TV Review: Star Wars: The Clone Wars (2008)

I was a bend-over-backward to be fair defender of this August's Star Wars: Clone Wars movie. It was never meant to be Episode VII and it was overall pretty entertaining. It had one innovative set-piece (the wall-climbing battle) and a solid climactic light saber fight (Anakin and Dooku dueling in a barren dessert; no jumping from platform to platform above bottomless pits, no lava explosions and vine-swinging, just two hated enemies desperately trying to kill each other). But I must concede that the 95 minute movie did come up short. It was a little juvenile and didn't do much to advance character.

It's been sitting in my DVDR for a few weeks, and I've only watched two of the four aired episodes. But, I'm happy to report that the actual Star Wars: The Clone Wars animated series is actually a solid improvement over the pilot movie. The animation is certainly more suited to television, and the stories are smaller in scale but richer in character. Since we know much about the lead Jedis and the lead villains already, this show seems to be about the soldiers themselves, the clone troopers.

Both episodes dealt with clones being trapped in no-win situations and being guided to survival by their Jedi generals. They know full well that they are clones and meant to be primarily canon fodder, but the Jedi of course don't see it that way. As Yoda points out in the first episode, they may be clones, but the Force has given them all individual souls. Of course, the more these troopers grow as individual humans, the more tragic their inevitable fate will become. By making the faceless stormtroopers faceless no more, the series may add an extra poignancy to episodes III-VI.

The writing is sharp, with a bare-minimum of cheesy humor or Jedi-exposition ('we must find that weapon!'). Even the dreaded Ahsoka, Anakin's teen girl padawan, comes off better. She's less prone to wisecrack, and it's amusing watching Anakin deal with a student who has the same recklessness that Obi-Wan has had to deal with. It'll be a shame when she eventually dies.

As for the action, each of the first two episodes has boasted at least one worthwhile set-piece. The first episode climaxed with an extended sequence of Yoda laying waste to an entire droid patrol, in a sequence just as fantastic, but far more realistic than similar beats in the Genndy Tartakovsky Clone Wars series (to be fair, chapters 18 and 19 of that series boasts one of the finest light saber duels ever). The second episode has something I've never seen before - a Jedi vs. droid troops sequence literally set in outer space, with Jedi Master Plo Koon fending off separatist attacks from the outside of a battered rescue pod.

So far, so good. I know many people felt burned by the movie, but that really wasn't the series at its best. It's no Batman: The Animated Series, but Star Wars: The Clone Wars is a good solid action adventure show that boasts decent writing, acceptable acting, and promises to actually add to the vast Star Wars canon. If you're a fan, it's at least worth a try.

Grade: B+

Scott Mendelson

And now for something positive - Entertainment Weekly's Star Trek story

Entertainment Weekly has always been a stalwart Star Trek fan, and Star Trek covers have often graced their biggest selling issues. Their new issue has a decent-sized (for EW) article filled with new tidbits and exclusive photos from the JJ Abrams Star Trek adventure. I've quibbled with Paramount's decision to spend $150 million and to move the film to the summer death slot that is the 'second big movie of summer'. Those complaints still stand. The article states that the movie is finished and they could have kept it in December of this year. And, had they known that Harry Potter 6 was going to flee to July, I'm sure that Kirk and co would have stayed put.

But I am very impressed with the photos and articles that have come out, from EW, MTV, Yahoo, and other sources. This is a huge step in the right direction. Paramount needs to as fearless for the next nine months as Warner Bros was last January after Heath Ledger died. Idiot columnists from Google Blog and Film Threat bitching about the budget and release date? To hell with him, take a look at these screen shots and let him eat crow.

And they are gorgeous images. What stands out, aside from the sheer scale of the production (I guess that $150 million didn't go toward catering) are the bright, bold colors, which seems to align with Abrams' statements about making an movie to contrast with our current moody times. Although the article's statement about optimism being an Abrams staple obviously comes from someone who's never watched Alias, Lost, or Cloverfield. Still, I'm pleased to see that Abrams isn't going to try to do the 'hip and 'cool' thing and attempt to make a dark and gloomy Star Trek universe.

Apparently, the first trailer will be attached to Quantum Of Solace, so that's another smart step. If this thing is any good (and we'll assume for the moment that it is), they need to start screening this as soon as the Oscar season ends. Do fan screenings, do female-only screenings, do kids and family-screenings. The only way to get non-Trekkies and the uninterested into that theater is to convince them that this is the rollicking good time that many people feel that didn't get from Indiana Jones 4 or the Star Wars prequels.

Wolverine will be dark and gloomy. Terminator: Salvation will surely end with the world in further chaos. Harry Potter And The Half-Blood Prince... well, you've seen the last two movies right? Transformers 2 will likely be an audio-visual nirvana, but an emotionally hallow experience. Star Trek's best bet is to be the high-IQ tent pole of the summer that is actually fun, that actually has something positive to offer on the state of humanity.

Spider-Man managed the same feat in 2002 (a film that also had uncommonly bright and shiny colors). It would have been a huge hit regardless, but it soared to record-levels as a denfitinely American piece of allegedly feel-good, high-quality, big-budget adventure that indirectly capitalized on the fresh wounds of 9/11 (no one seemed to notice that every character was psychologically screwed up and the film more or less had an unhappy ending). Star Trek has always been one of more optimistic and idealistic stories. It was colorblind in the 1960s, it was saving the whales in the 1980s, and it was making peace with lifelong enemies in the 1990s. The easiest and best way for Star Trek to matter again is be be a shining example for the best in humanity. The film needs to remind us that these people are and shall forever remain... our friends.

This gives me goosebumps everytime I see it, fitting that its the teaser for my favorite Trek film.

Scott Mendelson

Quantum Of Solace - most of my worst fears confirmed?

Five reviews have leaked out of the recent UK Quantum Of Solace screening. Two positive, two mixed, one very negative. What concerns me is that the mixed and and negative reviews (and to a lesser extent, the positive notices) seem to act as if they read my prior post concerning my fears with QoS and checked off the answers in the affirmative. Apparently, the answers are - yeah, yup, yes, and afraid so.

Is the film in fact 105 minutes with credits, thus feeling somewhat rushed and choppy? Check.

Is the film basically non-stop action with minimal character and story? Seems so.

Has the coherent and expertly staged action from Martin Campbell been replaced by the frenetic, sloppily edited and impossible to follow style from the later Bourne films? Apparently.

Has the realism and real-world plausibility been replaced by something resembling Moonraker? Fraid so.

I'm still hopeful, but I'm concerned at how especially the negative review at the bottom (to be fair, from the least official source) feels like a checklist of what I was afraid would happen. Here's hoping that The Times is more on the mark than The Guardian. For the record, all of these reviews are pretty spoiler-free, although the BBC review hints at an already revealed spoiler.

Positive from The Times
Positive from The BBC
Mixed from The Independent UK
Mixed from Guardian UK
Negative from The Shiznit.co.uk

Scott Mendelson

Give This Man A Job - Michael Wincott

What Just Happened is opening today in limited release. The grim reviews mean that I won't be racing out to see it (why Magnolia didn't give it their customary advance-night sneak preview on HDNet Movies I cannot say). But no matter how toothless it is and how sitcom-ish it allegedly becomes, I did notice right away that the disgruntled director who sets the plot in motion is played by none other than Michael Wincott. You remember him right? He's never really been a star, but he's almost always a highlight of every project he appears in. He worked quite a bit in the 1990s, often as the lead villain or evil sidekick before more or less disappearing during this decade. He has his fanbase, but the work has not been there. Aside from a prominent supporting role in the Peirce Brosnan/Liam Neeson western Seraphim Falls in late 2006, his resume since 2001's Along Came A Spider is made up of glorified cameos and video game voice overs. I'd like to think this is his choice, that he's found happiness outside of Hollywood and only acts when it suits him. But, gosh-darn it, I miss him. I miss that voice that says 'I'm really evil because I have congestion and haven't cleared my throat since high school' or 'I'm so evil that I barely have to talk above a throaty whisper to scare you'.

Although he spent some time in TV-guest starring appearances (like every actor on earth, he cameoed on Crime Story back in 1986), he got his proverbial break with supporting roles in Oliver Stone's Born On The Fourth Of July and The Doors. Most of us first saw him as Guy Of Gisborne in Robin Hood: Prince Of Thieves. Granted Alan Rickman and Morgan Freeman dominated the movie, but Wincott had fun as the enforcer of order, a brutal thug who wasn't nearly as bright or as loved by his cousin as he presumed. He basically replayed this role in 1993, with more panache and wit, as the second in command to Cardinal Richelieu in Walt Disney's The Three Musketeers. He cut a lean, nasty figure as a murderous former musketeer, the Darth Vader to Tim Curry's Palpatine. The movie is dumb and hilariously unfaithful to the original book, but it's loads of fun and has aged well.  A year later he got a promotion, playing the lead villain in The Crow. His swaggering, long-haired gangster Top Dollar brought much humor and bawdiness to a very self-serious movie. Despite most of the press (understandably) concentrating on the late Brandon Lee, Wincott's comic-book drug kingpin nearly stole the movie. He also delivered one of my favorite lines ever: "Our friend T-bird won't be joining us this evening on account of a slight case of death."  A year later he had a notable role in Kathryn Bigelow's Strange Days.

Among small roles and extended cameos, he played two more major heavies in 1997 and 2001. As the ice-cold jewel thief in Metro, Wincott gave us the rare villain who was imposing because his heart-rate rarely rose above 60. He started the new decade as Gary Soneji in Along Came A Spider, the second and last Morgan Freeman-starring Alex Cross movie in 2001. In the James Patterson novels, Soneji was a long-running nemesis, the Moriarty or Joker to Alex Cross. Wincott brought his usual level-headed, premeditated intensity to the part, and the implausible but extremely entertaining movie was better for it. Why Paramount didn't make countless Cross movies based on the countless novels, I don't know. They were both very profitable, and the star-driven mid-budget thriller used to be Paramount's bread and butter (change in management I presume).

After a small role in The Count Of Monte Cristo in 2002, Wincott pretty much vanished for the remainder of the decade. There are several actors that I desperately wish to see more of, but Michael Wincott is one of the few who makes a movie more exciting just by his presence. He may never win an Oscar and he may never guest on Inside The Actor's Studio. But Michael Wincott never fails to entertain me. Let's hope this re-emergence is a sign of things to come.  His next project is actually an untitled film that represents his writing debut.  Let's hope it turns out well for the guy.

Scott Mendelson

Roger Ebert's funniest, sharpest review in a long time....

Roger Ebert has been back as a full-time writer since reviewing Shrek The Third in May of 2007. And while it's great to have him back, many of his reviews have had a certain rote quality. Not bad, but almost like they could have written by many other critics. And he has been sloppy here and there. For example, his four-star Dark Knight review blatantly revealed the climax of the movie and got a key plot detail wrong (that of The Joker's back story about his father being a lie). It's not the first time he has tossed off a film ending spoiler (thank goodness I had seen Frequency at a sneak preview the week prior to opening), but I expect Ebert to get plot details right.

It's a little like seasons 10-15 of The Simpsons or seasons 5-7 of Scrubs... still good stuff, better than most, but far below their own obscenely high standards. Although this probably isn't his fault, the headlines for Ebert's reviews on the Chicago Sun Times page are really terrible. They are on the noise, lengthy, and often juvenile.

Fortunately, I'm not here to complain. I'm happy to report that his review for Sex Drive is a whiff of the ole, a concise, sharp, and hilariously adult and snarky review of a movie that probably doesn't deserve the effort. And, of course, it also gives me a solid idea of whether or not I would like the movie (a good review doesn't just say whether I liked the movie, but whether you would). The second to last paragraph is especially droll, and the final sentence almost feels improvised, if such a thing is possible in the written word. It's the first time in a long time that I have laughed out loud while reading film criticism.

Also of note is his one-star review of Tru Loved, arguably the only film review I've ever read that actually contains a plot twist at the end. Follow that up with his blog entry dealing with certain ethics of film criticism. Enjoy and discuss. It's good to have the most famous and finest film critic in history back in prime form.

Scott Mendelson

PS - Truth be told, the shocking nature of his current appearance is less his slight facial deformity and more the fact that he no longer wears his trademark glasses. It would be like Gene Siskel suddenly sporting a toupee.

Obama and McCain at their best - The Annual E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner

The annual Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner is political event of sorts,a charity event organized by the Catholic Archdiocese of New York for the benefit of needy children. It's usually a night where the politicians spend time practicing their stand-up comedy skills often at each others' expense. Barack Obama and John McCain were both in top form last night. They were both very funny and John McCain was almost touching when speaking of his respect and admiration for his opponent (3:45 - "political opponents can have a little trouble seeing the best in each other"). Obama was razor-sharp, spending most of his time making fun of himself ("Contrary to the rumors you have heard, I was not born in a manger. I was actually born on Krypton and sent here by my father Jorel to save the planet Earth ..."). It's long, but worth watching for both men at their most heartfelt and most humorous.

Scott Mendelson

Review: Slumdog Millionaire (2008)

Slumdog Millionaire
2008
120 minutes
rated R (language, adult situations, violence)
opens November 12 in limited release

by Scott Mendelson

There has been an ongoing debate for the last several years about the very concept of knowledge. With the advances of the internet and billions of people literally having any piece of information at their fingertips, what is the real benefit of knowledge? Why teach children facts when they can look them up in five seconds on Wikipedia or Google? Why devour trivia books (such as Uncle John's Bathroom Reader) when any random fact is available upon request? While there will always be such people as myself who take pride in knowing as much as possible about as much as possible (I'm not a 'know-it-all', I'm a 'want to know-it-all'), what practical purpose remains for storing facts, dates, names, and events when the answer key to the world is sitting at your fingertips?

Loveleen Tandan and Danny Boyle's delightful fable Slumdog Millionaire suggests that our lives can be considered a sum of our knowledge. The more we do, the more we experience, then the more we know. Hence, the more we know, the richer our lives have been and can be. The film concerns a single life, up to the age of eighteen, told against the backdrop of an event that could transform that life forever.

The plot - Jamil Malik (Skins' Dev Patel) has lived a tough and brutal life as an impoverished child in Mumbai, India. But now, through luck and perhaps intent, he sits in the winner's circle of the Indian version of 'Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?'. As he awaits the final question that will award him 20 million rupees, he is arrested and detained by Mumbai police on suspicion of cheating. Doctors, lawyers, and scientists have never won as much money on this show, so how could a poor kid from the slums possibly know so much? With his life possibly hanging in the balance, Malik tells his interrogator the story of his life up to that point, with highlighting key events that will explain how be came to know the answers to the questions thus far.

That's all you get, and that's all you want going in. The film is a simple one, and the life of Malik sometimes flirts with cliche. But the movie succeeds as a sum of its parts, and its slow-building power becomes intoxicating. The film looks absolutely gorgeous, with widescreen vistas of India contrasting with sharp, intrusive closeups during interrogation scenes. The scenes set on the game show itself are both electric and claustrophobic, with Boyle doing his best to approximate the feeling of being on that once legendary show.

The acting is uniformly excellent, but it never stands out never overpowers the narrative. Each of the leads is played by three different actors as they age, and each young actor blends seamlessly with the one following or proceeding. Of the case, only Anil Kapoor stands out. He has fun playing the game show host, a seemingly jovial man of shifting motives and complicated feelings about having his spotlight stolen by this genuinely interesting young man.

And, unlike several other Danny Boyle pictures, the film actually has a compelling third act and an emotionally involving climax. No spoilers, but the film does not go sliding off the rails in the manner of 28 Days Later, Sunshine, and The Beach. Granted, he was loosely adapting Vikas Swarup's novel Q&A, but I was genuinely fearful that Boyle would once again drop the third-act ball. No worries, the last act is, if anything, superior to its somewhat dragging initial first act set-up.

In the end, Boyle and Tandan have made an enchanting story about the power of knowledge, knowledge gained from experiences and gained from life itself. The film sneaks up on the audience, slowly building emotional investment until the moviegoers are playing along with Malik and holding their breaths at the end. It is easily one of the more charming and original movies of this year and is absolutely perfect family entertainment for anyone over the age of ten. It is a celebration of not just the usual triumph of the human spirit, but a celebration of the human experience. For it's not just what you know, it's how you came to know it.

Grade: B+

Donnie Wahlberg - less famous than Mark, but a far superior actor.

I've made no secret of my dislike for the thespian talents of Mark Wahlberg, and the advance buzz on Max Payne, plus that wonderful SNL sketch seems to indicate that I may not be in the minority much longer.

I made mention in my review of The Happening back in July that Donnie Wahlberg would have been a much better choice for the lead role, that of the down-to-earth science teacher who encounters lethal forces beyond his explanation. I've always found Donnie Wahlberg to be a far superior actor and a more convincing screen presence. Whether giving gravitas to horror films like Saw II, or making crap like Annapolis vaguely watchable, he improves any project he's in, which is the mark of a great character actor. Rent the first season DVD set of Boomtown to see him at his best.

I didn't think about it till just now, but I wonder what Donnie thinks about his brother taking a lead role in a Shyamalan film. After all, Donnie Wahlberg's acting career was born the moment he took a three-minute walk-on role in The Sixth Sense and ran with it. He lost sixty-pounds and completely dedicated himself to what should have been just a random part, a plot device to start the movie and set the story in motion. I have to wonder about how Donnie feels about his more famous brother taking a lead role for the director that made him, and then botching it. Random thought.

Scott Mendelson

"Marvel, can you spare a dime?" Don Cheadle replaces Terrence Howard in Iron Man 2

While Marvel has previously tried to shortchange the Iron Man sequel over the summer (forcing the film to be ready in two short years, trying to deny director Jon Favreau a raise and/or replace him), it seems that another major component of the film has been altered by (allegedly) Marvel's penny-pinching ways. As of yesterday, Terrence Howard has been replaced by Don Cheadle as Tony Stark's best pal Jim Rhodes, the man who would be War Machine. According to The Hollywood Reporter, negotiations fell through over 'financial differences among other reasons'. So, it would seem that Howard wanted a raise and Marvel said no.

While I'm not the world's biggest Terrence Howard fan, and Don Cheadle is by far the superior thespian, I can't help wondering if Howard was asking for so much extra money that Marvel was willing to risk continuity-comfort to find a replacement, or whether Marvel was just being the dumb-asses they seem to be of late. Point being, for the sake of flow (and hustle?) and keeping the universe intact, Howard was worth at least a couple million bucks. There are only three major actors of note who's characters are still alive. You basically have Tony Stark, Pepper Potts, and Jim Rhodes (if Nick Fury has more than a cameo, then toss him in too). So it seems odd that Marvel would be so willing to cast aside literally 1/3 of the recognizable actors.

To be fair, we don't know exactly what happened. Terrence Howard is a somewhat odd person and an alleged egotist. He may well have demanded $10 million plus points and a producer credit. I'd be more willing to give Marvel the benefit of the doubt if not for their history of terrible decisions. Aiding and abetting the butchering of Daredevil. Forcing Sam Raimi to include Venom in Spider-Man 3. Rebooting The Incredible Hulk with their own money and then forcing Edward Norton and director Louis Leterrier to shorten and dumb the film down, resulting in a movie that actually made less than the original. Playing chicken with the creative forces behind Iron Man 2, the movie that built your snazzy new movie studio in the first place.

Regardless of how much better an actor Cheadle may be then Howard, it is always distracting to have a new actor step into an established role for a sequel. It was darn distracting watching Maggie Gyllenhaal replace Katie Holmes in the Nolan Batman pictures. Although that was partially because The Dark Knight basically backed Dawes into the corner of cliched love interest, the prize to be won in a romantic triangle (in Batman Begins, she was a three-dimensional character, the moral compass for a young Bruce Wayne). I wonder about how different a Jim Rhodes replacement Don Cheadle will be. Howard's Jim Rhodes was a relatively weak character, which made sense as someone who could stand by Tony but not stand up to him (it was rather similar to the House/Wilson relationship). Cheadle does not usually suggest passivity and indecisiveness, so we'll see if he can play this new shade.

We'll see how this affects the new film. Make no mistake, Don Cheadle is an upgrade in pretty much every variable. But, it's a darn shame that, like Nolan's Batman pictures, the Iron Man series couldn't maintain pure character continuity for even a single sequel. It makes you appreciate the miracle that is the Harry Potter series and Chris Columbus's casting acumen - eight films, one cast change caused by the death of actor Richard Harris, everyone else ready and willing to finish off the story.

Scott Mendelson

Review: Quarantine (2008)

Quarantine
2008
089 minutes
Rated R (bloody violent and disturbing content, terror and language)

by Scott Mendelson

It is somewhat ironic that a week before seeing this film, my wife and I found ourselves walking through the Quarantine maze at Knott's Scary Farm (Knotts Berry Farm does an annual October makeover, where all of their rides become insanely intricate haunted houses... quite impressive). I say ironic for two reasons. A) The film Quarantine is probably the closest thing I've seen on film to the experience of walking through a haunted house attraction. B) The maze is quite a bit scarier on a pure visceral level than the film itself.

Not to say the film is bad. It's actually surprisingly affective in the opening acts, setting up a frighteningly plausible scenario and plausible slice-of-life characters. Only in the last twenty-minutes or so does the film become an unwieldy fright fest, with incomprehensible action and an almost complete lack of pay off.

Some plot - Angela Vidal and Scott Percival are reporter and camera man from a local news network, sent to do a puff piece on the local fire department. After a quick get-to-know ya interview segment or two, the department gets called on an actual emergency and the reporters tag along. When they get to the apartment building in peril, they quickly discover that the emergency is note fire-related, although they'll soon wish it was.

The entirety of the film is shot as if it were the running video footage from Percival's camera. For the record, this remake of a 2007 Spanish horror film ('REC') is much cleaner and less grainy than Cloverfield and far less disorienting than The Blair Witch Project. But we still have that 'something horrible happened just off screen' bit along with the swirling camera that occasionally denies us key plot details or major moments.

There are surprisingly few cheap jolts, so the ones that are there are brutally effective. The biggest advantage that the film has is a cast made up of veteran character actors and television performers. Our favorite grizzled Croatian Rade Serbedzija plays the landlord. Steve Harris, best known as defense attorney Eugene Young on The Practice, plays the cameraman (while his face is rarely seen, his voice lends a gravity to the proceedings). Fleshing out the cast is Greg Germann (from Ally McBeal), Dana Ramirwz from Heroes, film character actor Jay Hernandez, and Dennis O'Hare (longtime Law And Order fans will recognize him as guest-starring as four different characters in four of the best episodes of the series' run). These veterans help flesh out what would otherwise be stock horror film characters. Everyone is intelligent, no one is particularly heroic, and they all just feel like real people trapped in an inexplicable situation (even Steve Harris is allowed to break down a little after committing a violent act of self defense).

Alas, after an hour of solid character interplay and potent shocks, the film turns into a somewhat substandard 'run from the monster' cliché. Because of the video-based narrative, much of what unfolds in the last act is difficult to follow and thus hard to appreciate. And, truth be told, there really is no climax as none of the characters have any real arcs.

In the end, the film reveals its true intentions. Regardless of the high caliber of acting and the subtlety of the writing, the film is merely a haunted house ride. That's no sin, but the film at first appears striving for something greater, so its descent into ordinariness is all the more unfortunate. As far as that lack of pay off, the film basically just ends arbitrarily, with only the barest hint of explanation as to what just occurred. So much of what came before is rendered thematically meaningless and our investment in the characters is rendered moot.

So, in the end, Quarantine is worth seeing for its solid first two acts, some terrific acting by some favorite character actors, and a several solid spook-show scares. But it has no real reason for its existence and its final irrelevance renders the experience rather hollow.

GRADE: C+
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
NOTE - SPOILER!!! Shame on Screen Gems for spoiling a major climactic moment of the film, both as a button for the trailer and commercials, and on the poster art. I more or less knew ahead of time, and thus was annoyed. My wife had no idea and was downright furious as she slowly realized how the film was going to end because she hadn't seen 'that scene' yet. Not since the trailer to Cast Away have I seen such blatant spoiling, made all the worse because most moviegoers won't know that a major element has been revealed until they're already into the movie.