I was looking forward to this series ever since it was announced in what seems like ages ago and the disappointment that was the feature film only served to fan those flames of excitement. I really wanted the Green Lantern franchise to redeem itself in the eyes of the general public because it’s a great concept with great characters and the film failed to convey what makes the Green Lantern mythos so great. After watching the hour long premiere of Green Lantern: The Animated Series, I’m glad to say that it perfectly encapsulates the best of what the franchise has to offer while still managing to bring something new to the table.

I won’t be drawing comparisons between the film and the Animated Series here but I feel that, inevitably, in talking about what makes the show work, I’ll be talking about why the movie doesn’t. Still, I want to focus on the Animated Series alone because this is my love letter to those two first episodes and not more vitriol against the movie (of which you can find plenty elsewhere).

And don’t worry, there won’t be spoilers here.

I remember that my initial thoughts when they first showed footage of Green Lantern: The Animated Series (henceforth GL:TAS) was “man, I wish this was cel-shaded,” so it’s only fitting that I start with the look of the show and its animation. The series sports the classic Bruce Timm style that permeated everything from Batman: The Animated Series up until Justice League Unlimited except that, this time around, it’s handled via CG and that in itself gives the show a brand new, yet still familiar look. I couldn’t help but draw comparisons to The Incredibles upon viewing it or, at the very least, a less expensive version of it.

Make no mistake though because even though the backgrounds may seem a little sparse (which is something I’m sure will improve once they increase the size of their library of objects), the animation is consistently and absolutely top notch. You won’t see an odd drawing or an unconvincing motion, as you often do in more traditional animation, in this show. The characters are very expressive and there is a lot of subtlety in the animation as well as sweeping shots that really utilize the 3D space. Still, I wasn’t fully convinced in the move to CG until after I saw the light tunnel sequence. When Hal and Kilowog warp in a hijacked ship about half-way through the first episode, we are treated to a light show that is slightly reminiscent of 2001′s Star Gate sequence with neon colors rapidly flying by as they’re reflected on the inside of the ship and on Hal and Kilowog themselves. It’s one of many examples of the show’s fantastic use of lighting and that’s undoubtedly where the series benefits the most from its use of CG.

So why did Hal and Kilowog hijack a ship you might ask? Well, the series forgoes the tried and true Sinestro and opts instead to play around with the Red Lanterns. They’re the big baddies in the series and they live in the fringes of space where they have begun their attack on members of the Green Lantern Corps. After a brief (and perhaps a little cliché) introduction of Hal Jordan’s earth life and Carol Ferris we travel to Oa where Hal learns of the attacks and quickly becomes infatuated with payback. The Guardians tell him that flying to the location of the attacks would take months but he also learns that they have created a prototype ship that can get him there in a fraction of the time so, with Kilowog in tow, he promptly steals it and thus begins the show in earnest.

Much like Batman: The Animated Series, the creators of the GL:TAS wisely skip the origin story but give you all the information you need to follow along within the first 5 or so minutes of the first episode. Hal, as he’s portrayed in the show, is very likable and charismatic in spite of being cocky and careless, but there are also hints of anger issues and selfishness which goes a long way towards painting him as a real, flawed human being. Similarly, Kilowog is portrayed as the best friend with an attitude but he’s also given a huge chip on his shoulder. He also has some truly funny lines such as when he pokes fun at Hal and his efforts to conceal his secret identity in outer space. As a matter of fact, nearly every character in the show, old and new alike, is given this kind of treatment resulting in a fully fleshed out and well-rounded cast. This show made me care about a Green Lantern that didn’t exist prior to this series and I honestly can’t wait to see what’ll become of Razer (a brand new Red Lantern) after the events of the second episode.

The characters are fleshed out and believable but the plots are also suitably epic with very high stakes. There is ambivalence and tragedy, comedy and sacrifice, as well as heroes that don’t always make the right decisions. It never talks down to its audience and isn’t afraid to deal with death. Like only the best cartoons manage to do, it crafts an adventure that works on multiple levels and can be enjoyed by people of all ages. And credit to the show’s creators for introducing new characters and situations and going off the beaten path. With new characters and a new status quo that has Hal and Kilowog stranded in outer space, this show should be a treat even to old time Green Lantern fans.

It’s hard to judge a TV series by only two episodes but Green Lantern: The Animated Series is off to an extremely promising start. For a show about space cops and magic rings, my suspension of disbelief still managed to be strained at times (how can a ring-less Hal breathe in an asteroid without an atmosphere?) but that’s just nitpicking. The voice cast and their acting is spot on, the music hits all the right notes and the series truly breathes life into these characters in a way that respects the source material while still producing something that feels new and fresh.

It’s early to tell but this might be the show that sits alongside Batman: The Animated Series and Spectacular Spider-Man as the definite comic book cartoons.

Can’t wait for the next episode tomorrow.

I was beside myself with excitement when I learned that the entirety of the 100 Bullets team would be working on a sci-fi book, even if I had no idea what to expect from it. As a genre, science fiction is as far removed from crime as you can get and I was curious as to what the scale, subject and tone of Azzarello’s story would be.

As it turns out, Azzarello plays to his strengths with Spaceman and the first issue of the title presents a promising start to the series.

The story’s eponymous Spaceman is called Orson, a large person created in a lab for the purpose of space exploration. He’s our main character and the inherent wonder behind this gentle giant’s raison d’etre sits in sharp contrast to his current, mundane lifestyle where he collects scrap metal from the ocean for a living. Things have clearly gone wrong and Orson’s past is explored briefly via flashbacks and appears to be one of the story’s biggest hooks. The abduction of a celebrity child, who could potentially have ties to Orson, rounds off the plot and leaves you with enough questions and intrigue to make you want to keep on reading.

Azzarello does some world building here as well and we’re shown glimpses of where the sex and drug industry have moved to in this future. Needless to say, this is more Blade Runner than Star Trek and it’s a story that’s very much in the vein of Azzarello’s previous works. Even the dialogue gets a facelift with a slightly compressed and simplified dialect that brings 1984′s newspeak to mind.  ”Haha” is replaced by “lol” for example and it’s definitely a book where you have to read and mentally enunciate the words to understand it instead of just translating symbols into meanings as I usually do. I admit I was a little confused by the dialogue at first but a second read brought the whole thing together and it’s really adds a lot to the story.

Eduardo Risso does the art and, well, what can I say about him that hasn’t been said a million times before? He has absolutely flawless storytelling and his use of blacks and shadows is arguably second to none. His lines, along with Trish Mulhivill’s perfectly tempered colors, result in a truly beautiful looking book that perfectly enhances the story.

I always maintain that good science fiction uses robots and the extraterrestrial as metaphors to explore morality and the human condition. Azzarello has been known to do pretty much the exact same thing in his comic work so, in hindsight, it isn’t really that surprising that he would tackle a science fiction story. It’s a great beginning and, after reading 100 issues of 100 Bullets for nearly 10 years, the fact that in only 9 issues you can get a clear beginning, middle and end is almost a relief to me. My only question at this point is whether Azzarello will truly explore the science fiction aspect of this book or it’ll simply become a different dressing for another crime story.

Either way, with a price of $1, how could you not give it a try?

And, on a side note, is it wrong that I first bought this comic on comiXology but I still downloaded it off the torrents because it was such a hassle to read the version I paid for? An open format would be so much more convenient and a right step in the fight against piracy.

About a year ago, I saw the Clash of the Titans remake, thought it to be terrible and decided to write a review of it. I set up a post (header image and all) but days quickly turned into weeks and I never actually wrote more than a few words on my draft. After finally giving up on it, I came to realize that I didn’t want to write about something that I so disliked and, to this day, I still haven’t. But I kinda have to write a Green Lantern review, don’t I?

With its superheroics and heavy dose of sci-fi, the Green Lantern characters and mythology are among my favorites in comics so the Martin Campbell directed movie had a leg up on the competition from the start. On the flip side, it had to contend with an ungodly amount of expectations and years of anticipation on my part but, despite that, I like to think that I would’ve been pleased with a solid popcorn movie at the least.

Unfortunately, I didn’t even get that.

One of my biggest concerns prior to seeing the movie was Ryan Reynolds. I couldn’t see his sarcastic shtick translating well to Hal Jordan but it turns out that he’s among the least of the film’s problems. His Hal is as cocky or as stoic as he needs to be and his comedic timing works where the script doesn’t impede it. While not the performance of a lifetime, he does an admirable job at selling the character and my biggest issue with his portrayal of Jordan is that he’s too mopy for a big chunk of the movie.

But that isn’t so much a fault of Reynolds as it is of the script and, without a doubt, the majority of the film’s failings stem from Marc Guggenheim and Greg Berlanti’s text. So, where to begin? We are given no reason to root or care for any of these characters. Exposition through dialogue is a big problem in the film and I’m not even talking about the opening sequence. Characters and plot elements are dropped in the story and never picked up again, most noticeably with Hal’s family and villain Hector Hammond’s telepathy among others. There is no connecting tissue between scenes and characters jump from setting to setting without any logical explanation, inferred or otherwise. The viewer’s suspension of disbelief must be nothing short of extraordinary for the film to be palatable. And, naturally, there are plot holes, pacing issues, contrivances and the like but the list goes on and on beyond that. It’s just a huge, unintelligible mess that’s at times confusing and almost distressing.

But with the film’s source material being as visual as comics are, possibly my largest issue with the film’s script lies in its failure to acknowledge one very basic and rudimentary rule of filmmaking: show and not tell. We are “told” that the Green Lantern Corps is the most powerful force in the universe but we never “see” it. All they do is shoot little skyward beams of light after a speech and then, later, we see a handful of them get mauled by Parallax. We are given no reason to believe that the Green Lantern Corps is as powerful as we’re told. For all intents and purposes, the aspirations of the greatest force in the universe is no higher than that of props. Expensive, computer animated props.

Similarly, we are “told” that Sinestro is a badass and the greatest Green Lantern of all time but we never “see” it. All he does is beat up on a very green Jordan (no pun intended) who’d just gotten his ring about five minutes earlier, give some speech and then, for the remainder of the movie, whine to the Guardians about what needs to be done without ever doing a single thing in the process. Regardless of how great Mark Strong was in the role, I fail to comprehend why Sinestro needed to be in the film at all (other than to set up the eventual sequel, I suppose) because he contributed absolutely nothing to it.

So what did I like? Well, I liked the ring constructs and I’m not afraid to admit that I got giddy whenever Hal whipped up something out of thin air, be it a simple spring or dual jet fighters. I’ve heard noise about how some people feel that the constructs created by Jordan were boring and mundane but they fail to realize that he’s the kind of guy that’ll create a straight-up boxing glove when it’s time to punch somebody. This might perhaps not be as exciting as people would like but it’s true to the character at least and I appreciate that. Still, much as I like Jordan, I can’t help but wonder if Green Lantern could’ve been a better film if it had been about Kyle Rayner who is much more relatable, has a more humble superhero origin and more of a hero’s journey than Hal does. It would certainly please viewers who thought the contructs were boring. But that’s an entirely different post waiting to happen so I’ll leave it at that.

I thought the CG was competent overall and I liked the myriad of cameos in the film if only because they appease the geek inside me. It was really cool to see Bzzd in there. What’s really disconcerting here is that I can’t think of a single element in the film that I liked other than “hey, they did a pretty good job with the CG there.” There is one scene where Hal goes for the cliché of the superhero flying to his love interest’s window in romantic pursuit with the joke being that Carol Ferris (flatly played by Blake Lively) immediately recognizes Hal and freaks out but it’s just not played out well and the scene falls apart. So I guess I kinda like the idea of that even though it didn’t really work. I do like that Jordan defeated Parallax by himself without help from the Corps though.

I really, really tried to like this movie but I can’t, in my right mind, recommend it to anybody. There are certainly worse superhero movies out there. Wolverine was extremely groan inducing and I hear Catwoman is pretty bad as well. I don’t quite think Green Lantern is “bad” on those terms. I think it’s bad because of how much better it could’ve been and because of how much it reeks of having too many grubby fingers all over it. It reeks of “you need to put as many Lanterns as you can in there so we can sell lots of toys,” and “you say there’s a problem in the story? throw in a few million dollars of CG to fix it!” and “you need to put this and this and this element from the comics in there even if they don’t make sense in the context of the movie,” and so forth. It reminds me of Tron: Legacy in many ways, a mediocre, soulless, merchandise-driven movie that was over-budgeted and over-marketed. But this is me editorializing a bit, I suppose. I don’t claim to know what happened behind closed doors but the disaster that Green Lantern turned out to be speaks volumes and does leave a lot to the imagination.

Maybe the animated series will make up for it.

It’s great when a piece of entertainment lives up to fantastic concept art like the one above.

But I’m getting ahead of myself.

Thor has had some great runs in the comics but he’s arguably better known as one of the “Big Three” in the Avengers alongside Captain America and Iron Man. With the Avengers movie officially in full throttle since the post credits sequence in Iron Man, the question posed by a potential Thor movie wasn’t an “if” or even a “when,” but a question of “how?”

It’s undoubtedly one of the Marvel properties that poses the most challenges in being adapted to the big screen due to the vast mythology behind it and its refusal to adhere to the mostly street level nature of the Marvel Universe. How to reconcile the story of a guy that builds an armor to fight crime with an epic tale of a struggle between gods? And how to do it without upsetting a largely Christian audience? Out of all the movies that have been announced from Marvel Studios, it was Thor that I was most curious about because of these very questions.

So how did they tackle these issues?

The first chunk of the film is set mostly in Asgard and it’s front-loaded with exposition. In many ways, it was smart to throw all that information head first and get it out of the way as soon as possible but, at the same time, the character aspect of the film is forced to take a backseat and it’s difficult to care for what’s going on during those initial 30 minutes or so. I’m also curious as to how someone that’s not familiar with the comics (or even Norse mythology in general) will digest all this information as well as some of the more wilder concepts in the film but I digress. The decision to define the Norse gods as basically space aliens has been frowned upon by hardcore fans but it was an elegant solution to avoid potential negativity from the right wing (though with some neopagan groups already being vocal against the film’s portrayal of Norse gods, I suppose it was a no-win situation either way) and, to be honest, it’s an alternate interpretation of the mythos that could work even in the comics. Science fiction is more palatable and mainstream than fantasy, after all.

The movie begins in earnest once Thor is banished from Asgard to Earth and the film turns into a successful, if trite, tale of an arrogant man that learns humility in the face of dire circumstance. The plot, though punctuated by some exciting action sequences, is more PG than most superhero movies but the character moments, both high and low, are great and go a long way towards making you truly feel invested in these characters and their world. The comedy succeeds in a similar level with predominantly “fish out of water” humor that is fresh and spot-on.

Thor himself, as he’s portrayed in the film, is a little more green and reckless than I would’ve preferred but it’s for the sake of the character arc and, thankfully, Chris Hemsworth’s charismatic performance easily sells you on the part. I thought Robert Downey Jr. would steal the show in the Avengers but (and this wasn’t apparent in the trailers) Hemsworth might just give him a run for his money. His Thor is great in every level much like the rest of the characters in the film who are wonderfully cast and written. Brief banter between the Warriors Three’s gives them personality and quickly defines them individually and even Kat Dennings, who is chiefly comedy relief, gets to shine in places. The cast is marred only by Natalie Portman not because of her acting but because of the extreme flatness in which her character was written. It seems like all she was asked to do in the film was smile and make puppy eyes and her Jane Foster contributes little to nothing in the way of the actual plot. It’s a noticeable blemish in a film that’s otherwise rock solid.

The climax of the film, and this goes back to that awesome concept art, has Loki and Thor duking it out in the Rainbow Bridge and it is a suitably epic battle. It’s a personal fight between two brothers but the larger stakes within it are set high and it works equally well in both levels. Thor makes a big sacrifice during this end sequence and this leads to a rather bittersweet ending that was incredibly refreshing in a world where superhero movies conclude almost too neatly.

In many ways, Thor is rather vanilla in terms of plot but there is great action in it and more character moments than any other superhero movie I can think of (wait until you see Odin on Sleipnir or Sif’s ass-kickery). This is easily one of the better movies to come out of Marvel Studios and the sheer difficulty in making such a larger than life character work in film makes this all the more impressive. Kenneth Branagh has done good and this movie is absolutely worth your money.

PS: The sound effects are really, really good too.

Though never a fan of the original Tron (I’ve never even seen it but I do admire how ahead of its time the concept was) I was pretty psyched about the prospect of a new Tron movie based solely on the test footage that was released way back at San Diego Comic-Con 2008. In the months leading up to the release of the now officially titled Tron: Legacy, the wondrous world wide web, as it always does, did its best to point out that the much hyped and marketed sequel perhaps wasn’t as good as Disney wanted it to be. Talk of reshoots and rather poor early reviews among other things caused me to slowly but surely lower my expectations to the almost bare minimum needed for me to thrown down money for a movie ticket.

Tron: Legacy had my money and, in the end, it met the expectations I had for it.

Barely.

Tron: Legacy mostly succeeds aesthetically. The Daft Punk soundtrack is phenomenal and putting them in charge of the score was an inspired choice and one that gives the film a distinct aural voice, even if some of the tunes do veer into typical, orchestrated action movie space just a little too closely for my tastes. Similarly, the visuals and art direction are immediately impressive (just look at any of the trailers for proof) though you do feel like you’ve seen all the tricks in the bag by the end of the second act. These two elements are the stronger and more memorable parts of Tron: Legacy, it’s the story that makes the film a difficult one to watch.

It’s not that the world isn’t inviting or that the characters’ motivations are unclear or that the stakes aren’t high enough, it’s the failure to provide characters that are compelling or relatable on even the most basic levels where the movie really falters. The father/son relationship between Kevin and Sam Flynn (Jeff Bridges and Garrett Hedlund respectively) is so flat and robotic throughout most of the film that I feel I can almost precisely pinpoint what scene Pixar was brought in to rewrite. It’s both amusing and perplexing to me how computer programs Quorra (Olivia Wilde), with her childlike innocence and wonderment, and Clu, with his moral quandaries and father issues, seem more human than the actual human characters.

(And on the subject of Clu, I’d just like to take this opportunity to ask Hollywood to just stop. Stop putting CG characters alongside human actors and expecting us to not see a difference. It’s awkward, it’s unnatural and it constantly pulled me out of the experience. A simple plot device would’ve sufficed to avoid the need to have a young Jeff Bridges in the film. Please.)

Ultimately, it never feels like the characters are moving the story forward and the film simply devolves into senseless jumping between plot points for no apparent reason other than the movie requiring it. There’s betrayal and a character reveal (both are predictable) but there’s no incentive to care about either of these in the first place. And, whereas competent action movies would weave in story alongside proper action sequences, Tron: Legacy is almost like an “on” or “off” switch, content with being either about exposition or about showing off its special effects. Sadly, only two of said action sequences are good (the lightcycle battle being, thankfully, one of them) and the lightjet sequence at the very end is actually kinda boring and anti-climactic.

Disney is putting a lot behind this one movie with sequels, animated series and theme park rides already in development and all hinging on its success. There’s loads to be said here about marketing and hype and a company just desperately wanting a movie to succeed but I digress as that’s a topic better left for another time. I don’t think tying the plot of Legacy so closely to the original, a film quite dated by most accounts, was the best of ideas either but that’s neither here nor there.

Ultimately, Disney threw down a ton of money for a movie that is average at best. I’d like to think that they’ve learned from the experience and that the impending sequel will be a better film. There’s potential in the world of Tron and I’d like to see it fully realized.

The first thing I did after watching 127 Hours in the theater was to hit up IMDB to refresh my memory on director Danny Boyle’s previous efforts. Of his movies that I’ve seen, I happen to dislike 28 Days Later on many levels and I think Sunshine started out really strong before it plummeted into mediocrity a little after the halfway mark. That I think so little of these movies was surprising to me because I absolutely loved 127 Hours.

The movie is based on the story of Aron Ralston, a man who became trapped in a rock canyon and was forced to sever his own arm to escape. It’s good source material to say the least and, with this in mind, my two main concerns going in were: can a movie that primarily depicts a man inside a canyon for over five days possibly be entertaining? and, based on testimonies of people fainting in theaters, just how gruesome is the amputation scene going to be?

Having seen the movie, I realize now that those two queries are almost irrelevant in context of what movie is really about.

So yes, aside from a brief opening where our lead goes swimming with two girls and brief flashbacks sequences later on, the viewer spends most of the time in the film with Aron Ralston, as portrayed by James Franco, in a claustrophobically small canyon. In fact, it’s only after his arm is initially trapped that the title of the film appears on-screen, as if to tell the viewer ”here is where this movie really begins.” The movie clocks in at 94 minutes and I’d guess about an hour or so is spent in that canyon and, to answer my earlier question, not only is it thoroughly entertaining, it is downright enthralling. Some of it has to do with Boyle’s decision to keep the runtime relatively short but most of it can be attributed to his unquestionable deftness as a director. The movie employs odd camera angles and unconventional cuts and transitions along with sporadic use of video filters to depict different viewpoints (camera, video camera, Ralston’s POV, etc.) and all of this helps keep the movie visually arresting.

But it’s ultimately Ralston’s plight, his progressive mental deterioration and his subsequent catharsis where the film really shines. It’s a shame that moviegoers have put so much emphasis on the limb severing aspect of the film when, in reality, that’s only the end point of a life changing experience for Ralston and Boyle’s depiction of this is what truly makes the film fantastic. The line ”this rock has been waiting for me all my life,” as uttered by Ralston towards the end of his journey in the crevice is an extremely powerful one and the realization this brings to him is the culmination of one of the most exquisite character arcs I’ve ever seen put to film. All the visual cues that had been laid down come full circle and Ralston’s liberation, both mentally and physically, is poignant, emotional and inspirational.

Indeed, 127 Hours is a veritable rollercoaster of emotions. Fear, sympathy, convulsion, elation and unknowingly gripping at the edge of my seat are but a few of the things this film put me through and it’s James Franco that cements that connection between film and audience. His Ralston is put through as much as the audience is (and then some) and it’s his acting that makes so much of the film come across as believable and honest. It’s a stellar performance by an actor that I, to be honest, didn’t think had it in him.

But do I question at times how different my reception of the film had been if it hadn’t been based on a true story. I’m certain that one of the reasons why 127 Hours is so powerful is the knowledge that this happened to a real human being. Not to discredit the outstanding work of the director, actors and film crew but I wonder if the movie would’ve worked as well if it were entirely based on fiction. It’s an intriguing thought but one that, at the end of the day, is not worth spending too much time on. The movie works because it does, in fact, tell the story of the real Aron Ralston, and it does so without deifying him or turning him into something he’s not. It’s the story of a real person with flaws and the unfortunate set of circumstances that led him to become a better man. It’s a movie that’s absolute worth your money and time.

At the fear of turning this into tagline central, I will promptly end this review with the following: 127 Hours is the best movie I’ve seen this year.

Scott Pilgrim vs. The World was the last piece in the Scott Pilgrim comic/game/movie trifecta that I experienced and, going in, it was the one I felt most ambivalent about. I understand and appreciate the appeal of Brian Lee O’Malley’s original comic but, three volumes in, and I ultimately felt it just wasn’t for me. The downloadable game has one of my favorite animators at the helm so I knew I would love it on those terms alone (more on the game in the Bit For Byte review). But the movie? It could’ve truly gone either way. The trailer looked quite promising but, though I enjoy his films, I’m not a massive fan of director Edgar Wright and his casting of Michael Cera in the lead truly worried me.

As it turned out, Scott Pilgrim vs. The World has become my favorite piece of Scott Pilgrim related media out there and one of my favorite movies in quite a while.

The basic premise of Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is that the titular Scott Pilgrim (Michael Cera) falls for Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) and so becomes the target of her seven evil exes whom he must defeat if he is to continue dating her. This is absolutely a character driven film and it’s one that succeeds on many different levels but let’s knock the negatives out of the way first.

I found that my concerns with the usually awkward and bumbling Michael Cera in the role of the aloof and energetic Scott Pilgrim to be not entirely unfounded but, ultimately, not a major issue in the film either. Despite him not being the same Scott Pilgrim I read about in the comic, I can’t say that he botched his lines or was unfunny. It’s a different Scott but he works to make the character believable and his delivery was spot on. Conversely, Mary Elizabeth Winstead lacked a dash charisma as Ramona Flowers and her and Cera’s relationship, basically the spine of the entire film, lacked chemistry, was hollow and never quite seemed authentic. It’s a shame that the two lead actors are the weakest link whereas Kieran Culkin and Ellen Wong (Wallace Wells and Knives Chau respectively) immediately come to mind as standouts in an otherwise sublime cast.

And a huge cast it is. It still surprises me to think of not just how many characters are in Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, but how very few of them manage to come across as superfluous in the context of the movie. In fact, I’d say that my only concern in this regard is that somewhere in between the Roxy and Katayanagi Twins fights, there was a point where I just wanted the movie to get to the end already. I don’t think this was due to an issue with the film’s pacing (which is almost airtight) but maybe because of how the seven fights were structured one directly after the next? Whatever the case may be, and I do have to commend Edgar Wright for not cutting any of the seven major fight scenes, there is nonetheless a point where the movie seems to drag itself on to the next big plot point. This isn’t helped by the fact that the fights, though all beacons of fantastic choreography and/or ingenuity, seem to get progressively simpler with less development on the exes the further the movie goes along.

Small things like the fake (and awesome) Lucas Lee poster above go a long way towards selling the world of Scott Pilgrim.

Aside from those two issues (and maybe one too many video games references?) there is little the film does wrong. What’s perhaps most striking about it and still resonates within me is just how much of a visual overload it is. Some of the cutting and scene transitions are devilishly clever and you are constantly bombarded with text blurbs, visual gags and on-screen onomatopoeias but, much to Wright’s credit, it never becomes overwhelming or repetitive. All these different visual elements come effortlessly together to create something that’s unlike anything you’ll see in theaters this year. The audio works on a similar level with a soundtrack, compromised of both original and licensed music, that hits all the right notes and sound effects that are as crunchy or as charming as they need to be.

Because this is such an oddball film, I think something people forget to mention about Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is that it’s just a damn funny movie. Talk of its visual elements and strong video game and comic book heritage are in abundance anywhere you look but the spot on comedic timing and barrel of laughs delivered by Wright and the film’s cast certainly need to be praised and lauded just as much. I don’t think it’s humor that necessarily hinges on one’s knowledge of video games or comics either. There’s certainly more to get if you are well versed in those but I believe the movie works on multiple levels in the humor department and there’s isn’t too much that would go over most people’s heads.

I suppose it’s worth mentioning that I watched this movie twice in the theater. As a matter of fact, this is the only movie in recently memory that I personally wanted to see a second time, as opposed to simply dragging different people to the theater to see a movie I think they’d enjoy (though that applies here too). I honest to goodness wanted to see this movie again. And when I did watch it a second time something amazing happened: suddenly, those problems I mentioned earlier? Cera and some weakness in the second act? They didn’t bother me at all. I enjoyed the movie a whole lot more the second time around. Don’t know how it happened (a friend claims it’s the norm with Edgar Wright movies) and I liked the movie well enough the first time around but I was absolutely thrilled by it after the second viewing.

There’s a lot Scott Pilgrim vs. The World does to make itself be loved. It’s a movie about video games and comics and music and kung fu and romance and comedy and it all works in perfect tandem. If you’re interested in one or more of those things then you’ll probably get some enjoyment out of the film. At the same time, by wearing its many influences so clearly on its sleeves, Scott Pilgrim shrinks its own target audience to only a very small percentage of the movie going population. Luckily for me, I fall within that small chunk of people so yeah, the movie works for me on nearly every level.

I don’t know if I’m being clear enough here, and it remains to be seen how it holds up to repeated viewings, but Scott Pilgrim vs. The World may be one of the best movies I’ve seen in the past ten years or so. It’s unique and unlike anything out there while also managing to speak directly to some of my major interests. It’s not perfect and it’s certainly not for everyone but it’s a fantastic piece of filmmaking that deserves to be watched if only for its ingenuity alone.

Wait, what? Why am I reviewing a 10 year old game?

Well, because I recently played through it for the first time courtesy of the PSN. Simple, right? Actually, I’m only on the fourth and final disc so I haven’t actually beaten it and I won’t be doing an all-encompassing review of the title. Instead, I’ll focus on a few specific points that managed to catch my attention over the course of my playthrough, so this is more of a look at FFIX through the prism of ten years of advancement in game development.

- First things first: random battles have got to go. If you’re a Japanese developer and you’re still putting random battles in your RPGs, you deserve to fail. They’re archaic, intrusive, discourage exploration, and, bottom line, nothing in a video game should be ever random. There’s no nostalgia to be found in random battles anymore. Expletives were freely passed at the start of nearly every battle over the course of my time with FFIX and it stands to reason that anything that frustrates the player should be removed from the game in question. Please stop this sadistic practice.

- On the upside, most developers worldwide have had no trouble incorporating checkpoint systems into their games. Thank you, Halo. Unfortunately, FFIX came out a couple years before that particular wave started and this has been the cause of a fair amount of frustration over my playthrough. I was actually late to work at one point because I wanted to squeeze in some 30 minutes of playtime and my next save point didn’t arrive until after at least 90 minutes. Hey, I wasn’t going to quit and replay those random battles and I wasn’t going to leave my energy-hogging PS3 on for over 10 hours until I got back. Lesson learned: I never again played FFIX unless I had at least 2 hours to spare.

- I don’t know how it happened but Vivi has become one of my favorite Final Fantasy characters ever. Much like Gohan of Dragonball Z, Vivi falls under the “powerful but insecure” archetype. Those characters have never really appealed to me but somewhere between his sincerity, his questioning nature and the almost ninja-like quality of his design and I fell in love. Vivi is awesome.

- Final Fantasy IX’s Limit Break/Overdrive  system is called Trance and it’s kinda stupidly designed. Each character’s Trance bar fills up when taking damage and, when full, that character gets a stat boost, an appearance change and improved commands (Vivi, for example, gets to cast magic twice in one turn). You get about three turns while in Trance but the problem is that your character returns to normal at the end of every battle. Too many times did I gain Trance just before the last enemy was killed without having a chance to use it. That, coupled with the snail’s pace at which the Trance bar builds, makes this a pretty unreliable and fairly useless system.

- One of the more pleasant surprises in playing this game was something I kinda knew already: a lack of voice acting makes bad dialogue much easier to swallow. When antagonist Kuja makes his labored speech, I took it with a completely straight face whereas I feel voice acting with that same dialogue could’ve induced some groaning. On the flip side, watching pre-rendered cutscenes without any voices is almost discomforting.

- Last but not least, the equip/skill system is odd. Basically, what magic and abilities you learn is based on what equipment you have so equipping weapons/armor is never about  having the highest stats or properties to attack enemies with (as it should be) and always about “what ability has this guy not learned yet?” I think the game could’ve benefited from splitting this into two separate systems but, then again, that might add needless complications to the game.

So what’s my review of this game I haven’t quite finished yet?

I like it. Some of the more dated conventions of the genre present in FFIX have caused a great amount of frustration on my end but the more classic Final Fantasy elements in this game have made this a really enjoyable ride nonetheless. I’ve heard people say that the throwback nature of this game is dishonest but I never felt that way personally. And, though perhaps obvious to many, it bears saying that Square can create some amazing art. A few of the characters designs are weak (Kuja, Zidane) but the artistry behind some of these worlds is just breathtaking.

I don’t think I would hesitate to say that Final Fantasy IX is among my top 3 FF games.

It was the posters that did it.

With Dark Knight standing alone in the list of Christopher Nolan films I like, I effortlessly waded through months and months of anticipation and speculation over his next film prior to release. If the internet is anything to go by, the guy clearly has a huge following but I did no more than skip on to the next headline whenever his name showed up alongside anything that wasn’t “Batman 3″ or “Dark Knight sequel” on blogs and news sites. All it took was for me to see one of the Inception posters and it was done, I went from “zero interest” to “must see” overnight. Talk about the power of good marketing. Naturally, the largely positive word of mouth and critical reception helped also.

Perhaps the most interesting thing the film has spawned are the countless articles pertaining to the various interpretations of the film. These can be very interesting at times but I’m quietly going to sidestep all of that. This is a straight up review of what I liked and didn’t like about Inception.

Inception could be called a heist film due to its structure though there are a few key differences. The similarities lie in how the story centers around one man (Cobb played by DiCaprio) and his putting everything on the outcome of one impossible gig and also the way the film is split into two distinct segments, with the first half being the assemblage of the team that will carry out the operation and the second the operation itself. Unlike a heist film though, Inception is not about stealing something but rather about placing something. To be more specific, it’s about plancing an idea in a person’s head via his dreams or, as the film calls it, “inception.”

The idea of jumping and travelling through dreams is undoubtedly the film’s most attractive concept and Nolan spends a great amount of time establishing the rules and limits of how this aspect of the film works. Dream time is slower than real world time, physical space can be bent and warped in a dream, dying in a dream causes you to wake up, etc. Most of this exposition is handled via Ellen Page’s character, Ariadne, who, like the film’s audience, is new to this world of dream theft. She acts as the audience’s anchor and is perhaps the most relatable character in the film. She is also, intentionally or not, the heist team’s only female member. Aside from Cobb (who spends most of the film wrestling with his own personal demons) and Ariadne, the rest of the team members do little more than provide some variety and fulfill their assigned duties during the operation.

And it’s precisely there, in the titular “inception,” where the film truly shines. It’s a multiple layered operation of dreams within dreams which seems needlessly complicated at first glance but, to Christopher Nolan’s credit, is deftly handled, never overwhelming and always giving enough information for the viewer to keep track of all the different moving pieces therein. The stakes of what was already a difficult procedure are raised almost astronomically early on and the constant tension that this provides is kept almost all the way through to the film’s end which is quite an accomplishment in itself. Also worth mentioning is Nolan’s use of slow motion for actual storytelling purposes as opposed to a “let’s make this look cool” button as most directors seem to be doing nowadays.

There are two things I didn’t like about the film, one of which I’m willing to dismiss, the other not so much. The first is the fact that the machine that enables travel through dreams seemingly exists just to allow the movie to take place. Where did it come from? How does it work? What ramifications has it wrought upon all the non-theft related aspects of the world? It’s an underdeveloped aspect of the film but, as I said, I’m willing to dismiss it for two reasons: a) science fiction mumbo jumbo is not the focus of this film and b) one of the film’s readings is able to succinctly and convincingly explain why this isn’t explored further. So yeah, it irks me a bit but I can let it slide.

The second issue I have a problem with is somewhat of a contrivance and it requires a bit of explanation regarding some of the film’s dream rules I mentioned earlier. It’s established that our dreams have a sort of defense mechanism to ward off unwanted guests, so to speak. These take the form of “projections,” i.e. imaginary dream people, who can become aggressive when something in the dreamer’s dreamspace is disturbed. That much I didn’t have a problem with. As it turns out though, the person upon which inception is to happen has some sort of dream theft defense which really just translates to nameless grunts with guns that shoot on sight. This is one of the elements that helps raise the stakes but it’s, at the same time, a contrived way to create danger that ends up feeling hollow and just seems like an excuse to have meaningless fist- and gunfights in the film.

But those are two small complaints in what is a largely successful film. I think what amazes me most about Inception is not the exploration of dreams and dreaming (I’ve read Sandman after all and I think Gaiman’s handling of the subject is more provocative) but the rate at which information is given and how it is all effortlessly processed. That’s just good storytelling. And people are going wild discussing the meaning of the film and interpreting it with very thought provoking results but I was more than satisfied with Inception at face value, without worrying about any underlying messages the film might have. That’s the definition of a film that works on multiple levels and it’s something that’s arguably harder to accomplish than a run of the mill artsy film that tries too hard to look smart.

Needless to say, there are now two Christopher Nolan films that I can recommend without hesitation. Inception didn’t turn me into a rabid fan of his but I won’t be so quick to skip past future articles bearing his name in the blogosphere.

Jon Favreau’s Iron Man was a surprise to many people. In spite of a rather shoddy third act, it was a funny, exciting and extremely enjoyable film backed by some smart and inspired production choices. No more than two years later and Favreau and crew are back with a sequel. Iron Man 2 packs higher expectations due to its predecessor’s success but lacks some of the positive, pre-release word of mouth that the first film seemed to drown in (the dismissal of Terrence Howard was upsetting to say the least). Nonetheless, I hightailed it to the theater a few nights ago to catch the film.

So, how was it?

Short answer? It was pretty good.

Long answer below.

It’s no secret that casting Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark was a stroke of genius and despite a few missteps in the film (which I’ll get into), it’s his performance that really drives this movie and makes it worthwhile. Stark is funny, cocky, hard-headed, a ladies man, a genius and a quick thinker and it’s Downey Jr.’s acting and demeanor that really sells us on the part. His work in the first film was fresh and likeable and his work on the sequel is just as good.

Unfortunately, the rest of the cast, either because of script deficiencies or just plain acting, doesn’t quite reach those standards. Paltrow’s Pepper Potts is as charming as she was in the first film but her subplot is a throwaway. Rourke is believable as antagonist Ivan Vanko but the character’s motivations are shallow and, in turn, the character becomes uninteresting. Scarlett Johansson is just kinda there really. My two biggest issues in terms of casting and characters though, lies with Don Cheadle and Sam Rockwell. As Rhodey, Cheadle lacks all of the charisma, intensity and chemistry with his cast mates that Terrence Howard portrayed in the first film. That’s probably one of the more disappointing aspects of Iron Man 2, being reminded of how much better if would’ve been with Howard on board, especially considering Rhodey’s larger role in the sequel. Sam Rockwell’s character, on the other hand, is the typical greedy and obnoxious “second best” and he’s just extremely annoying in every single scene he’s in. Why he got so much screen time over Mickey Rourke is beyond me.

The story itself, to put it as briefly and succinctly as I can, feels like a long build-up to a 20 minute fight sequence at the end and, during those first 90 minutes or so, most of the movie deals with stuff that seems inconsequential. The subplot of Tony Stark’s slow death, for example, feels underdeveloped and thus lacks significance in the face of the larger events taking place in the film. Similarly, the Black Widow adds nothing more than a few jokes, a fight scene at the end, some more ties to The Avengers and not much else. There are two fight scenes prior to the big finale and one is over before it even starts and the other just comes across as being silly. Favreau appears hell bent on rectifying the weak finale in the first film but seems to have done so at the expense of at least 2/3 of the movie.  I also have an issue with the big climax in that facing off against one interesting bad guy is better than facing off against 40 robots that you could care less about but I digress.

Generally though, the plot deals with some interesting themes. There’s an aspect of legacy and leaving something behind for future generations that is rather interesting but some of the more engaging parts of the film are the real world political implications of a person owning a suit with such destructive power and it’s handled in a believable manner that tries to cover all the bases (even if the very end kind of does away with it all in favor of a typically clean cut superhero movie ending where everything is resolved harmoniously). This is an aspect that has been handled only in recent years in the comics (and only in the most superficial ways) so it was refreshing to see someone take a stab at it. Conversely, Tony’s alcoholism problems, which is a revered part of the character’s comic book history, is dumbed down to basically “Tony gets drunk and makes a fool of himself.”

So yeah, the movie is hit or miss in a lot of places. As a sequel, it was bound to lose some of the “oomph” that made the first Iron Man so memorable but, even taking that into consideration, Iron Man 2 doesn’t manage to be anything more than an above average. There was a lot more Avengers stuff thrown in this time around and all of it is really exciting to me as a comic book fan. It’s such a bold move to establish separate film franchises and have it all come to a head in one massive, bombastic film and I really can’t wait to see how the rest of the movies in the line unfold. Iron Man 2 though, is not a film that I’ll be revisiting very often.