Links from this video:
Boxer
Crossover Games

Link I refer to in the video:
Mono Project
Rawr Homepage

Link I refer to in the video:
Forum post with unofficial Crossover Games build

Links I refer to in the video:
Star Trek Online Unofficial Mac forum post
Star Trek Online client download page

This is not the type of movie I usually see in the theaters first. Even if it’s an excellent movie this is a type of movie I typically grab as a rental or purchase. It just so happens that when TheJoe and I were out and found the opportunity to see this movie, we took it.

Clooney plays Ryan Bingham, whose job takes him on the road almost every day of his life, and he thrives on it. He is a master at simplifying and streamlining his life, so much so that he sometimes speaks about it, encouraging people to look hard at what is in their life’s backpack and do what they can to lighten the load. He even applies this philosophy to his job where he fires people companies don’t have the guts to fire themselves, including one interesting sequence with newly-fired Bob (played by J.K. Simmons), with Bingham spinning the situation as an opportunity to start on a goal that Bob had long-since abandoned.

Clooney does indeed bring his trademark charm to his role. Bignham is charming, likable, sure of himself. What separates this role from others Clooney has had is how he uses this skills to separate himself from other people. To him, relationships are the heaviest weights one can carry around, and his lifestyle gives him the perfect distance from others. It’s in an ironic twist where a young hire (Natale, played by Amanda Keener) develops a way to do his job via webcam, thus separating humanity from the process further and negating the need for a travel budget that Bingham must pause and look at his life.

There’s some issues in this film that we have all had to face at some time or another. The choice we make with family and work and the balance we try to achieve. And if there was ever a movie that showed the value of the journey versus the goal to achieve, this is it. While there’s some amusing comedic moments in here, the tone is more dramatic with some great comedic actors (J. K. Simmons, Jason Bateman, Melanie Lynskey, and Danny McBride) turning in some solid “straight” performances. It’s also filmed pretty simply as well, although I don’t know what hoops you have to go through to film at an airport these days, that must have been the exciting part for the producers. But as much travelling as happens in this film, it never overshadows the characters.

At the end, I felt it was worth the price of a movie ticket. Matinee. And I think it would be worth a rental. I’m glad I saw it. It’s a very solid drama with some amusing moments that shows it’s not just technology that separates people. Sometimes people separate themselves.

A Sherlock Holmes movie doesn’t really cry out “action-adventure”, even more so than with the stereotypical image of Sherlock Holmes as the calm, collected, steel-nerved thinking machine. Take that and add in that Guy Ritchie is directing (Snatch, RockNRolla, Revolver) and Robert Downey Jr. (Iron Man) is starring, there’s the possibility that this movie could simply attach a known name to a film that bares little resemblance to the spirit of the material. It’s to this film’s credit that this portrayal of Doyle’s most famous character gives it new life and calls previous incarnations into question.

There’s an interesting scene near the beginning in which Holmes is seated at a restaurant waiting to meet Watson and his fiancee. As he’s waiting, he notices little details: bit of a conversation, the sound of the silverware, a watch ticking. Soon these details grow and intensify with Holmes struggling to maintain composure. It’s a very interesting theory that Holmes brain is wired differently than other people in that he can’t NOT notice the details we all miss. It works to give Holmes a humanity we can appreciate. Another scene takes Joel Silver’s almost patented slow-motion fight sequence and adds Holmes using his deduction to reason the best moves to see a fight through. It works very well.

For the main plot, Holmes and Watson must discover and attempt to foil the plans of Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong, who played Archy in ‘RockNRolla’), a villain who seems to hold supernatural power. Strong plays him well, making him menacing and giving him real character. Rachel McAdams does a great job portraying Irene Adler, possibly the only woman who has ever bested Holmes and could keep his interest. McAdams doesn’t have as much material to draw upon as other actors do for their characters, and I think that freedom to play comes through in the confidence and charisma of her Adler.

The movie is shot in an industrial England that thankfully doesn’t drown in black, but uses gray and heavy desaturation in the colors. It’s a visual choice I don’t think I’ve ever seen Ritchie work with in his previous films, but one that gives the film a unique identity. This is also true of the music, which uses a lot of smaller orchestrations and string quartets to give definition to the time period.

This was well worth seeing in the theater at least once, and it’s worth a purchase once it’s released to homes. A very good action film with some brains behind it.

You know what’s really hard to animate? Fur. Think about it. You have all these individual strands of hair that can move independently of each other yet they need to move a certain way to look believable. It takes some skill to be able to control fur on an animated character. There’s also something of a challenge when the characters are less than a foot high and they are constantly dwarfed by regular-sized human beings and objects. If those characters are the star, then a director must constantly be thinking about camera angles and tricks to make sure those characters are the center of attention all the time. It takes a fair amount of creativity to think about types of shots that you wouldn’t normally have to consider.

Why am I talking about computer-generated fur and shot composition? Because that’s what was keeping me interested during this film. Rhythm and Hues did a great job animating all the chipmunks and gave them some great physical personality and amusing scenes (including a nice chase sequence with remote controlled helicopters and motorcycles), but all in all, nothing else in the movie really kept me interested. There is a character, Toby (Zachary Levi) who is the chipmunks’ guardian, that is irresponsible, unfocused, clumsy and an avid video gamer, and I could not even muster any animosity toward the filmmakers because it was such an obvious and tired stereotype (also a bit hypocritical as there will most likely be a videogame tie-in coming out).

If the filmmakers meant for this to be a film that would appeal to all ages, then they didn’t succeed. I had DJ with me when I saw it and he thought it was really funny. So if your a Chipmunks fan or a kid, you will probably enjoy this film better than I did and you’ll probably be buying it for them when it’s released.

Even if you aren’t an avid movie viewer and don’t pay attention to movie ads, you’ve probably heard of “Avatar”. With all the buzz and blitz promoting this movie and with all the articles written about the groundbreaking technology developed for it, at it’s base there’s a highly enjoyable movie.

Humans have established a base at the alien world of Pandora in search of a highly valuable mineral. The only thing that stands in the way are the hostile-to-humans environment and the natives, the Na’vi: large blue-skinned creatures with tails. Humans have developed a small number a alien bodies called avatars that can be controlled remotely by a person whose genetics are encoded into it. Jake Sully, a marine who lost his scientist brother and the use of his legs in battle is given the chance to walk again using his brother’s avatar, in the hopes that he can connect with the Na’vi and negotiate with them. There are themes here that have been explored before (technology vs. nature, diplomacy vs. war, science vs. faith) and they all have been woven together in a solid and very satisfying action-adventure. If none of the new technology used in this film existed and the film was told in a more tried and true process like animation, this film would still have a very solid story to make it worth seeing.

The process used to apply an actor’s performance to a CG character here results in some amazing work. The Na’vi look and act as natural as if they were actually alive, not just in the body but in the crucial area of facial expressions. The actor’s performances really shine through their characters with all their nuances and subtlety. It deserves to be seen on the big screen to appreciate it in detail. All the acting is top-notch too. Sci-fi fans can geek out in the face of Sigourney Weaver appearing in another James Cameron film as the hardened scientist Dr. Grace Augustine, Sam Worthington ably takes on the lead role of Jake Sully, Zoe Saldana (Neytiri) shows off her chops and grabs yet another role in a high-profile sci-fi property. I was also intruiged be Stephen Lang who plays Colonel Miles Quaritch, the leader of the human’s military. While other actors would play such a high-powered officer’s role with more bluster and volume, he imbues a very cold composure in Quaritch that gives him depth beyond the typical antagonist.

Detail was also given to the creation of the world of Pandora. It’s an amazing world with a palette of deep blues, greens and purples that is alive with all sorts of plants and creatures. (Although it does remind me of World of Warcraft’s design, which leads me to believe that either James Cameron or someone very high up in the production design department has at least one level 80 character.)

Even if you’re not a sci-fi fan this movie is easily worth multiple viewings in the theater and worth seeing at least once in 3D. The 3D is very well done and amazing to view but it’s also good to see in it’s non-3D format to catch details that might have been missed. This will definitely be worth purchasing when it gets released to the home market as well. Highly recommended.

One of the benefits of writing these reviews without being beholden to a strict deadline is that I can distance the hype surrounding a movie from the movie itself. With the phenomenon that is the Twilight series (excuse me, the Twilight SAGA), waiting this long to see New Moon is highly necessary to attain some level of objectivity. So what happens when you subtract the crazed fangirls, the massive marketing machine and tabloid rumors from this pic?

You get a movie that wasn’t worth seeing in the theater.

The story is told decently enough. Bella and Edward have some semblance of normalcy in their relationship when suddenly he has to leave, driving Bella to depression, reckless acts and Jake, a local Native-American boy who turns out to be a werewolf. Meanwhile Edward, believing Bella to be dead is driven to a reckless act of his own which leads to a race to set things right. Romeo and Juliet is referenced very early on in the movie and even derided a little bit before the characters find themselves making similar choices that Shakespeare’s characters did. The parallel was a bit too obvious, and the previously mentioned distance between film and frenzy laid much of that obviousness open to sparkle. The twists and turns of the story are not hard to predict even if you haven’t read the books. Enough to keep me following the story, but not enough to make me invest in it.

Also, it’s not fair to point out the outlandishness of the vampire/werewolf/love story combination. Fantasy and sci-fi are designed to take feelings and issues and blow them out beyond normal boundaries to see them in a different light. However, one thing I noticed is the movies the characters watch are so far-fetched (a romantic comedy is called “Love Spelled Backwards is ‘Love’” and an action film is called “FacePunch”) that I pondered how cartoonish those movies had to be to make the Twilight world seem believable by comparison.

The direction on this film is an improvement over the last. Although montages are used to denote the passage of time more than once, there were actually done quite creatively. There were some excellent action sequences as well, especially the fights between vampires and between vampires and werewolves. The were very interesting and combined wirework and CG to show a supernatural conflict that was really enjoyable. Having said that, some shots, particularly some on the cliffdiving sequence felt a bit fake. I think even someone who isn’t versed in special effects could find those shots a bit fake in their composition. It would have been nice if care was taken to keep the quality of the effects consistent overall.

The acting was good overall, but I must say the Volturi (the highest authority of vampires) were a too over-the-top and ended up looking more cartoonish-B-movie-villains than creepy vamp-Illuminati. Except for Dakota Fanning. She seemed to get her part just right.

New Moon is a good rental, maybe even a decent purchase, but that’s about it. It’s a decent story and if you watch it at home and avoid the crowd of people getting worked up over Eclipse (Forgive me again, “THE TWILIGHT SAGA: Eclipse”).

I don’t really find myself calling movies ‘charming’. It feels like a trite thing to just say about a movie. To me it feels like a word marketers slap on to a movie’s advertising that’s code to parents meaning it’s safe for kids to see. So you will understand my point of view when I think I can truly say that The Fantastic Mr. Fox is a charming movie.

Roald Dahl’s work tends to have a dark edge to is (the more recent Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is a good example) which is absent in this story, but it’s also not material one would typically consider a children’s story either. We come across the main character, Mr. Fox, at what looks like the end of his daring adventures, working as a newspaper columnist, settling down buying a better house (tree, actually) for him and his family. But then Mr. Fox gets the urge to pull one last ‘job’ and trying to avoid the wrath of the three big farmers from which he plunders. It touches on the ideas of family, community and being true to who you are. I say touches. It’s far and away from a heavy-handed Disney moral tale, and it’s told with a sophistication that can appeal to all ages, which is no mean feat.

With animals wearing suits and ties, badgers acting as lawyers, and rats acting as security guards I started to think that Wes Anderson probably could have simply turned all the characters human and made this a live action film. However, his films are very visually rich and this serves him well when he turned to animation. Many choices he made point to making this a very warm approachable film, like the choice of using stop-motion animation rather then computer animation. One of the benefits of going this route is that it gives this world very rich textures from the animals fur to the natural wood of the outdoors and furniture. This film was shot digitally and I saw this film in a digital projection theater and those textures really pop and give the world life that is frankly missing from the smooth, sterile, clay-like surfaces of most current CG films. Wes also chose a very nice natural autumn color palette with reds, oranges and browns which make the film vivd without becoming candy-coated bright. Another striking things is the framing of shots that’s very straightforward. Characters are usually framed head-on or facing straight left or right. Action moves in these limited directions as well. I think these simple visual choices help offset the more complicated grown-up issues the story tackles.

The humor in the film is well-done too, emanating more from the characters rather than catchphrase one-liners and gags (although there was a pretty funny running gag of characters saying ‘cuss’ rather then actually swearing.) The role of Mr. Fox is perfectly suited to George Clooney, adept at playing charismatic con men. Jason Schwartzman also plays a role similar to his strengths, the insecure Ash, son of Mr. Fox. These people aren’t doing ‘voices’ as much as they’re doing characters, and while in some instances this could end up looking lazy, here it comes out as natural, letting people play to their strengths. Having said that, I need to mention Willem Dafoe as Rat. He managed to disappear into this deranged character well and was the only voice that surprised me when the credits rolled. The lively dialogue is probably also due to the fact that instead of compartmentalizing everyone into soundbooths and recording each one separately, Anderson had everyone record lines together in various outdoor locations. It give the conversations real rhythm and weight.

This is a film that I highly recommend seeing. Definitely worth seeing it in a theater, especially one with digital projection. It’s also a worth a purchase as a hi-def digital download or Blu-ray (if you’re still into that sort of thing).