I know you're all aching for another review. How about I review the #1 movie in America? Ok. I will. Here you go.



Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow
Review by Jon Waterman

*1/2

When giant flying robots land in the streets of New York City and start wreaking havoc, only one man can stop them. Joe “Sky Captain” Sullivan rushes in to stop the immediate threat and get the metallic behemoths to retreat. However, there’s a larger threat out there. The man sending these evil creations has been killing off the world’s top scientists and the destruction of the Earth could be imminent. The Cap’n will need the help of a sassy reporter he knows all to well named Polly Perkins if he’s to have any chance at all.

The film is meant to be pay homage to the movies of the late 1930s, especially those “Buck Rogers” type serials. Writer/director Kerry Conran does a good job with this is certain areas, but ignores many others in favor of flashiness. The movie is shot entirely in front of a blue screen, which means that all the background action and scenery was added after the actors were done and the composite of the elements was made later. What I imagine it was meant to do was show what a film from 1939 would look like if back then they had the same computer graphics capabilities, but film technology remained where it was. This may not have been the goal, but it should have been.

First: the good. Every shot in the film is given a blur/soft focus effect on the brighter light and there’s a heavier presence of grain on the image. Also, the actors appear to have been colorized in a Technicolor-like process. All of this would fit the limitations and stylistic look of the represented era. The robots and machinery seen all over give that “Popular Mechanics” impression. The giant robots are big, bulky and look ridiculous, but menacing. There are also more advanced planes that the villain sends that look sleeker, yet still are within the limits of that period’s notion of science fiction. Edward Shearmur’s music was appropriately heroic and uplifting. It could have played along with the action some so as not to lose it in the background behind all the sound effects. So, the props, the film look, the music and the scenery all work, but….

Now: the bad. The film falls victim to thinking that it must still be contemporary. The acting is bad, but not God-awful. The biggest problem is that it’s not worse. It’s not stagy. People were still mostly exaggerated and flamboyant. Jude Law (The Cap), Gwyneth Paltrow (Polly) and the rest should know this and would probably enjoy delivering lines in the old style. I can only assume it was Conran’s conscious decision. The script is also bad, but could have been purposely worse, meaning hokier. Avoid developmental issues and let the characters blurt out seemingly random emotionally charged sentences to further the plot. Most of the backstory was unnecessary to me. The editing was also far too modern. This can actually be paired with shot composition, which I also had problems with. In the beginning, they made good use of low and canted angled shots and of dissolves to get information across. As the story became more linear, it became more of an action movie. The cutting was MTV fast and there were many places where the sound effects told you something was happening, but you sure can’t tell it from the picture. If this were true to 1930s cinema, the camera would let the action play out from a relatively safe distance so we could soak it all in. We’d be able to properly admire the spectacle of it all. That’s far from the case here.

The movie makes all kinds of references to various movies to show its “influences,” but one in particular bothered me. That was the appearance of Godzilla in a quick montage sequence. I know they both involve giant destructive monsters, but shouldn’t the "King Kong" similarities suffice? Leave the cheap joke alone. I also don’t think I like seeing Laurence Olivier being used as an actor in here one bit. All in all, the movie could have been much better were it to stay true to the time period in which it was set. It’s stylized, but not in a good or productive way. So much so, that it becomes just an odd-looking, hardly entertaining, typical action flick. Very disappointing.

Anybody out there like bad movies? No? Anyone out there like reviews of bad movies? Yeah, that's what I thought. Well...here you go!



SuperBabies: Baby Geniuses 2
Review by Jon Waterman

Zero stars

“Baby Geniuses” was so groundbreaking and awesome, that it was just begging for a sequel. Well, for the two people that asked for it, aren’t you regretting your decision now?

Quick overview of the plot: Kane is an evil media mogul who wants to control the minds of children through his new hypnotic cable channel. Kahuna is the original superbaby who has been around since the 60s (still a baby, mind you) fighting his arch-nemesis, Kane. This time he can’t do it alone. He needs the help of a new group of Superbabies.

Instead of describing in laboring paragraph form why this movie sucks, I present you with a list in no discernable order.

1.) They use the same main kid from the first in a different main role
2.) The aunt and uncle of the lead from the first movie don’t call attention to the resemblance
3.) The aunt and uncle are Vanessa Angel and Scott Baio
4.) Jon Voight is the media mogul with a hideous German accent
5.) The baby has a “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles” like ooze that he drinks to become super powerful.
6.) He has a stupid motorized tricycle that also acts as a helicopter
7.) Whoopi Goldberg makes a cameo
8.) Reality show boy band O-Town makes a worse cameo
9.) Kahuna’s hideout is this Neverland Cave thing minus the rides and toys, but plus a moat deep enough to drown the kids if they misbehave.
10.) The babysitter is supposed to be the smartest girl in school, but in reality she’s just a dumb blonde.
11.) Kahuna’s hideout is located in the “H” of the Hollywood sign, which is accessible by driving through a secret entrance located in the front.
12.) After showing a vehicle drive in, they pull out to reveal the Hollywood sign, which obviously has no room for a driveway leading into the “H” of any sort.
13.) The computer composting of the Kahuna’s head onto the fight stand-in’s body is just as bad if not worse than in the original.
14.) The fight scenes are more unbelievable.
15.) It’s less funny than the original, which is saying a whole lot.
16.) The acting is too over-the-top, even for a silly kids movie.
17.) The new set of babies aren’t interesting
18.) The superpowers of the new crew enter into the equation way too late in the game (try last scene).
19.) In terms of script, there’s no development of anything anywhere.
20.) Do you really need a 20th reason?

Well, on the plus side, I have to say that the triplets playing the Kahuna do have a good screen presence. But that’s not enough to warrant wasting time and money on this garbage. Maybe your kids will like it? I couldn’t imagine anyone with an attention span good enough to watch this would like what they saw. It don’t get much worse than this.


+++++++++


Baby Geniuses
Review by Jon Waterman

1/2 star

Ok, get this. Babies are big business. Two sinister scientists are trying to harness the superior intelligence of the baby race so they can exploit it and all the technological advances that come with it. At the same time, a privately owned day care center dad is working on trying to figure out baby speak, because he also believes that they have superior intellect. He has no ulterior motive. Here’s the kicker. The main mean scientist and the dad are related. Oh, and get this. The dad’s son has a twin (unbeknownst to them) that is part of the scientist’s experiments. Sounds believable so far, so what’s the problem?

You know what. As much as it sounds like crap, the premise isn’t all that terrible. There’s an interesting story in the idea of babies holding a collective unconscious surpassing adults that’s inaccessible do to a language barrier. And when the babies learn to talk to adults, they “cross over” and lose all their knowledge. It’s far-fetched, but sounds like it could be something. What makes it so horrible is the way it is presented, with evil scientists and martial arts action and so on.

The film is meant as a family comedy, but here too it fails. It’s great to laugh at, but not how the filmmakers intended. How director Bob Clark can go from something so great as “A Christmas Story” to something so nauseating as this is beyond me. He teamed up with Greg Michael (lifelong second unit director on crappy movies) to pen the myriad “diaper gravy” references and to throw in some creepy baby sex humor in there for the adults. What were they thinking? Insinuating that babies had sex in a stroller as an oblivious adult taxied this other kid around is just sick and wrong.

Never mind that. That’s not the only creepy thing in the movie. There’s also this giant animatronic giant baby (that’s part of some theme park the scientists open) that would scare some kids more than clowns. But mostly the creep factor comes from the horrible looking computer generated talking babies. It just looks weird. The new lips sometimes float around awkwardly and sometimes the skin tones don’t match. It looks bad. I understand the need to have a group of talking babies in a film called “Baby Geniuses,” but put a little effort into it. Kids can tell a product this shoddy when they see it, too. Also in the fighting scenes, the head of the baby that’s placed over the fighting stand in is much worse. It looks like the head is about to pop off.

By the way, evidently being a super genius means you have super strength. The opening scene is our main character fighting off security guards and winning. I guess no one tells the other babies they can rule the school, because they all basically just sit around and talk about stuff. They never explain how the one kid’s physical capabilities surpass that of the adults. They don’t explain a lot of things.

This movie is one big heaping pile of diaper gravy.

Hello everyone. Good to see you all again. The backlog is getting trimmed down ever so steadily. All that's left now is The Weather Underground, The Fog of War, Baby Geniuses and SuperBabies: Baby Geniuses 2. Should be fun. Come on back.



Without a Paddle
Review by Jon Waterman

**

Three friends go out on a rafting trip to come to terms with their friend’s death and their somewhat recent jump into adulthood. They take a treasure map they made as kids and go out to a backwoods river to search it out. Soon, they get caught up in more than they expected, including boating disasters, unfriendly locals and the unfortunate forces of nature.

The plot is something of a mix between “Crossroads” and “City Slickers.” You have old high school friends coming together after an important event and opening up a long-forgotten box, which sparks the idea of embarking on a journey of self-discovery. Also you have three friends dealing with their “third-life” crises by leaving everything else behind to take themselves out of their element and have an adventure. You can quickly make a case for a “Deliverance” combined with “Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle” comparison by adding the backwoods, Burt Reynolds, weed and party references and wacky off-the-wall random hijinx, but you have to subtract the squealing pig element (thankfully).

No matter what you wish the movie was or could have been, it isn’t. It isn’t as cheesy or lame as “Crossroads.” It’s not as interesting or funny as “City Slickers.” It isn’t as dramatic or good as “Deliverance.” It isn’t as unsystematic or crazy as “Harold and Kumar.” It may not be a lot of things, but it does still have some redeeming factors. The majority of this is the good characterization. We get to know the three leads (Matthew Lillard, Seth Green, Dax Shepard) quickly and not because they are totally two-dimensional, either. It would have been nice to see them spend more time with Billy (the dead one), so the motivation was stronger and more clear-cut. The supporting cast on the other hand isn’t as strong. They don’t really need to be. I wish there was a mainstream comedy that didn’t include an idiot character. Just once. While redneck stereotypes aren’t perpetuated in their actions, they’re still made fun of with assumptions by the fish-out-of-water city types.

The script is moderately funny. That doesn’t sound all that positive, but I’ll say it until it’s untrue: comedy is hard to get right. They rely a bit too much on the stupidity of one of the antagonists. They rely a lot on gross out humor and masculinity questioning situations, which could have been pulled off more effectively. The choice of the song “Bump and Grind” became the saving grace of the huddle for warmth scene. The funniest stuff were the jokes unrelated to the story or script. Random insults to each other or conversational bits not directed to the action. Just remember, wacky doesn’t equal funny. It takes all kinds of clever to make it really hit the hilarious bone.

So, it wasn’t as bad as I expected it to be. It wasn’t as good as I would have liked it to be. What struck me the most is that these guys claim to be (and actually are) 30. Maybe they should make a movie about three actors, on their way to transitioning their careers into adult-oriented ones, head off on one last teen-focused romp for cheap laughs. Hope you enjoyed the ride, boys. Welcome to limbo.

Here I go, slowly chipping away at the back log. It'll be firewood soon. Keep checking back.


Collateral
Review by Jon Waterman

***1/2

Vincent, a hired assassin, needs to complete a new job in Los Angeles. He has several stops with a strict timetable. In comes Max. Max is the premier cab driver in the city. He knows all the best routes and takes more pride in what he does than anyone else you can find. When the two come together, it’s like a match made in…well, I don’t know what. Vincent traps Max into driving him around all night long. This can’t be good, can it?

This, like “28 Days Later…,” is a good example of how digital video can be used effectively. I can see both the practical and stylistic reasons behind shooting with the format. On the one hand, it allows quicker shooting with less set up time while shooting with big name actors Tom Cruise (Vincent) and Jaime Foxx (Max) in the middle of city. However, the streets are isolated and you can easily assume they would be closed off to begin with. So, even though there is a potentially practical motivation, that brings us to the more solid style portion of my argument.

Michael Mann is a calculating, thorough director. Often times in order to make sure something is right, he’ll operate the camera himself. His choice here was deliberate and worked well. With the digital video, you have different options for night shooting. He’s able to get the close-ups he wants and needs while still maintaining a relatively good amount of detail in the background. The lights of the cityscape take over the frame, which creates a somewhat more natural look while the green, blue and orange tints that come with this approach add more grit and an underlying superficiality. Lastly, the video tries to compensate for the dark spots by making it lighter, which gives off a more pronounced grainy look to once again give a subtler less than perfect, raw feel.

Along with the intelligent, well-crafted camera work comes an intelligent, well-crafted script (by Stuart Beattie). His characters are interesting and contrasting case studies in human nature when confronted with intense, desperate situations. The conflicting viewpoints on Vincent’s profession provide a great back and forth dialogue that’s well reasoned on both sides. Vincent seems very two-dimensional on the surface, but don’t let that fool you. It’s just a cover for the job. As far as the storyline goes, the script works again. It does become slightly predictable, especially near the end, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t surprises. There’s one particular sequence, which shocked me due to it’s against the Hollywood grain execution, but I don’t want to say anymore.

“Collateral” is like Vincent. It does what it has to do and gets out. All business. Very efficient. By the time you know what to expect, it’s too late to stop it, so just let it happen. Yeah, I know. The analogy lost its steam at the end there, but so does the movie. But it’s still a very good movie worth seeing.

Well, after another lull, I'm actually back with reviews. I'll get caught up as fast as I can. To start us off, I'm bringing you reviews for The Village and Signs as well as the two Manchurian Candidate movies. As the election nears, I'll probably get more politically slanted films reviewed. But don't worry. I'll still watch stupid, brainless stuff to counteract it all. It's the filmbrats way.



The Village
Review by Jon Waterman

***

There’s an isolated village in the middle of a forest somewhere. It’s a small community where everyone knows each other and life is almost as simple as it can be. They should be happy, right? Wrong. Instead they live in fear, because outside of the boundaries set by the elders are creatures. These mythical-looking beasts thrive on flesh and are attracted to the color red, which they see as an open invitation. After someone “lets” them in and attacks, medicine is needed from outside the village. Does anyone dare to face what’s out there waiting?

This is the latest effort by writer/director M. Night Shayamalan. This is the first movie he’s done where there isn’t an overt religious theme. Yet he still remains a one-trick pony. However, the trick is a relatively good one. He has a knack for building suspense and playing with the audience. His films aren’t really scary, but they still get the adrenaline rushing just from anticipating a scare that never really happens. His movies use cinematography to help create this mood. Roger Deakins’ work here is no exception.

One area where he sort of falls short is with the story, just like in “Signs.” It’s a functional one and it is unlike most movies you’ll see. The problem is that there’s this creation of a “twist” ending. He plays right into this making us think there’s something more than there is. Because of this, I can’t decide if the surprise is actually interesting or a cop out. A part of me thinks he’s churning them out to meet some sort of quota. But the other part thinks he’s forcing us to look at the film in a more generalized, but more important level. Rather than sensationalizing everything, the audience should view it for what it truly is.

The actors do well with what they’re given. Since they are in a turn of the century isolated community, we’re treated to ye olde dialogue. You can tell it throws some of them for a loop, but the better actors like William Hurt handle it with ease.

Don’t go in expecting another “Sixth Sense.” Night’s work has never been able to live up to that standard in terms of story since and at this point it’s unfair to assume he’ll match that anytime soon. Forget his past work and it’s easier to accept this film as a good one. No matter how you look at it, there will still be unanswered questions once it’s all said and done. It’s not Arthur Miller, but it’ll work.


+++++++


Signs
Review by Jon Waterman

**1/2

On a small town farm, some crop circles have appeared. The local officials are chalking it up to the hooligan kids playing pranks. After all, everyone knows it’s a hoax, right? Reverend Hess tries to calm his young kids down when more circles appear not only in their cornfields, but also simultaneously around the world. Are the local boys in on some sort of worldwide sham, or could something else be going on?

Writer/director M. Night Shyamalan must be running out of ideas. If he really wanted to make a movie about crop circles, he’s about twenty-five years too late. There’s a reason we don’t hear about them anymore. Everyone knows how they are done and it’s not fun anymore. But he’s not really making a movie about crop circles. It’s about the reactions to them and all of that stuff. It’s just a lame cover story for the emotional core. I also didn’t like that he created this hype and hysteria within the film. Why mess with the twist in the plot? Just put it all out in the open, and let the characters deal with that and it would have been just as effective without some of the disappointment. The problem is he thinks he has to put a surprise in each movie to stay consistent with himself. If he really wants to grow as a writer (and maybe he doesn’t), then he should start exploring different avenues and storytelling methods.

The similarities between this film and “Night of the Living Dead” are pretty apparent, but I think “NLD” does a better job handling the paranoia and the changes in personality. There’s more media coverage here, but I don’t know how much it actually fuels the audience. It certainly is the main argument behind the characters’ moves. What it does do is allow us to see that this is in fact not an isolated incident while allowing us to stay isolated with the family.

There are a lot of issues of faith here. The dad used to be a Reverend in this religious community. All the recent events have taken a toll on the entire family. The two kids are obsessed with learning about what’s going on. By the way, the kids don’t act normal. They have this creepy “Children of the Corn” thing going on. I guess that’s what the farm life does to some people. It’s interesting to see the emotional breakdowns that go on and the irrationality that can stem from what could be an innocent event. Even though I’ve criticized the storytelling, there is a worthwhile emotional storyline here that doesn’t deserve to be clouded in the supernatural fluff.

M. Night could be a great director. He has a reasonable command over the visual aspect and he works well with the actors to get what he wants from them. He just needs to break away from this fake twist ending stuff. He needs to stop hiding behind this standard he’s set for himself, put everything out in the open right away and let it all develop naturally from there. That way you can avoid disappointment and have a more solid movie. This won’t blow anyone away, so don’t expect a surprise of any kind and you may be able to enjoy it more.


++++++


The Manchurian Candidate (1962)
Review by Jon Waterman

****

The quick thinking and good fighting of one man, Raymond Shaw, save a group of American soldiers fighting in Korea. He returns to the US and is awarded the Medal of Honor for his work. The other men in the platoon return to the US with swirling confused thoughts in their heads. They, including commanding officer Major Bennett Marco, are having dreams of being captured and brainwashed by the Koreans. They believe that the “heroic” mission actually never happened and there may be something bigger political conspiracy in the works with an election coming up. Can the difference between paranoia and truth be pieced together before it’s too late?

I’ll let you in on a little secret. They were captured and brainwashed. You’ll learn that very early on in the film. What makes the story so compelling and suspenseful isn’t the mystery of if it happened, but rather why it happened and how the whole thing will play out. George Axlerod’s adaptation of Richard Condon’s novel is very solid. We’re given the right information at the right time. We’re left in the dark as much as Marco, who’s investigating the ordeal. We’re treated to little surprises throughout to tease us until the big plot points are revealed.

One of the most interesting things about the film is that it continues to be suspenseful and intriguing even though the pace is relatively slow. There is no non-stop action. Events are absorbed, not merely stated. Director John Frankenheimer uses long shots with large pauses in dialogue frequently, letting the visuals speak for themselves. The audience becomes just as much of a detective as Marco. You can also attribute this to the editing of Ferris Webster, who does a remarkable job on this film. The brainwashing scene brilliantly cuts between what the soldiers believe is happening (an old lady giving a presentation about flowers) and what is really happening (the presenter showing off the conquest of the minds to various foreign representatives). It’s more menacing and chilling hearing the old lady tell Shaw to shoot his fellow soldier than if it was the doctor.

The acting is magnificent as well. Laurence Harvey as Shaw refuses to let us into his mind even when providing us with key background information. He forges a character that you want to like, but, because of his distance, can’t. Frank Sinatra as Marco is understated and thorough in his portrayal. He doesn’t go off the deep end questioning his dreams but rather deals with it all introspectively. Angela Lansbury plays Shaw’s mother who is domineering and intrusive. She is the true standout here. She’s ruthless and cold, but there’s still that underlying sense of misguided love. You can’t stand her, but you respect her capabilities. Her screen presence is one of the most disturbing yet fascinating performances I’ve seen.
The script is great. The directing is great. The editing is great. The acting is great. The music is a little obtrusive at beginning, but otherwise is appropriately haunting. The ending will leave you in disarray. In short, this is one of the best political thrillers out there.

++++++++


The Manchurian Candidate (2004)
Review by Jon Waterman

***1/2

The quick thinking and good fighting of one man, Raymond Shaw, save a group of American soldiers fighting in the Gulf War. He returns to the US and is awarded the Medal of Honor for his work. The other men in the platoon return to the US with swirling confused thoughts in their heads. They, including commanding officer Major Bennett Marco, are having dreams where Shaw doesn’t save them all, but in fact kills the two soldiers lost in the mission. Maybe the “heroic” mission actually never happened and there’s some bigger political conspiracy in the works – there is an election coming up after all. Can the difference between paranoia and truth be pieced together before it’s too late?

This is a film best viewed in theaters. Director Jonathan Demme uses many frame-filling close-ups to show the building tension and imposition the characters face and/or emit. The shots are looming, but not claustrophobic. In order to get the full effect of this, the theater works best, because you’re looking up at this giant figure that’s essentially staring you down and getting into your head as if you were in the film. Watching on television would allow less connection and more distancing. With most movies it doesn’t matter, because they know it’ll be shown on a smaller screen at some point and so they don’t consider the large-scale venue. Demme and cinematographer Tak Fujimoto know how to utilize every tool at their disposal (including projection) to its fullest potential. This was made for the big screen only. Without a doubt.

I also admired how visual effects were used to impact the audience. When the subject goes under hypnosis, there are no flashy computer graphics involved. There’s nothing flashy about this film at all, actually. Instead, the screen quickly gets overexposed as the sound gives us an aural cue. It’s not the subtlest thing in the world, but it’s far from obnoxious.

Even though this is a remake of the 1962 film, it does have some differences in the script and the way everything goes down. Stuff I can’t really talk about here without giving anything away. I can say that they replaced brainwashing for implanted controlling devices, which sounds worse than it turns out to be. So, with no direct brainwashing, they get rid of any cover story. The flower presentation in the original was so enthralling and perfect that maybe it is best this effort didn’t try to recreate it. The script still conveys a lot of the same elements and core emotions of the first even after omitting or drastically changing crucial characters. It’s tough to believe that writers Daniel Pyne (“Doc Hollywood”) and Dean Georgaris (“Tomb Raider 2”) put together something so strong and nearly as intense as the classic version.

Lastly, I’ll say that the acting is great, but to some extent, it’s just playing the roles already established 40-plus years prior. Denzel Washington as Marco plays the somber Sinatra part with more fanaticism and frustration, but he’s the only one that really differs. Liev Schreiber and Meryl Streep, while still amazing actors, don’t give us anything in terms of change from their 1962 counterparts. Jeffrey Wright continues his hitting streak as a standout supporting character.

Demme does a great job of keeping the movie non-partisan by taking jabs at both sides, seemingly without favoritism. After all, the movie isn’t about one side being better than another. It’s about decent human beings fighting back against powerful, corrupt human beings. The election is essentially a side note when you think about it. I doubt I’ll ever understand the desire to remake classic films. At least this time the movie was still worth watching.