down.” Take time to smell the roses. Appreciate the little things. Gamers at the arcade are now sure to stop by Ralph’s arcade console. That is, when they’re taking a break from playing “Sugar Rush,” because you know, cars are fun. John Lassetter would have been proud to have this title at Pixar, but I’m sure he’s happy to have had any involvement. And he should be.

Mini Movie Reviews Of Recently Watched Films: The Grey, Snow White & Huntsman and Pusher

The Grey (2012)

Once more into the fray, Neeson readies to dance with wolves.

Liam Neeson, Taken 2 star and the man with all the hype right now, powered The Grey to box office success early this year. It opened at #1 and more than doubled its budget domestically taking in $51 million. Neeson plays Ottway, a man with a troubled past who knows how to kill killer wolves. When Ottway and several others are part of a plane crash in the middle of the snow, they fight for survival against the killer wolves. The characters square off with the wolves, the conditions and themselves. Directed by Joe Carnahan (The A-Team), the film is a surprising success to me, because it has a very indy feel and is more emotional and dramatic than thrilling. The Grey also leaves you with a slightly open ending, which is rare in a Hollywood film, but maybe its less-Tinseltown than I thought it would be since it was distributed by Open Road. It’s a watchable movie, not quite the action-thriller I expected, but there is enough there with Neeson, Dermot Mulroney and the storyline to keep things interesting. When the film cuts to black, you aren’t eager to go back, but there are much worse things you can do with a 100 free minutes and a desire for a decent flick.

Pusher (1996)

Drug dealer Frank shows off his GTA pose in Refn’s ‘Pusher’.

With 2012’s release of a remake of Pusher for American audiences (though the film is set in London), I decided to look back again at director Nicolas Winding Refn’s (Drive) original version. I have seen the film before and was introduced to the trilogy by a past writer for our site, when he talked about Pusher II as a Film-U-Missed. Refn’s original film follows Frank, as a small time drug dealer in Copenhagen, who gets caught up in too deep with debt to guys like Milo and his henchman Radovan. Frank all but kills his best friend Tonny (played by Mads Mikkelsen and believe me, how his Tonny survives as long as he does is a mystery…he’s the ultimate shit-talker), gets arrested by the cops, jips his mom out of money, his sometimes girlfriend and still can’t get out of the debt he owes Milo, due to a bad deal he was offered by a former confidant. The film is interesting from start to finish and offers an intimacy that is palpable. Apparently the actors did real cocaine while filming to add to the realism. Still, the story does have some trip ups, particularly the in and out intensity in the slice of life moments and Frank’s underdeveloped relationship with Vic (his stripper would be girlfriend). Pusher has been hailed over time, but I’ve seen it twice and still can’t say it is an entirely moving piece, akin to Pulp Fiction let’s say. I think something gets lost in the translation and the lower-budget style. Still, Refn had worked his way out of my good graces and then delivered Drive, which hooked me again. Check Pusher out for an example of his earliest work and if you are a fan of gangster or drug films.

Snow White and the Huntsman (2012)

A sip of a white russian (aka Caucasian) is not enough for Charlize’s evil queen.

Two Snow White movies were released this year. One starred Julia Roberts (Mirror Mirror) and was a Disney film, the other starred Kristen Stewart and was darker. Which did better at the box office? Snow White and the Huntsman and it was no contest. I guess it is not the late 90’s anymore. K-Stew and Chris Hemsworth square off against evil, soul sucking queen Charlize Theron in Huntsman. The film is a visual spectacle, with some of the best effects I have seen in a movie. Additionally, while tonally not up my alley traditionally, the darker matter gave this one an element of watchability for me that wouldn’t otherwise be there. Hemsworth is underrated as an actor; he appears to be more than just muscle (although that is his specialty, still). Theron is strong as the queen, her power trips and beauty work wonders for the film. K-Stew is the weak link, not because she can’t act, though that is debatable, but more so because she pales in comparison to others of note here. A pack of dwarves add some pseudo comic relief, with Ian McShane and Ray Winstone among those that have their faces transported onto midget frames. This one ends a little weird, but is worth it for the effects and Theron’s strong performance. The film made almost $400 million worldwide so naturally, a sequel is in the works.

‘Sinister’ Infringes on ‘The Shining’ Territory

I believe there comes a time in every little girl’s life when they start craving to be scared. Perhaps this is only for girls with a strong father-figure, knowing they’ll always be projected. I’d never felt this inclination. Of course, I’ve never been a girl, either. I remember this phase hitting my younger sister and her begging our dad to rent a copy of The Shining on VHS. I was only vaguely around when she and her friend stayed up late to watch it. My only memory of that viewing was my father fast-forwarding the scene of a decomposing naked woman, lest I grow up to have a leper fetish. It must’ve helped. I’ve never been turned on by that scene.

In the many years since that half-aware viewing, I’ve come to respect The Shining as the ultimate horror film. It’s very easily the greatest haunted house movie ever made. I know I’m not alone in this opinion. It’s an easy one to share when one of the masters of the medium tackles a genre overrun by musical stabs and bloodletting. Stanley Kubrick took Stephen King’s story and didn’t make a movie designed to scare its audience. He made a horrifying film.

I’ve been thinking about that masterpiece a lot lately. What with having recently visited Universal Studios’ Halloween Horror Nights and the upcoming documentary Room 237 receiving more and more exposure. I’ve seen The Shining a number of times now and its blu-ray sits proudly on my shelf. I have numerous Kubrick books and poured over analyses of the film and still struggle with interpreting much of it on my own. It’s obviously a film that invites a number of viewpoints, allowing a film like Room 237 to exist. Lord knows what my pre-teen sister and her friend could possibly have thought of it a couple of decades ago.

Ethan Hawke’s “Oswalt” contemplates suicidal tendencies in the scary ‘Sinister.’

Though I don’t feel I have a complete grasp on that film and probably never will, I’m firm in the belief that it’s the best “horror” film I’ve ever seen. It’s a genre that’s eluded me for most of my life. I’d been far too afraid to scare myself purposely with movies. I slept with the light on until I was at least close to high school age. In my defense, I read Deion Sanders slept with the light on, so this move was completely justifiable to me at the time. Once I allowed myself to gaze upon movies designed to frighten me, I found them to be severely lacking. There were boobs, blood and musical stabs a-plenty. Hokey-ness was the order of the day, even if unintended. These were films designed to bring high-schoolers together on a Friday night. I’m glad texting didn’t exist back then. Little screens lighting up the theater have a tendency draw one out of the experience. I’ve been searching to find a horror film I enjoy as much as the best of another genre. I enjoy the Paranormal Activity series’ effectiveness. I love the tension and all out surprise waiting in store in The Descent. I admire the moral justice doled out in blood and body parts in the Saw franchise. However, it’s easy to see how The Shining rises above them all. I’d never been able to find a companion in quality until I saw Sinister.

‘Sinister’ Compares Favorably To Kubrick’s Horror Masterpiece

I’m more than aware of the boldness of such a statement. Expectations instantly rise into the unattainable. I didn’t really want to put it that way, but it had to be done. Especially when the content of the films can be compared so readily.

Just last week, I read a tweet stating the job of a critic is to expose the films that need exposure. At the time of this writing, Sinister has made close to $40 million. Its production budget as reported by BoxOfficeMojo was a mere $3 million. It’s hardly a movie you may think requires exposure, but it does. I almost didn’t see it. A barely-fresh 62% score on Rotten Tomatoes was steering me in the opposite direction. Don’t listen it. This film is masterful.

Ethan Hawke is Ellison Oswalt, a true crime author holding onto his last bastion of hope in attempt to recreate the success of his bestselling “Kentucky Blood,” a number of years (and books) ago. He moves his family to a town where his reputation for digging up dirt and throwing it on the potential incompetence of the local police department earns him a move-in day visit from the sheriff. Ellison’s family is a reluctant pawn in his game of chasing the latest shattered community, but even they don’t know the harm’s way he’s he placed them in. He’s moved into the house where the family he’s writing about was murdered.

That sounds like any generic set up to a haunted house tale, but you can also draw parallels to Kubrick’s film. A writer moves his family to a new home in order to complete a book. That home happens to have been host to bouts of murder. And you can bet the man of the house is driven slightly mad as a result.

Where Sinister diverts from your typical horror fare is in its presentation. Ellison Oswalt appears to be living in a thriller revolving around the true crimes he’s happened upon. A fateful and convenient box of 8mm home videos and their projector await him in his new attic and he’s given some starting points from which to work in uncovering his localized crime scene. When a link appears between them, it’s obvious he could be getting the kind of material that would lead to him back to the mountaintop of success.

DJ Mixmaster E.Hawke searches for that rare vinyl to jump start the party.

Director (and co-writer), Scott Derrickson, makes the most visually appealing and technically brilliant horror film this side of Kubrick you could ever hope to expect. And again, it’s due to the tone of the film. I believe he treats the story as a thriller with some horrifying aspects. A movie that values story over scary. There’s a standout sequence in which Ellison searches around the dark house for the source of his terror wielding a baseball bat (I was about to point this out as another The Shining parallel until I realized Jack Torrance was armed with an ax. The bat was in “The Shinning,” a “Simpsons” parody). He falls asleep on the couch, framed by the barren instrument of the previous occupants’ deaths (a tree) and only awakens under the burning light of a new day. It’s a bravura set piece in a film littered with them.

The directorial flair Derrickson provides is matched by the performances he gets from Hawke and Juliet Rylance, Ellison’s wife, Tracy. The acting chops normally demanded by “a scary movie” are significantly south of Brando, which is why this film almost elevates itself above its own genre. If it weren’t for the things that go bump in the night, you’d think you were watching a film befitting a different mood altogether. Hawke and Rylance have a necessary tete-a-tete that could have been lifted from suburban dramas American Beauty or Ordinary People.

These are a few of the things that make you understand you’re watching something other than a conventional horror film. I had hoped this fact would not be lost on the viewing public accompanying me at the showing I attended. I was not ashamed of humankind. Wave after wave of groups of either gender emerged from the theater relaying the same opinion: Sinister was the scariest movie they’d ever seen.

If I’ve failed to convey how frightening the movie is, I apologize. Make no mistake that just because I feel the film transcends its own genre doesn’t mean it’s not very much a horror film. It isn’t immune to a few jump scares and those friendly musical stabs alerting you to something terrifying taking place, but plenty of them were rooted firmly in story and are thus excusable. The haunting image of the prevailing villainous façade driving Ellison’s nightmares ensured I would feel the same when trying to fall asleep just hours later.

I should say that Sinister is not The Shining. That should be obvious just from the title differences. Sinister is far more straight-forward and comprehensible than Kubrick’s epic of terror. The scope is also far more intimate in the Oswalt’s new family home, as opposed to the open expansion of the Overlook Hotel. It is not like The Shining. They are two very different movies. However, Sinister is the best horror film I’ve seen since The Shining, making it the best fright film in a generation and reason to put them in the same sentence.

The Latest Mini Movie Reviews From My Amazon Prime and Redbox Rentals

You can read past posts like this here, as always.

Contraband (2012)

“Rib-eye” failed to receive Wahlberg’s congratulatory text regarding his latest tatt.

Mark Wahlberg is a guy I usually turn out to see. I missed Contraband in theaters but caught it on Blu-ray and came away with the knowledge that it is an above average thriller. Wahlberg plays Chris, a reformed smuggler married to Kate (Kate Beckinsale). When Kate’s little brother gets caught dumping drugs for baddie Tim (Giovanni Ribisi), Chris has to pay off the kid’s debt or pay the price. Needless to say, Chris re-enters the smuggling game, only to see all hell break loose while he is in Panama. Sebastian (Ben Foster), may or may not be the confidant Chris has always thought he was, and his alcoholism plays a role in drama back home in New Orleans while Chris is away. This one takes the usual twists and turns and can be difficult to follow, but the in your face direction and solid acting from a notable cast makes up for it. One downside, there’s not much to do here for Beckinsale, who is under utilized in the damsel in distress role. Additionally, is Ribisi becoming increasingly thrashed in roles or what? Nothing mind-blowing, but certainly a worthy rental for fans of the actors or heist movies.

Haywire (2012)

Gina Carano gives Channing Tatum a beating for making her watch “Magic Mike.”

Steven Soderbergh’s low budget action movie in the minor vain of a Bourne film, pits MMA star Gina Carano in the female lead as an agent who is caught up in a plot to kill her. I stayed away from the film ‘til now, despite my interest in Soderbergh and a stellar supporting cast, including Michael’s Douglas and Fassbender, as well as Ewan McGregor. A bit of a mistake on my end, because I thought that Carano would be so bad as the lead that I wouldn’t be able to deal with it. I was wrong. While she doesn’t blow you away with acting talent, her fighting skills are formidable and she is believable enough in the role as an agent who “doesn’t do dresses.” The direction is typically solid, the music by David Holmes is great and though the plot is not stellar, the film works. It mixes The Limey with Out of Sight in a way (two of Soderbergh’s previous efforts) to decent enough effect. Again, you won’t leave the viewing with your tongue wagging, but it’s quality enough for fans of Soderbergh or action fans who can handle something a bit different, since the action is more artfully done and less in your face. Not bad.

The Hunger Games (2012)

Despite the appearance of a love triangle, this is not from “Twilight.”

“I volunteer as tribute!” The same words that Jennifer Lawrence’s Katniss says in the movie, I was saying to myself after being suckered in to watching another teen movie. I’d risk death rather than sit through this again. The reviews suggested that we had a better film than the Twilight’s of the world, and while I don’t have first hand knowledge of that franchise, I certainly hoped for better from the first film of this one. The film, based on the popular book, is essentially a code name for a game show where kids fight to the death and the winner is able to live. This film however, naturally (spoiler alert!) broke the typical rules by having two winners because they were willing to die for each other (supposedly). Josh Hutcherson, pequeno by a dwarfs standards, plays Katniss’ love interest and a love triangle of sorts (sounds like Twilight doesn’t it?) is formed since Katniss was in love with Gale back home (outside of the deadly game). It’s all so clever to set up the trilogy and I was let down yet again by sifting through the waste of the film, which features a The Running Man style game show in a futuristic woodsy (Twilight again!) setting. I’ll pass on the rest of the films from here on out. Shame.

Antichrist (2009)

"The Horror. The Horror." A lighter scene from von Trier's Antichrist.

Lars von Trier’s Antichrist is sure to confound most viewers. Consider myself among them. The film is a horror film sort of mash-up in an avant-garde, art house, independent style. The first few minutes are incredible, with Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg engaged in porno style intercourse. The camera shows it all. They are so caught up in their activities, that their young child decides to bolt out of the window and fall to his death. Shocking and heady stuff. The rest of the film devolves into a moody game of cat and mouse between Dafoe’s doctor and Gainsbourg’s patient adding to their complex relationship. The horror begins to take place from there on out, with elements of Saw series mixed in. It’s a weird vibe that is difficult to recommend. The first five minutes are appointment viewing and may hook you, but the rest of the film will leave you feeling confused and disappointed if you are anything like me. Take that for what its worth.

Headhunters (Hodejegerne) (2011)

Roger Brown. Gettin' down.

Jo Nesbo’s Headhunters is a very strong film. I will get that out of the way up front. The Norwegian pic combines thrilling and dramatic elements to create its own very unique space. It’s a Fatal Attraction meets The Fugitive sort of combination, without me thinking too much about it. Headhunters is about headhunters, who are hiring specialists. Roger Brown is a headhunter who steals art and sells it on the black market to significant effect, fleecing his clients to support his statue-esque wife. A plot is hatched against Brown to infiltrate his company and everyone from his wife to lover to cops to reporters and the list goes on are involved. It’s a who knows what and who can you trust meets chase film. Fun stuff. The violence is in your face and hilarious (some scenes are too great to giveaway) and the tension is gripping. Strong direction, a cool plot and some unique circumstances make this a can’t miss film, assuming you can handle subtitles. Not an issue, this one is well worth your time.

The Game (1997)

Michael Douglas is unrivaled at portraying "power". See Gekko, Gordon and The Game.

The Game is Fincher’s newfound classic, which was recently released on Criterion Blu-ray and DVD. The film is a fun one with Michael Douglas playing a man (Nicolas Van Orton) who has too much money, nobody to share his life with and needs the game to shake up his boring life. Douglas has never really been better than he is here. Sean Penn, strong in a supporting role as Douglas’ brother, gives Nicolas a birthday gift that is the last thing that he would want. But he needs it and the game begins in a wild manner with Nicolas’ life turned upside down. He tries to remind himself that the things that happen (his near drowning, being shot at, left for dead in Mexico, among them) are part of a game but they seem far too elaborate to be really setup. Truth is, they are and I think that’s why the film was not received to great effect upon its initial release. But Fincher’s brand is strong and the performances are epic, making this one gain a popularity now (its been among my favorite films since its release) that is past due. If you haven’t seen it, you must do so and if you have, it’s certainly worth reliving. The Game may not be one you want to play but its sure fun to watch.