TRON: Legacy

Evan and I went to see TRON: Legacy last night with some friends. The experience started out with some good and some bad. First, the good. The theatre itself was amazing. The seats were fake-leather (instead of the usual felt cushions. No more static worries). The rows had more legroom, which also meant getting past people was easier (no more of this “sorry, excuse me, sorry, excuse me” nonsense). The seats reclined, although you had to be tall enough to make that work the best. I was only able to get about half the angle possible, so shorter people may have a small problem. Or need to bring a phone book. Lastly, we didn’t need to worry about getting there early to grab seats, because I could choose them AHEAD OF TIME! What great planning by the movie people. It may only be possible at that theatre (3D, AVX, lots of initials for it), but still. Awesome! We may never go anywhere again.

The bad: there was a family in front of us that included two six to ten year old boys, and a baby. Seriously. Could not have been older than two years. I would question the parenting skills, but it’s a touchy subject with most people. Secondly, there was a group of girls behind us who commented on everything. I didn’t mind too much because I could tune them out (and the movie was loud enough to drown out a lot), and also because I agreed with them half the time. Still, it wasn’t audience participation night. Shut up!

Trailers started off well. No ads or anything, just dimmed lights and future movies. Evan got Mars Needs Moms (I think). I got The Green Hornet again (Evan usually owns me on that one, but it was a different trailer) as well as On Stranger Tides and Thor. The latter three are going on our movie list to see next year, which is shaping up quite nicely.

The movie itself opened with a flashback to 1987, where a digitally de-aged Jeff Bridges left his son to go to work and never came home. The only nitpick I could find with this is that the news called him a video game icon. Video games didn’t become popular until the Famicon System (You’ll know it as the NES, or Nintendo) about a year later. Previous to that, video games had been limited to the Arcades and to Atari, and played mostly by geeks.

Anyhow, in the present day his son has his own adventures, breaking into the company he technically owns, but the board of directors controls. A bit later, he gets sucked into the computer world from the previous movie. And the movie suddenly takes a turn for the awesome.

The real world had been shot in 2D, and the computer world in 3D. So suddenly, the world jumps out at you. Plus, the sound is a theatre-shaking bass. So the first moments in the computer are EPIC! Good choices by the director.

After a brief interlude, the action starts. The arena games of TRON are featured (Disc and Lightcycles battles), with much better fight choreography these days than the last go around. And then there’s a really long break in the action while the plot unspools and Sam (Flynn’s son) has many things explained to him. Then there’s a club with a fight, and another (shorter) break, and the climax.

My secret fear is that despite the hype and trailers, and awesome fight scenes, this isn’t an actual action movie. And that would totally kill my review if it weren’t for a few things. Like I said, the choreography has comes miles since 1982, so the fighting is way cool. Secondly, this movie is amazing to look at. Possibly the best 3D I’ve ever seen (Avatar can suck it). The only bad thing to look at was the villains second-in-command. His facemask was silly. Everyone else had motorcycle helmets, or at least headgear that could come out of Mass Effect, but his facemask was a pretty stupid plastic thingy.

And then there’s the soundtrack. I’ve known for a while that Daft Punk was doing the soundtrack, so I had it on my list of things to pay attention to. A few weeks before the movie came out, they released a music video for Derezzed, and it was suitably Daft Punk-ish that I thought it likely I would get the album, expecting more techno. And Daft Punk knows its techno. I was totally blown away that they also knew their orchestral music. I was sitting there thinking “This soundtrack is pretty good. I should really get it.” And then they had a scene with Fall, and it was more “I must acquire this soundtrack as soon as humanly possible.” It takes place in an elevator with no brakes, so if you can get past the sound of it plummeting to its doom, you can appreciate the gravity of the song.

There are of course some minuses to this movie. The breaks in action are annoying. There are some clunky lines, particularly at the end, when the heroes fall victim to one-liner-syndrome. It’s where they’re forced by the writers to say one-liners right before or after they dispatch each of their enemies. Hey writers, not everyone is Schwarzenegger or Willis. You can have capable actors emoting without speaking. And lastly, try to avoid seeing this movie with people who must comment to the entire movie about obvious things. Most of the time it was alright, but right at the end they made a comment so dumb we made fun of them for the entire walk to the car and most of the drive home.

Most of the time these would detract significantly from the movie. But this time, the movie is just too awesome. The soundtrack, action, and visuals of the movie are too good not to see it anywhere but in the biggest, loudest theatre you can. Twice.

Spies vs Military

I recently found out that a lot of my knowledge about certain subjects is filtered through various media. For instance, at a Christmas party last night, there were a few people talking about the medical profession (two were going through medical school, one was in their residency). I could follow along with their discussion mainly because I watch way too much Scrubs. It’s how I know that internship is one year, followed by two years of residency (for internal medicine) or a four years (for surgery). When they were talking about specialties, I knew what they were talking about because I had seen the effects on TV and in movies. Pathology? CSI. Proctology? Lots of humour (“Let’s check you for cancer!” *snaps rubber glove*).

Over the past couple of years, I’ve gotten a lot of media about spies. It probably started with Chuck (which is a lot less realistic than real life), and continued with Tom Clancy’s books. He apparently got permission to interview people at the CIA about how things work, so these books would be the most realistic if I knew how the CIA actually worked. And most recently, I have begun watching Burn Notice. It’s about an ex-spy who’s trying to get back into the business. Also, he’s the Best Spy Evar! So that’s cool. The writing staff has an actual retired CIA agent on hand to tap for information about homemade devices, although they change small details so the audience doesn’t learn how to make homemade bombs or hack Bluetooth with a Pringles tube and a wire hanger. It does seem to emphasize the importance of cell phones (they’re great at remote anything. Setting off explosives or disabling cars. Whatever).

This summer, part of our mindless movie line-up was The A-Team, in which the villain was (*SPOILER ALERT*) a member of the CIA. The protagonists were all from the military (Army rangers or special forces, I can’t remember which. All I know is they had a tattoo) and guess which side won? The military, of course. In fact, until recently, the CIA had been the villain in a lot of media. Possibly justified after the Pay of Pigs fiasco, but the CIA are no more or less evil than any other group that works for the government (with the possible exception of lobbyists. They are evil incarnate).

Of course, in Chuck or Burn Notice, the heroes are spies and sometimes the villains are from the military. So the spies win. To be fair, Burn notice also has an ex-navy SEAL (played by Bruce Campbell. AWESOME!) and an ex-IRA bomber (played by Gabrielle Anwar. HOT!) so it’s not all spy vs military. But it does raise the question of who would win between the top spy and the top military person (Army ranger, Navy SEAL, Marine … you know what? Marines are all badass. But I’m sure even they have a section for people who are a little too badass).

In media, it certainly depends on who the protagonist is. Because who wants to see the heroes lose? Well, critics do, but I’ve had enough of them. In real life, I think the military would be tougher and able to withstand more punishment, but the spy would be able to think laterally and more innovatively. So it would be a toss up that I’d pay money to see, if they didn’t keep showing better versions of it on TV.

And you know what? I almost forgot about a third party until I saw a Promo for Human Target on TV. It centers on an ex-assassin (how come there are so many shows about awesome people that quit or get fired from their day-jobs?) who now saves people from being assassinated. And anybody he comes up against (CIA, Military, Private military contractor) gets beaten. Hard. He is pure awesome. Like a cross between John McClane, MacGyver and Jet Li.

So I think I’ve covered most of the important sides. Military, Spy, Assassin. Whoever wins depends on who’s the hero, and who’s the villain. Really, the only losers are the FBI.

Faster - Benjy's Take

So, Evan posted his review before mine, plus his team made our fantasy football playoffs and mine didn’t, even though we had identical records. Suffice it to say, Evan has been schooling me lately. But he’s also doing a PhD, so I’m going to cut him some slack. Because if you do great things, you can be a great jerk. On with the show …

Faster started in our consciousnesses as a poster on the wall of the movie theatre during the summer. It was a simple poster, depicting a car, in front of which was a man standing mostly out of frame. The only thing in the frame was his left arm, tattooed up, and holding a gun. “Ah” I said to myself, “I shall put that movie on my radar.”

Later, we learned the Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson would be that armed man, and we saw trailers, and I said to Evan “Our continued survival depends heavily upon seeing this movie.” So when we had the chance, we saw it.

The movie started off well. Driver (Johnson’s character) was released from prison. There wasn’t much dialogue except for a warden who droned on a bit, but the movie cleverly used the audio to show Driver was tuning him out. From there, he was let out of the main gate, where he turned and ran down the road to a junkyard. He pulled back the cover of a car, got in, and found a name and a gun. Drove to the address that came with the name and pulled up across the street. Walked across the road while traffic slammed on their brakes, strode into the office, and stormed into the cubicle farm on the back, found the guy he was looking for, and shot him in the head. And I said to myself “What a wonderful life.” No, wait - I said to myself “This movie is AWESOME!”

Then he met up with some people to get a list of names. And the movie went downhill. You see, it tried to tell a story. It had a cop (named Cop) who was two weeks from retirement on the case. I guess calling him Cliché would've been too on the nose. It introduced a hitman who underwent a lot of character development. Which was a mistake. Halfway through, it wedged in a message about forgiveness instead of revenge. Which was a mistake. Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s a tremendous message to spread … in real life. In movies, give me action and gunplay anytime. And this movie failed.

There were maybe three shootouts, each of which lasted under a minute. There was hand to hand fight, which even in slow-motion lasted less than 30 seconds. There were a couple car chases, which were good, but short. The climax ended in three bullets, without any action at all.

The movie was going for plot, dialogue, and character development. It was desperately trying to be a Critic’s movie, instead of an action movie. I wouldn’t have minded, except I wanted to see an action movie. That’s what I go to movies to see, especially when they star The Rock. I do not go to see stories that happen to have guns in them. Maybe I should have clued in when the assassin (named Killer) packed for his mission by taking his pistol, but leaving his assault rifle behind. At least his girlfriend-then-wife can look after them. Yes, he got married. Yes, he promised to stop killing people. Yes, he got character development. Yes, I was disappointed.

As the movie progressed with less and less action, I progressively downgraded the movie. It finally ended before I got to “Avoid at all costs” and instead landed on “Watch it on TV if it’s on, but only if you’re bored.” Why? It’s got good music (by Clint Mansell, composer of one of the greatest songs ever) and it has some camera shots that I’ve seen rarely, if ever. A shot from behind the speedometer? Neat. Also, one of a corridor at an incredibly disconcerting angle. And of course, you should watch it if you curious about what happens when they suck all the action out of an action movie. Just don’t spend money on it. Like the studio that made it.

Faster

"Faster" has got to be the slowest movie I have seen in a long time.

Ok...I know I haven't been very good with my blogging updates. I finally got enough of my thesis written that I felt I had some time to go and check out a movie. So Benjy and I picked the most mindless movie out right now...and any movie with Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson should be the most mindless thing available.

As it turns out...The Hollywood hype machine got to me. Check out the movie poster:

IMDB Page

It features a completely roided out Rock, holding a handgun and just looking plain BADASS! The word "FASTER" has a bullet flying through it for crying out loud!

Things actually start out pretty awesome. The Rock is being let out of jail...he is huge! (Seriously...how many steroids did he take to get that big?) Anyways...As he is getting out of jail we see that all the inmates hate him, the guards are afraid of him and the warden apparently feels sorry for him. He then walks out the front door, is in the middle of the desert and then proceeds to RUN all the way home...for serious...he just runs into the middle of the desert! You can't help but think he is a badass.

So he goes and picks up his sweet muscle car, drives to some office call center, goes inside without saying anything to anyone, walks up to some nerd's cubicle and proceeds to shoot him right between the eyes!!! I think to myself "This is going to be fun!"

We then cut to Billy-Bob Thornton who is some sad crack head only to discover that he is actually a cop who has been assigned the case of the nerd with the bullet between the eyes...I think to myself "Awesome...interesting twist."

Then we cut to some crazy cool house and some guy doing weird yoga stuff...Proceed to find out that he sold some computer company and got insanely rich that way. Then it is revealed that he is an assassin! I think to myself "To what places of awesomeness are you taking me movie!?!?!"

And then the wheels fell off.

This movie morphed into some strange story of revenge and redemption with each new "action" scene becoming less awesome and more "blah" intermingled with odd artsy fade outs and stupid character development. Billy Bob Thornton turns out to be a cop 10 days from retirement with drug issues. The assassin...we find out that he only charges $1 for his services because he does it as a hobby. Apparently he really IS a computer geek...which is probably why he never kills The Rock by the end of the movie.

As for the The Rock...he is on a war path for the first ten minutes. Then somebody decided that he should act for the rest of the the movie. As he continues his revenge spree, his gun hand begins to shake more and more as he becomes increasingly conflicted. Ohhhhh...a shaking hand...give him an academy award! I finally lost it when they have a close up of his face with a tear rolling down his cheek. Are you kidding me??? The Rock doesn't cry! He kicks asses! This was what frustrated me the most...the movie poster led me to believe that I was going to get an awesome, high paced, action packed thrill ride...what I actually got was a movie that started fast and then fizzled out slowly with predictable "twists" along the way. If you can't figure out that Billy Bob is the real bad guy after about 30 minutes then you probably fell asleep.

Oh whoops...SPOILER ALERT...ahhh...whatever...you wont watch this movie anyways.

I give this movie 2 tricycles out of 10 muscle cars (Tricycles are slow...muscle cars are fast...nobody???...I guess Benjy isn't the only one who needs to work on analogies)

Christmas Movies

Well, it’s December, so I thought I'd write about Christmas movies. Not a whole lot about Christmas movies, because I haven’t seen that many. And of the ones I’ve seen, I don’t remember them. Everyone else calls them classics. Me, not so much.

It may just be I don’t place an emphasis on Christmas like so many other people do. Theologically, Christmas is far less important than Easter. To make a baseball analogy, Christmas is like stepping into the batter’s box. Easter is hitting a Grand Slam. Technically, the grand slam can’t happen without Jesus first stepping into the batter’s box, but no one’s excited about the batter’s box – just the grand slam. The only reason people cheer when players step into the box is because of the potential for a grand slam. And if you don’t get that, maybe I just need to work on analogies.

Anyway, if you haven’t seen many Christmas movies (like me), you can tune into almost any channel on TV. By the time the 25^th rolls around, some of them will be playing on a continuous loop.

First, there are the animated movies from the sixties. Rudolph, The Grinch (which had a nice live-action version in 2000), and so on, that parents grew up on, and seem to think their kids will love. We grew up on Transformers and Ninja Turtles. Do you really think we’ll love Dr. Suess? The books? Yes. The adaptions? Not so much.

Then the live action ones from all over. Miracle on 34^th st, which has Santa Claus in it (I think). I saw ads all the time for it 15 years ago on CBC, and made a point to do something else. It’s a Wonderful Life, about a suicidal man who learns life would be better if he lived. A Christmas Story, involving a BB gun and eye injuries, but doesn’t look that interesting despite those elements (my friends all rave about it). Any one of the adaptations of A Christmas Carol, where Scrooge learns to be generous. Good for him. Never mind that they’re all incredibly cheap for stations to air, which is the only reason they’re on.

For my money, there are only two Christmas movie really worth watching - Die Hard, and Die Hard 2: Die Harder. They’ve got love (John and Holly get together in each movie), redemption (Al overcoming his fear of guns in the first), and terrorists. They’re perfect for Christmas. Snow, carols, and blowing the snot out of whatever bad guy has taken over whichever building. Plus, they have a smarmy guy getting his comeuppance. And it’s the same guy. Twice!

And of course, if it weren't for Die Hard, we wouldn't have this great song (NSFW: Language).

Movie and Comic Books

This post is going to be short, for a couple of reasons. One, there is this little thing called the Grey Cup going on. It’s the championship game of the Canadian Football League, and my beloved Saskatchewan Roughriders are playing in it. Go Riders! Secondly, out of all the different media types I’ve talked about (video games, TV, books), I have the least experience with comics. I’ve just never gotten into them. Yeah, I like comic strips (who doesn’t like Calvin and Hobbes, or The Far Side?) and there are some Star Wars comics I’ve read (Twin Engines of Destruction follows Boba Fett dealing with an imposter), and there’s even a graphic novel adaptation of the unfilmed final episode of a tragically cancelled TV show called The Middleman that I want to get a hold of. But by and large, I just can’t get into them.

Also, don’t get in my face about comic books and graphic novels. Graphic novels are what we call them these days because they’ve gained legitimacy now that the readers have grown up. But I’ll refer to them as comic books because that’s what they’ve been since the 30’s when they came out. If you want to feel superior, go ahead. And finally, there are two main comic publishers – Marvel and DC. If you’re wondering why Superman never meets the X-men, it’s because they’re owned by two different companies. They’re like the Coke and Pepsi of the Comic Book world. Like Mac and PC, except one doesn’t cost twice as much with half the (admittedly good) content (Booyah).

Out of all the types of media, comic books are the easiest to turn into movies. For one thing, they’re very short. And while one issue won’t wrap up a plot, three or four (sometimes six) will wrap up the main plot, take down the main villain, and save the world (again). Because they’re so short, not much of the plot, character development, dialogue, or other stuff needs to be cut to put it into the film.

Secondly, because comics have been around for decades, there’s a plethora of both plots and characters to choose from. Need a movie about the Dazzler? No problem. Luke Cage? Sure. She-Hulk? Go for it! Or not - some of the ideas suck. Be prudent, pick the right plot, and you can have a hit on your hands.

Thirdly, the movies come pre-storyboarded. Storyboarding is part of the pre-production of the film (before filming) where people sit down and visualize how each scene of the movie will go, and then draw pictures of that. Because comic books already come with those pictures, it’s really easy to adapt them to storyboarding, shortening up the production process and making it cheaper than it could be. I’ve heard that for 300, Zach Snyder just used the comic written by Frank Miller as the storyboard, not even bothering to do his own. And it was AWESOME!

Of course, there are problems. As with books, comic books have thoughts depicted that have to be conveyed somehow. Secondly, comic book heroes have an origin story of some sort, which is often adapted for the first movie of a planned franchise. Because so many comic books have been around for a while, the origin stories have to be updated to today’s world, meaning diehard fans of the original are going to be mad. And the movie company is depending on them to see the movie, so if they decide not to go, the movie might die a quick death at the box office.

To be honest, I have no idea about turning a movie into a comic book. Presumably, an author and illustrator is given the script (one of the problems with this, as pointed out by Ian in the comment section, is that they’re often given the first draft of the script, meaning any revisions aren’t going to be adapted. This is a problem with turning a movie into anything. Changes late in the production cycle are going to be missed) and then they draw a comic book from it. Whee. Actually, it can get interesting in some cases. Star Wars was adapted to comic books twice. Once when it was released, by Marvel. Because it was available to everyone, they had to tone down a lot of the violence (for instance, Luke getting his hand chopped off by Darth Vader had to be cleverly edited). A while later, it was adapted as a Manga (the definition of which is beyond me, besides it being of Japanese origins) which could show everything. So Luke getting his hand chopped off was shown in all its gruesome glory, complete with spray of blood (never mind that lightsabers cauterise wounds). So it was considered much better, because it wasn’t for kiddies. Just like Star Wars is supposed to be.

Movember

The Lord said “The Men shall not shave their beards for a period of 30 days, and they shall celebrate their facial hair. And it shall be called Movember”

2 Confusions 3:12.

There comes a time in a young man’s life (a bit after the onset of puberty) when he discovers bits of hair on his upper lip. He is extremely proud of this ‘moustache’ if it can be called that. Everyone else is disgusted, except his parents, who remind him gently that he should shave. Once it becomes unavoidable, he gingerly takes hold of the razor his mom bought him and wonders “Why on earth would I want this sharp implement anywhere near my face?” Or if they are emo “Wouldn’t this be more at home near my wrists?” (yes, I went there. That joke was so tasteless, it could be Evan-ian).

Eventually, he manages to shave of that lip hair he defiantly called a moustache, and as he gets older, settles into a routine of shaving. For some, it’s everyday. For some, it’s a few times a week. For some, it’s only a trim every month and a half or so. Sometimes it’s once a year, whether they need it or not. Some go without entirely, and grow up to be ZZ Top.

Because some men have facial hair, and some men are in movies, it’s inevitable that there will appear men with facial hair in movies. And while this can be awesome (Zach Galafianakis for the full beard, Robert Downey Jr in Iron Man for the immaculate trim), it’s most often used to help characterize the person.

For instance, the full beard is used to show manly men, or outdoors-y type men, or cavemen (not necessarily just a stereotype). Just a moustache (and a bad one at that) tends to be reserved for the adult film industry. Most other people don’t have it for fear of association, the same as the clipped moustache that Hitler wore (you’ll notice it was also worn by Charlie Chaplin).

The Goatee (particularly black) is worn by evil people. In fact, if you’re ruling a nation, and one of your advisors is bald with a black goatee, he is plotting to overthrow you. You might want to have him executed, provided he hasn’t already turned the guards against you.

When the Goatee is not worn by evil people, it is worn by young, hip, urban professionals who want to show how sophisticated they are. This is not always a stereotype. While they aren’t bad people, often the story is told from the point of view that being urban and sophisticated is worse than simple and rural. So yeah.

Villains tend to go with the long moustache, with ends they can twirl while they look over their evil plan. Snidely Whiplash is one of the better known examples. Lampshaded by Simon Tam in an episode of Firefly, after he plans and executes a heist with the rest of the team, and contemplates growing a moustache.

The Horseshoe (I had to look on Wikipedia, because I often get it confused with a Fu Manch) is often combined with a leather jacket to denote bikers, possibly a non-copyright-infringing Hell’s Angels knockoff (“We are the Heck’s Seraphim, and we’re going to administer a beatdown, if you’re willing. If not, it’s cool”).

The Thin and Long beard is often used to portray wise characters, mostly Asian. Almost all Gurus will have it, and will teach the protagonist all sorts of butt-kicking. You can find examples in Kill Bill Vol. 2, and Avatar: the Last Airbender.

Muttonchops are used for pretty much every period piece (Pride and Prejudice), although they experience a brief resurgence when Hugh Jackman sported them for his role as Wolverine in the X-Men movie. They died again when men everywhere realized they just aren't manly enough to pull it off.

Growing the Beard is a completely different phenomenon, and I encourage you to read all about it.

Missed Mindless Movie - Centurion

Centurion is one of those movies that would’ve seen wide release if it had starred more famous actors (not better, just more famous). Unfortunately, you only get an arthouse release if all you’ve ever been in was an under-the-radar HBO show (The Wire, starring Dominic West).

It’s also the movie that Robin Hood could’ve been if it hadn’t sold out for a PG rating to increase profits. Centurion is bloody, full of swears, and the epitome of guy movies set in ancient times (swords and amputations galore). I don’t really mind spoiling it because it’s not about the story (or even the acting). It’s about how long you can last without wincing. I only lasted a few minutes, but that’s because I thought the credits were a little cheesy. I mean, do we really need to know the hairdresser in giant, floating letters? The effect was great – giant floating letters in epic mountain passes – but they were a little … detailed.

The story takes place about 2000 years ago. The Centurion is at a Roman base in Britain that quickly gets overrun by Picts. He gets captured while everyone else gets killed. The Roman governor of Britain wants to wipe out the Picts to gain the political capital to return to Rome (since being the British governor has about as much meaning as the Alaskan one … oh, wait). So he sends the ninth legion in to kill them all, since the ninth legion is the most bad-ass legion in the entire Roman army. Or they act like it (in their defence, they are pretty awesome).

The Centurion escapes and meets up with the ninth legion and The General appoints him second in command to teach him about the Picts (since The Centurion can speak Pict). They march north, with the aid of a female tracker who leads them into an ambush (she’s a Pict who had unspeakable things done to her by the Romans, so she’s got a bit of a grudge). They all get slaughtered and The General gets taken captive. 7 survivors (including The Centurion) head to the camp to free the general. Since everyone looks kinda the same and they all have names like Marcus Aurelios and Romanus Longus Namus, I kept them separate by calling them The Centurion, The Old Guy, the Big Guy, The Marathon Guy (he can run really far), The Selfish Guy, The Food Guy (he’s a cook), and The Other Guy.

They sneak into the Pict camp and try to free The General, but can’t break the chains. He tells them to flee, so they do, but not before The Selfish Guy hides in a tent. The tent houses the son of the Pict leader, whom The Selfish Guy kills to keep quiet. The Pict leader discovers this in the morning, and orders their death. The Tracker kills The General, then sets out with a party to track down The Survivors.

The Survivors head north to throw the Picts off their trail, then head west and eventually south. The Picts chase them. The Survivors run. The Picts chase them some more. Many scenes of running and chasing ensue. The Selfish Guy and the Marathon Guy get separated from the group, and set off on their own. The Food Guy and The Other Guy get killed (ouch).

The Centurion, The Big Guy, and The Old Guy manage to find a hut in the middle of a bunch of dead animals. The owner is a nice woman who feels no allegiance to anyone since the Picts cast her out for being witch (she’s not, she’s just misunderstood) and so begins a wedged in romance (can’t have a movie without that!) between her and The Centurion.

Meanwhile, the Selfish Guy abandons The Marathon Guy so he can escape from wolves.

After the other three get healed and rested (and hid) in the hut, they travel to a small Roman fort, only to find it abandoned. They decide to make their stand, and manage to finally finish off the hunting party, including The Tracker. The Old Guy gets killed, though.

Afterwards, they meet up with The Selfish Guy and ride towards Roman lines. The Centurion kills The Selfish Guy after he reveals his selfish side. The Big Guy is killed completely unnecessarily.

After giving his report to The Governor, The Centurion is ordered killed (The Governor can’t let it be known the most bad-ass legion in his command got wiped out by a bunch of guerrillas). He manages to escape, and goes to live with The Witch.

There are a few problems with this movie, but not many. I can’t verify its accuracy, because I wasn’t around when Rome was getting its conquering on (like Donkey Kong). It had a lot of cool fights, but I’m used to seeing them from other historical epics (or historical flops, whichever). And I’m slowly becoming convinced that just because they look cool, does not mean they actually took place. Not that it matters. I’ll take a Ninja King Arthur if it makes a good action scene.

So I think this is a theatre movie. Good action, decent music, a lot that holds together, not that much time wasted on things like character development or thematic issues. Good times all around. Well, unless you’re The Tracker, The Selfish Guy, The Big Guy, the Food Guy, The Marathon Guy, The Old Guy, or The Other Guy. But I’m the Mindless Movie Guy, so I liked it.

Movies and Books

Turning books into movies has been around long before turning video games into movies, mainly because books have been around much longer than movies. So people have been getting a lot of practice with it (which is not to say they have gotten better). As with video games, the main issue is cutting out material to make movies, and adding material in to go the other way.

Novels generally have around 300 pages or so. Which is fine for a book, but a faithful adaptation (one which puts all the events of the book in to the movie) will take about five hours (see the BBC production of Pride and Prejudice. I’m still waiting for the movie of Pride and Prejudice and Zombies). So to make a movie of a book, you need to cut out about half (or more) of the book. Which, like video games, often makes the movie a lot stupider, as well as pissing off a lot of the fans of the book. And because the fans of the book may not be stereotyped as basement-dwelling geeks, movie makers care a lot more about them (frankly, I’d rather pander to the geekdom than fans of Twilight, but that’s why I’m not in the movie business).

One of the other issues with turning books into movies is how to accurately convey thoughts. Thoughts can be written down in the book, but are harder to get in movies. There are a few ways to deal with this. One, the movie can mute the sound and have the character voice over what their thoughts are in echo-y fashion (this is often used in TV show, but less in movies). Two, you can leave the thoughts out of it entirely, in the hopes that whatever the characters are thinking isn’t necessary to the story (frankly, a lot of times their not ... sort of like real life). Third, the character can speak in the movie what they were only thinking in the book (doing this when alone is a bit of a problem, although not as uncommon as you would think … or say). Fourth, good actors may be able to express their thoughts through facial expression, body language, and so forth. Bad actors will look like they're constipated, and terrible actors will look like a block of wood (Hi, Keanu Reeves).

Another issue is what everyone and everything looks likes. On one hand, nobody’s ever seen what the main character looks like, or what the setting is, so movie makers can’t really go wrong (unless they change hair colour or some other obviously stupid detail). But everyone who’s read the book has an idea in their heads of what each character looks like and what the setting looks like. So what’s on screen is going to different than what just about everyone thinks. Not necessarily wrong, but different.

Turning movies into books can happen in one of two ways. The first, an author writes down everything in the movie, the production company slap eight pages of colour photos inside, and markets it to kids through Scholastic book fairs. I got a copy of Meteor Man this way (a forgettable movie about a meteor that gave people superpowers).

Alternatively, an author can be hired to fill in the missing pages to get a novel-length book. They can add thoughts, lots of descriptions, background on characters, whatever they want. They just need to add something, or it’ll be a 100 page novelette. I think it’s easier than adding material to video games, because there are more options that fit better within a book than interactive media.

The big drawback, though, is that reading a book takes a lot longer than watching a movie, and most people would rather spend the two hours on the movie than two weeks (months, years) on the book. So there needs to be a big draw for the book, which means it either has to be better than the movie (usually by using a good author) or needs to have a well-known author (and keep in mind, good and well-known are not the same thing … Stephanie Meyer). So the good news is that for books of movies, we get authors like Timothy Zahn, R.A. Salvatore, Alan Dean Foster, etc … The bad news is that we know how the story ends, and all we’re getting is a bit of extra detail. Not that that’s a bad thing, it’s just not worth paying for the hard-cover. Unless it’s for Revenge of the Sith. I’ve heard that it’s much better than the movie, and explains motivations more than the movie. So as always, the lesson is: George Lucas, STOP MAKING MOVIES!

Pet Peeves

I don’t have many peeves, but I do have some. A few of them relate to Hollywood, so I thought I’d elaborate. Firstly, I’m annoyed that actors are paid so much. $20 million for a movie? Really? Couldn’t you just live with $5 million per movie and spend $15 million on wells so Africa can have clean water? But, since studios are willing to pay actors those fees, and since were willing to pay to see them, it’s pretty much just capitalism at work. I can’t really fault actors for trying to get theirs.

Secondly, I’m annoyed at critics who are more interested in good movies than fun movies. Inception – good but not fun. The Losers – fun but not good. Guess which one is preferred by critics, and which one is preferred by me. In their defense, critics see far more movies than I do (probably one a day or so) and they need the quality or they’d rapidly lose the will to live. It’s also possible that the critic position attracts the type of people who appreciate quality over special effects and banter. It’s not just any hack who can write about movies (as evidenced by this blog).

Mainly, though, I’m really annoyed at Hollywood inventions. These are the types of things that only show up in movies and TV, but never in real life. I don’t mind it in Science Fiction, because it’s supposed to be that. I don’t mind absurdly good martial arts or gun-play, because I’ll overlook a lot of flaws for good action. No, what really steams my clam is the type of thing like:

- Magic Phones. In movies and TV shows, phones have one of three settings. One, they will go directly to voicemail as soon as someone calls the number. Two, they will go to voicemail after one ring. Three, they will never go to voicemail, and the person phoning will urgently whisper “Come on, pick up the phone” as tragedy looms. Honestly, how many people actually set there phones up like this? Particularly ones that switch settings based on plot, not on whether the owner actually changes them. Almost all people have their phones set to go to voicemail after four or six rings. Dear Hollywood, please fix your phones. I’m afraid they’re going rogue, and may be the first step in Skynet taking over the world. You can see this in many episodes of Two and a Half Men.

- Visible Lasers. Lasers are only visible as a dot on the wall. They do not make a cool light beam across the room. Even if they did, they would need a surface to reflect light back to a sensor, so you can’t wave them around randomly. They also make lousy alarm systems. Motion sensors, sound sensors, vibration detectors, and thermal sensors work much better. Dear Hollywood, please stop putting visible lasers in movies and TV. Every time you do, I’m reminded how stupid you think we are. Stop insulting us! You can see this in episodes of Leverage.

- “Say that again” or “What did you say?” The main character will be trying to solve a mystery or puzzle. He or she will be completely bamboozled. They will have an unrelated conversation with another character. That character will say a word or phrase that’s also unrelated to the mystery, but will jar the lead into solving it. But the main character is incredibly dense, and needs to be jarred twice before he or she can solve the case. So they’ll inevitable ask “What did you say?” or “Say that again.” And so the side character will repeat what they just said, not five seconds ago, and suddenly a light bulb will appear above the main character's head, and he or she will solve the case (or possibly rush out of the room to solve the case, without explaining anything to anybody there, but I don’t mind that so much). As an example, say the victim was in a dark maze, but managed to get out. The lead character will wonder “How on earth did they possibly see in such a dark place? They don’t smoke, so they wouldn’t have had a lighter.” And they will be completely stumped until they talk to their friend, who would ask something like “Did you see the match last weekend?” referring to the latest soccer match between the woeful clubs they cheer for. But the word ‘match’ has jarred the lead character. Unfortunately, he’s to dumb to realise that the victim could use a match to see until his friend says it again. So he asks his friend to repeat what he just said (“Did – You – See – The – Match – Last – Weekend”) and suddenly he knows. It’s obvious after the first use what the clue is. Why do characters need it repeated? There’s only two times when you’d ask someone to repeat what they just said. One, if you couldn’t understand it, or two, if you couldn’t believe it. The first one would be used for a crummy phone connection, and the second could be used for something racist (and yes, I’ve run into both). You never, ever need it to solve a mystery. It’s my pet peeve phrase, and every time it’s used, I cringe. You can see it used in some episodes or Castle, and in the movie The Hangover.

- Computers. Hollywood, please get computers right. 90% of offices use Windows, not some proprietary software that renders everything in pretty graphics. Besides taking a long time to train, and not being able to use it anywhere else, it would be extremely possessor intensive. Also, when you log in, there is no screen saying “Password accepted.” It just lets you into the system. Thirdly, hacking is done mostly by typing (but not really fast gibberish. There is a spacebar. Use it) and not by using pretty pictures. Hackers was not depicting real hacking, and the expert you hired to give you realistic computer scenes was feeding you BS to see how much you’d buy (as it turns out, all of it). It would mostly be like typing in notepad or a command prompt (you know, C:\. C:\run. Run, :\ run!) and not a bunch of 3D images of breaking into buildings. You have it wrong. Wrong! WRONG!!!

So, what bugs you most about Hollywood?

RED

Last night, Evan and I went to see RED. It started off well, because Evan forgot about the preview game, so I got all but one. If fact, it’s the first time I’ve ever gotten the Green Hornet preview before him. He’s usually locked in on that one.

The movie itself starts of with Bruce Willis, living out his retirement. He has a house, spartanly decorated, and he rips up his pension checks so he can talk to the woman who handles that (played by Mary-Louise Parker. You’ll know her from Weeds or from guest starring frequently in The West Wing). Eventually, people try to kill him. He goes on the lam and takes Parker along with him (she’s now a target because ‘They’ know he likes her). He goes about trying to find out who’s trying to kill him and why, in the process getting his old team back together. His old team is played by Morgan Freeman, John Malkovich, and Helen Mirren. They’re all ex-CIA. There’s a ‘with’ role (‘With’ roles are smaller than starring roles, but larger than cameos or small roles. The people playing them get introduced at the end of the credits by ‘with [insert actor’s name]) played by Brian Cox. Basically, everyone’s old and bad-ass. By the way, if you're wondering what RED stand for, it's Retired, Extremely Dangerous. Which seems like one of those things that only exists in movies, like KOAS or congress.

The action’s great. That’s to be expected. It’s a Bruce Willis action movie (hereafter noted as a BWAM). What was completely unexpected was the humour. This movie is Hilarious! Seriously! While there are enough jokes with punch lines, most of the humour is from Malkovich’s performance. He steals the movie. By the time the credits role, it’s completely clear he’s made of Awesome (and LSD). Mostly, it fits right into my comedy niche of zany antics (like Better Off Ted or Monty Python).

Of course, everyone in the movie can act. The biggest gamble is probably Karl Urban (he plays the opposing agent). And even though his accent shows through at times, he’s fine. Everyone else is fine. So pretty much, the acting is perfect. The comedy timing is fantastic. It’s pretty much a great movie. As a bonus, there are postcards that indicated where each of the locations are. Most of them are functional, but some of them are absolutely hilarious.

So yeah, it’s a theatre movie. Totally unexpected, but completely delightful. It’s like an older, classier Expendables (although Stallone probably could’ve been in both). Not quite as over-the top, but much funnier. For instance, there’s no possible way I could end this review as humorously as the movie did, so I’ll just leave you with the thought of Malkovich in a dress.

Movies and TV

The intersection of movies and television holds many interesting, and stupid things. Many cancellations, many box office bombs, but far more success than when movies and video games get together.

Turning TV shows into movies happens for usually one of three reasons. Okay, it’s only one reason, and that reason is money. But there are three other reasons to convert a TV show to a movie.

The first is nostalgia. Many movie executives hope to capitalize on the nostalgia of adults, so we get movies of the A-team, Get Smart, Charlie’s Angels, and The Avengers. The last one kicked off the recent trend, which is really odd, since it’s supposedly awful. Why anyone kept making more movies of old TV shows is anyone’s guess, but at least the rest of them are pretty fun. These are usually made many years (like 20) after the TV ended.

The second is to get the gang back together, or to tie up loose ends. Movies like Sex and the City, or Serenity (the film from the criminally cancelled show Firefly) are examples. I can understand the desire to make them. After working for years with the same people, you start to miss them after a few months by yourself. That, and the large amounts of money thrown at the actors, are why they do them. Sometime they’re successful (Sex and the City) and sometimes not. Despite the fan outcry when Fox cancelled Firefly, and the millions of fans that support it after its death, the movie made less than $40 million in theatres worldwide. The direct to DVD movies from Futurama would also fit in here, and they were so popular they helped uncancel the show. So kudos to fans for that one. These movies are usually made few months or years after the show ends.

The third reason is because the writers have an idea that wouldn’t fit in a normal episode. Or the producers think they can sucker in fans to go see a movie, so they set about writing one. These are made during the show’s run. The best example I can think of is probably the Simpsons Movie, although many Pokemon movies probably fit in here too. I’m guessing it’s easier for an animated show to make a movie during the show’s run than a live action show, because the production of the movie can be spread out and the show can be made at the same time. Trying to make a live-action movie would require a significant break in the filming schedule of the show so that the actors could film their scenes in the movie. It has been done with The X-files, and the made for TV movie 24: Redemption.

There is one last reason that I haven’t seen much, and don’t really think it works that well. It’s used when a movie tries to sum up what happens in a TV show. The only example that comes to mind is The Last Airbender, based on a TV show called Avatar – the Last Airbender (it’s quite good, by the way). It’s bad mainly because of M. Night Shyamalan, but also because it had to hack out many of the things that made the show great in an attempt to fit the important plot points into 90 minutes. It … was … awful!

It failed because turning a TV show into a movie is about one of two things. Either the TV show had an idea that the movie ran with (4 war veterans get unjustly jailed, break out, and now get hired to do actiony things: the A-Team). Or the TV show created a universe that the Movie can be set in (Serenity, in the Firefly universe. Which Joss Whedon then used to kill popular characters. Thanks a lot, Joss). You can’t just sum up a TV show to make a movie. It’d be like summing up a video game to make a movie, and we know how well that goes over.

Turning a movie into a TV show works on the same principles. The movie creates a universe that the TV show is set in. Usually it follows on with the same characters, after the adventures of the movies. Sometimes it’ll just be a small cartoon (Clerks: the Animated Series, MIB: The Animated Series, Droids, Ewoks), but mostly it’ll be live-action, sometimes even with the same actors. This is especially true if the movies is a made-for TV movie, as it can serve as a pilot to the show (as in the case of Due South, a fish-out-of-water show about a Mountie in Chicago. It’s very good). A lot of times, nothing gets off the ground (see: Mr. & Mrs. Smith). Sometimes the movie is forgotten when the TV show rockets to popularity (see: Buffy the Vampire Slayer).

And of course, sometimes interesting things are just bound to happen. Star Trek wasn’t terribly popular when it originally aired in the 60’s. Once it ran on syndication, though, a lot more people tuned in. With money to be made, thoughts of a new Star Trek soon formed, and filming for a new series (called Star Trek 2) was planned with the original cast. What they had was too big/good for TV, and became Star Trek: The Motion Picture. And now we have Star Trek movies, something fans are alternately grateful for and hateful of.

This was also the case of Star Wars, the Clone Wars. A new animated series was being made, so they jammed the first four episodes together and released it on the big screen. And it was awful. In fact, pretend I never mentioned it. There were only 6 Star Wars movies in theatres. You know what? You can forget about the most recent ones, too. There are only 3 Star Wars movies, and George Lucas retired after Return of the Jedi. Got it? GOT IT?!?

Sports Movies

Just a short post today, because I'm also watching the 'Riders play (See? I can multi-task ... okay, I can't, I just get bored easily and need to constantly switch tasks). Onwards!

I like sports, and I like movies. Naturally, when these two collide (well, combine), I like the results. That’s not to say I like all movies with sports in them (ahem, Jerry Maguire), but I’m also more tolerant of bad movies than others (martial arts movies count as sports … right?)

It seems a bit odd to me that my least favourite sport to watch (baseball) is also the main sport in my favourite sports movie (Field of Dreams). Although that could be that Field of Dreams is centered around baseball, but there’s so much else in there (the soundtrack, James Earl Jones). Baseball also offers The Natural (where the iconic shot of exploding stadium lights comes from) the great comedy Major League, as well as a bunch of movies starring Kevin Costner (he’s not all bad).

Golf gives us The Legend of Bagger Vance (which I have successfully avoided) as well as Tin Cup (hey, Kevin Costner again) and Happy Gilmore.

Football (my favourite sport to watch) gives us We Are Marshall, a movie I recommend everyone watch once. Or I used to, until I found out Matthew Fox cries in everything he’s in. Then it lost a bit of its emotional edge. Football also has Remember the Titans, Varsity Blues, and Friday Night Lights (the High School Football “Let’s Overcome Adversity” trilogy). For takes of professional football, it has The Replacements (Keanu Reeves! Gene Hackman! Contrived Plot!) and Any Given Sunday (home of one of the greatest speeches of all time).
Football movies can get a little tedious though, because there’s only so many times you can win the game on a last second 75-yard Hail Mary.

Hockey is a little barren. Maybe it’s because Hockey is less popular than other sports. The only ones that come to mind are Slapshot (a great comedy) and Youngblood (not so much). I’ve avoided both. I guess there’s always the Mighty Ducks movies, but I give them as much weight as the entire Air Bud franchise.

Basketball is a little barren as well. Glory Road. Blue Chips, He Got Game. The Sixth Man. Like Mike. I’m sure there are more actually quality basketball movies around, I just haven’t seen them. I supposed I enjoy seeing real basketball more. There'll never be a movie character as awesome as Ron Artest.

Other sports offer up there own movies. Dodgeball has … well, Dodgeball. Poker (probably not a sport) has Maverick and Rounders ("In the game of life, women are the rake."). Swimming has Pride. Boxing has the Rocky Series.

And that’s about it. Sometimes it's easy to get bored of sports movies (how often can an underdog win before it gets boring?) but if you have any more, be sure to mention them. I’m sure I’ll be a fan.

Movies and Video Games

Separately, movies and video games each have a rich tradition of excellence. Movies have been around since the late 1800's, and video games from the early 60's (although they didn't really get going until the mid 70's. As soon as computers were invented, people started playing games on them, but the lack of promulgation meant that computers weren't widespread until home video games systems like the Atari 2600 and such).

Together, however, movies and video games have a terrible tradition of suck. Video games based on movies suck. Movies based on video games suck. Video games based on movies based on video games (Street Fighter: The Movie: The Game) are especially awful, but are rare enough that we don't often venture down into that particular region of awful.

Why do they suck? Well, the main reason, in both cases, is time. Most video games are between 10 and 15 hours in length (or 5 to 10 minutes, for those addicting pop-cap games). Most movies are 2 to 3 hours long.

To make a video game into a movie, a large section of plot has to be hacked off. Either that, or a similar plot written with a lot fewer elements. Sometimes this can be a good thing. Video games that take dozens of hours because the character chases after 8 pieces of one artefact and 6 pieces of another (we're looking at you, Zelda) can easily lose some of the repetitive sections without losing any plot elements. However, even with that, a lot of plot will go out the window. With the plot, also goes a lot of the reason for character development. So either the characters remain static (differing from the game and angering fanboys) or the characters grow more mature for absolutely no reason (making for a terrible movie).

There are more problems with turning a video game into a movie. For one, a lot of the game might be impossible to film (due to physics or gravity or whatnot). It's possible that the characters’ models might not be able to act, so the people on film look and sound different from the people in the game (Max Payne! Among numerous other problems). Large casts might have to be cut down, making for boycotts of the movie when favourite characters are left out. And of course, the most hated two words in the movie or gaming industry: Uwe Boll.

Similarly, time works the other way when turning movies into video games. Movies being two hours, and video games being ten hours, the makers of the video game have to invent 80% of the content. Some of them can do that well, but are often pressured to include elements of popular games, even if the genre doesn't fit. Which is how you can end up with sandbox-like sections in games where the movie was fairly linear, or racing sections in games that have no business having racing sections. Grand Theft Auto and Need for Speed are popular, so wedge similar parts into games, or people will complain!

Time works in another sense as well. Games these days take quite a while to develop, from concept to publishing. The problem is that video games based on movies don't have that much time, because they have to match the release date. Often, the makers will get the first script and go from that (so revisions go into the movie, but not the game). They may have a year to get everything done, if they're lucky. More bugs than usual make it in, because they're rushing to get the programming done, and more bugs make it through Quality Control because they only have half the time they need. The end result is a lot of bugs in a crappy game. Whee.

Next, the characters’ looks. Instead of seeing a film of Shia LaBeouf running around with the Allspark, we get a poorly rendered version of a creepy looking LaBeouf that's smack dab in the middle of the uncanny valley. So we really don't care if it gets run over by a giant transforming truck or not (some of you want this to happen to the real one as well. Shame on you. I'd never mess up a real giant transforming truck that way).

Can these problems be avoided? Yes indeed they can. For movies into video games, taking a lot of time to make sure everything runs correctly is a great step. Goldeneye came out quite a while after the movie, but was incredibly good. This may also be due to the fact it was ridiculously fun to play with friends. Which also points out the fact that if you have to put extraneous things in your game that weren't in the movie, make sure they're fun (and make sure no one picks Oddjob as well).

The biggest thing is probably not to make a video game based directly on the movie, but more on the universe they're set in. Batman: Arkham Asylum was one of the best reviewed games in 2009. While similar in style to the two most recent Batman movies, it was simply set in the Batman universe. Transformers: War for Cybertron is pretty good, but not based on any Transformers movie. The actual games based on the movies were pretty bad, from what I can tell.

Making successful movies based on games is a lot trickier, and hasn’t been done yet. The closest we’ve come is probably Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time (which threw in a female character because you can’t have a movie without a love interest) or Lara Croft: Tomb Raider. The former is perhaps the best reviewed (a backhanded compliment if I’ve ever heard one) and the latter has been the most successful commercially.

I’m not sure what the problem is, but I guess Hollywood just doesn’t know how to make good transfers. After Valve made Half-life (an incredibly good first-person shooter, surpassed only by its sequel), they were inundated with offers to make a movie of it. After the torrent of horrid ideas had passed, they realized they’d have to make their own movie of it if they wanted it to be any good. Apparently, all writers are hacks. Which gives me hope that I might one day write a movie script, but also fills me with dread, because World of Warcraft (one of my favourite games) is being made into a movie and Mass Effect (another one of my favourite games) has been optioned for a movie. I love both of those games, and will be bitterly disappointed if the movies don’t live up to my expectations. I think Hollywood will have the last laugh, though, because I’ll end up paying money to support it. But beware, Hollywood – I have a blog, and I’m not afraid to use it!

The history of suck between video games and movies probably started in 1982, when Atari tried to capitalize on the popularity of E.T. by making a video game of it. They had one guy program it in 5 weeks and then mass produced the snot out of it. One urban legend is that there were more cartridges of it than were Atari's sold at that point (so way to get ahead of yourselves, there). It was an incredibly terrible game (I know, I played it) and killed video games for two years until Super Mario saved the day (like he usually does. It's like Fun was kidnapped by the video game slump, and Mario stormed into the castle and saved it ... what, I'm not smoking anything ... I'm not)!

The first movie based on a video game I can remember sucking was, ironically, Super Mario Brothers (by the way, how much did Luigi get shafted when that pairing got named? Known only by your brother's name? That's gotta suck). It was abysmal, and everyone involved wishes you would just forget it.

But the sorry contributions have continued on both sides ever since people thought gamers would pay for an awful film with some familiar elements, or buy terrible games based on their favourite movies. I’d post a list of examples, but it might make your eyes bleed. And besides, we promised we’d forget these abominations, and I intend to honour that. You know, until the next mindless movie comes out.

If you want more (accurate) information, you can go here and here.

The End of Summer

Sorry about the lack of posts. It’s just that there’s not a lot to see. The summer movie season is ending “Not with a bang but a whimper” (And I promise you, that will be the first and last time T.S. Eliot is quoted in a blog about mindless movies … until the next time I quote him). Okay, there are some movies we could have seen, and wanted to see, but due to circumstances beyond our control, were unable to see. But the truth is there aren’t that many good movies out anymore. Or more specifically, there are good movies, just none that I want to see.

Let me explain: Studios tend to use the end of August and the beginning of September for two reasons. One is as a dumping grounds. Studios will release the movies that they think will do terribly commercially and critically, but are big enough they can’t just release them on DVD (for whatever reason. Maybe the stars are too big, maybe they wasted too much on marketing before they realised it sucked). Thus, we get movies like Resident Evil: Afterlife or Takers.

Secondly, studios start releasing movies they hope will win awards. Since most studios think people can’t remember more than a few months back, they’ll only give awards to movies they’ve seen recently. Thus, most Oscar hopefuls are released between September and January, when the date cuts off to fit into that years Oscars.

Either way, you won’t be seeing these movies in theatres. You might buy the good ones after they have “Oscar Nominated” stamped on the DVD case in March. I don’t know if you’ll actually watch it, or just give it to that pretentious friend of yours that has Anna Karenina on his or her bookshelf but hasn’t read it yet (fun activity: read the cliff notes on these kinds of books and then ask your pretentious friend about them).

Just for fun, I looked back at last years Oscars to see when the nominatees for best picture were released.

• The Hurt Locker (June)
• Avatar (December)
• The Blind Side (November)
• District 9 (August)
• An Education (October)
• Inglorious Basterds (August)
• Precious: Based on the yada yada yada (November)
• A Serious Man (October)
• Up (May)
• Up in the Air (December)

To be perfectly honest, I’ve only seen two of those movies (guess which ones), but that really shouldn’t surprise any of you, should it? What is surprising is that the winning movie (The Hurt Locker) was released before the middle of the year. Over the past 10 years, the winners have been:

• 2010: The Hurt Locker (June, 2009)
• 2009: Slumdog Millionaire (January, 2009)
• 2008: No Country for Old Men (November, 2007)
• 2007: The Departed (October, 2006)
• 2006: Crash (May, 2005)
• 2005: Million Dollar Baby (January, 2005)
• 2004: Return of the King (December, 2003)
• 2003: Chicago (December, 2002)
• 2002: A Beautiful Mind (December, 2001)
• 2001: Gladiator (May, 2000)

The Hurt Locker is the only real aberration. Crash was an underdog to Brokeback Mountain (December, 2005), and Gladiator was released as a blockbuster to take advantage of summer sales. Who knew the field would be so thin they’d nominate and crown a summer blockbuster with some really boring political intrigue? I mean, did you go for the plodding plot, or Russell Crowe going medieval on people and animals (something he should limit to movies, not real life)?

Anyway, the point is that if you want to make an Oscar Winner, your best bet is to release your movie sometime between September and January (December or January, preferably) and to stick “Million” somewhere in the title. Seriously, what’s with that?

Resident Evil: Afterlife

This movie did not start out well. Mainly it was the previews. I guess we couldn’t really ask for anything else, since it was a Resident Evil movie, after all, but all the trailers we saw were for horror movies. Which neither Evan nor I have any interest in seeing. So not only did the trailers make us each a bit squeamish (Saw 3D, anyone? Please, let it be the last one), but we didn’t even get to add any movies to our list. Not a one will we be going to see.

The movie itself opened up with a slow scene in Japan. Sorry, I should say slow-motion. There were some interesting shots in 3D using rain, but it was pretty much about 7 minutes of slow-motion crowded sidewalk. Whee.

Anyhow, after that it got into a pretty good set piece with Alice (Milla Jovovich) invading Umbrella headquarters in Japan. It was cool, but had some stupid moments. For instance, she takes down a squad in a long battle involving guns and swords. Its pretty awesome, but after it’s done, she’s immediately surrounded by another squad with guns. She levels that one with one flash of telekinesis, which makes me wonder why she didn’t take out the first squad like that. The only reason she didn’t is because fights with guns and swords are cooler, so that’s what Paul W.S. “I have 3D!” Anderson put in there.

After that comes a lot of travelling around the wasteland, and a bit of character development. Alice occasionally narrates into a camcorder, expressing herself and wishes and desires and all that stuff. It doesn’t work. Either Anderson doesn’t understand his audience, or he’s appealing to the critics. Dude, you’re making a Resident Evil movie. It ain’t gonna get good reviews. Deal with it, and bring the zombies.

So he brings the zombies. Alice and someone from the previous movie make it to LA, where they battle zombies with a group of survivors they find there. They also fight this monstrous humanoid … thing ... with an axe that would be right at home in World of Warcraft (seriously, my character wants one. It’d be called the “Serrated Blade of Doom” or “Edge of Falling Darkness” or something similar. Seriously, weapon names in World of Warcraft? Awesome!) Anyway, he always wears a burlap sack over his head (I think it was nailed to his neck) which makes me wonder two things – how did he see, and who was he mourning?

They manage to get to a safe zone, and then it’s one final battle with Umbrella, and then a cliffhanger ending. Which apparently is a standard Resident Evil thing, but it’s been a while since I’ve seen the first two, and I didn’t make it through the third.

The 3D is technically good, but it seems like Anderson is showing it off more than using it to support the movie. It’s like he shoots things specifically to take advantage of the 3D, instead of shooting it normally and just having the 3D there.

The slow-motion is very annoying. He leaves giant chunks of the movie in slow-motion, instead of breaking it up into manageable sections interspersed with normal-time sections. We don’t need 5 minutes of a slow-motion fight, honest. My theory is that if they hadn’t used slow-motion at all, the movie would’ve been shorter than Jonah Hex, so it may have just been padding. Also, a lot of them use falling water, so it’s also possible Anderson really, really wanted to show off his 3D.

There was a scene where Alice was inching up on a door, with something possibly behind it. I don’t know why directors keep putting these kinds of things in movies. Either there’s something in there that bursts out and scares the audience, or there’s nothing in there, the hero(ine) relaxes, and whatever it is pops up behind him/her and scares the audience. Still, people jump, so I guess it works.

All in all, it’s a DVD movie. When I left the movie, I thought it might be a bargain rental, but after a night to ponder it, I think it’s a little better than that. Despite some problems, the action is pretty good, and there’s one spectacular shot that’s almost like a 3D photograph of the instant before a plane crash that’s incredibly well done.

The thing that I really wonder about, though, is what they’re going to call the next movie. They’ve used Apocalypse, Extinction, and Afterlife. They’ve already used up all the stages of human life. What’s next? Evan says Purgatory. Rebirth? The Big Bang? I vote for Resident Evil: Please Give Me Money or My Wife Will Divorce Me.