Eden Log

** - This is a very damp movie, probably one of the dampest I’ve seen. I would guess it falls somewhere between “The Abyss” and “Waterworld” in terms of overall dampness. Not only is it damp, but it is also dank and dark and it takes place in a world where everything looks very muddy and filth-smeared. That is not to say that its level of moisture made it a bad movie, although it wasn’t in actuality particularly good. I chalk that up less to its soggy attributes (although they certainly didn’t help) than to its complete aimlessness and utter lack of characterization. It involves some guy who is covered in filth wandering around in tunnels and labs and such in search of nothing more than a way to get out. He runs across various characters including a woman in some weird space suit, a guy stuck to vines on a wall, a number of guards in full battle dress and an unending stream of weird zombie-mutant-freak creatures. To that end, it seemed a lot like playing a “Resident Evil” game, except you don’t have a weapon and it isn’t the least bit enjoyable. On the bright side, it has a kind of stylish quality and while I can’t claim that I understood what exactly was going on at all points in the film, I think I pretty much had it figured out by the end, and the story turned out being fairly neat. I highly recommend this for those who like dirt.

The Twilight Saga: Eclipse

*1/2 – The understanding of this movie seems to be fairly dependent upon seeing the first two films in the series. Luckily, anyone who sees this is probably a young girl who not only has seen but has actually memorized every line from the prior movies or is a curmudgeonly middle-aged man who watches shit movies in order to review them, both groups having likely seen the prior movies. Unsurprisingly, this film features scene after boring scene of banal melodramatic dialogue broken up occasionally by scenes featuring dull stares and cuddling in an open field. There are few things in this world that I find more irritating than people taking themselves and their interactions with others as being the most important thing currently occurring anywhere. The young people these days, however, seem to eat that crap up, due largely to the fact (in my opinion) that their idiot parents instill them with a sense of false over-importance. If you like watching people overestimating their self-worth (and guys wandering around shirtless) you may like this, but if you are like me and despise those sorts of things, I suggest avoiding this 3rd in the series of what is apparently going to be four. There were a couple of halfway decent action sequences featuring nifty albeit unexplained limb-lopping in this (clearly tossed into the film in order to placate the bored boyfriend who was dragged to see this), which I guess is worth a half of a star. Otherwise, it’s an unredeemable overly hormonal emotion-fest.

Fringe: The Complete 1st Season

***1/2 – After the first two or three episodes of this series I was on the verge of giving up on it. It seemed to heavily focus on relationships; that between the main protagonist - FBI agent Olivia Dunham - and her partner/lover, and that between Dr. Walter Bishop, a brilliant yet wacko scientist just released after 17 years in a mental ward, and his transient (yet almost equally brilliant) son Peter. It also threw plot points out seemingly at random and with no background given whatsoever, such as the mysterious series of events called “The Pattern” and a terrorist group called ZFT. However, by the time the season was halfway over, the tide had turned, and all the things that were dropped on the viewer unawares in the beginning began to make sense through elucidation and connection of plot strands. In addition, most of the relationship stuff completely fell by the wayside. By the time the season finale rolled around (featuring special guest star Leonard Nimoy!), I had become fully immersed in the world(s) created by the writers. While the characters remain somewhat aloof and - with the possible exception or Walter - largely unlikable, there is a modicum of humor tossed in and a story arc that is engrossing enough make me look forward to season 2.

Juno

**1/2 – This is one of those movies that tries way too hard too seem cool. There are few things sadder than that in my opinion. Perhaps there was a time when liking 70s slasher pics and The Stooges was thought of as being way outside the box and rebellious, but now it has become normal for the people who are slightly to the left of actual normal. Trying to pawn that off as being super weird and quirky – in the context of this movie anyway – is really rather off-putting. And I blame that on the writing, because I thought the performances were pretty darn good for the most part, especially that of the always reliable J.K. Simmons as the father. The gist of this movie is that a ‘weird’ girl gets pregnant and searches for a family to adopt the kid - ending up choosing Jason Bateman and Jennifer Garner – and then has all sorts of shenanigans in the meantime. I guess not so much shenanigans as goings-on. There is a fair amount of humor in it, mainly provided by peripheral characters like Simmons’ and a few others. The attempts at humor from the lead character generally annoyed more than anything as it smacked of 16-year-old-trying-to-sound-cool – which, in fairness, it actually was. In any event, this film was decent but not as good as most of the reviews of it seemed to indicate.

Troy

*** - Homer’s “Iliad” is one of the most popular, famous and iconic of the stories to have come down to us from the classical Greeks. This 2004 epic starring Brad Pitt, Eric Bana, Orlando Bloom and Brian Cox stays fairly faithful to the basic plotline of the Homeric original, but also falls into the same trap of modernization that many film adaptations of ancient works fall into. Taking place over 3000 years ago, this movie and the epic poem it’s based on take place in a Greece (actually, mainly in modern-day Turkey) that has morals, beliefs and sensibilities far different from those of today’s western cultures. Like most of its predecessors, “Troy” attempts to give the ancient ways modern spins, and I think that does a disservice to both the original work and the audience. Not only does it do that by giving the characters modern emotions and thought processes, but other than a few references, it completely cuts the Greek Gods out of the story, who play a major and active role in Homer’s poem. But comparing this to an earlier version is probably somewhat unfair in light of the fair amount of entertainment value it provides. It is along the lines of movies like “Braveheart” and “Gladiator” but probably a notch or two below in quality, and a bit longer. But if you enjoy those sorts of movies, you might like this one.

The Squid and the Whale

**1/2 – This is the 2nd of Wes Anderson protégé Noah Baumbach’s films that I have seen (the first being the more recent “Greenberg”), and I am starting to notice a pattern. His movies are sort of offbeat and quirky like Anderson’s, but are filled with characters that are extremely unlikeable and contain a lot more graphic sexual content. In this film, Jeff Daniels plays an asshole writer who is married to (then separated from) a cheating slut, who have two kids that are equally horrifying. The older son is a mirror image of his smug father, who apparently has no self-esteem and poses as an artsy type of person while in actuality being a complete sham that plagiarizes Pink Floyd and hasn’t read any of the literature he claims to have. The younger son is even weirder, as he drinks beer, masturbates constantly (and smears his ejaculate in various locations around school), swears like a longshoreman, and wanders around shirtless. If ever there was a family of four that is the poster family for complete dysfunctionality, it is the one in this film. Disliking all the characters (including one of the Baldwin brothers playing a strange tennis club pro who is bopping the wife and refers to everyone as ‘brother’) certainly makes this film hard to watch. All that saves it from being as bad as “Greenberg” are a few more laughs.

Grimm

** - I am nowhere near being an expert on fairy tales, but this 2003 Dutch film that is supposedly based on one or more of them has very little similarity to any fairy tales that I am familiar with, Brothers Grimm authored or otherwise. The beginning has a bit of a “Hansel and Gretel” feel to it, and I suppose someone with a very open mind could interpret other parts as being similarly parallel, but that is about as far as I could go with any sort of comparison. This is advertised (on the front of the NetFlix sleeve, anyway) as a “darkly comedic, absurdist take” on traditional fairy tales. I definitely see the absurdist aspect, but I found about as much dark comedy in this as I did in “Schindler’s List” (i.e. none). Perhaps it has something to with the Dutch-to-English translation, or the somewhat similar yet very clearly demarcated nuances between what Americans find funny and what Europeans do (eg. Jerry Lewis), but the long and the short of it is that I just didn’t laugh at all while watching this. I didn’t really enjoy it all that much either, although I must admit that I found the direction and cinematography to be pretty good, and I couldn’t really find any fault with the acting either. Still, I can’t really recommend watching this movie.

The Expendables

** - A bloated and largely incoherent Sylvester Stallone stars along with an all-star action film cast in this 2010 attempt to create a sort of ‘perfect action movie.’ I am assuming that was the intention, and if it truly was, then I’d have to say it failed miserably for a number of reasons. Firstly, I have to debate the quality of the cast here. The youngest of the stars featured is the nearly 40-year old Jason Statham, Dolph Lundgren and Mickey Rourke are tossed in for some reason, and there are at least a few ex-wrestlers in there somewhere, including ‘Stone Cold’ Steve Austin (who is thankfully burned to death toward the end). Add to that bizarre and very out of place cameos from Arnold Schwarzenegger and Bruce Willis and a supporting role for Eric Roberts, and I highly doubt anyone would get too excited by the overall cast. Whether or not one agrees with me on that aspect, it is almost certain that the lack of character background, random introduction of plot points, and the meandering and unfocused story is likely to turn off even the most ardent of action fans. The action sequences – especially those featuring Stallone and the badly aging Jet Li – aren’t even very entertaining. There are loads of explosions and gunfire and extremely graphic shots of bodies being blown to pieces and being cruelly slaughtered, though, if you like that sort of thing.

Predators

**1/2 – My dad thinks that 1987’s “Predator” is the best movie of all time. While my praise for it doesn’t reach quite that level, I do find it to be a highly enjoyable film to watch. It is the quintessential guy movie featuring big guns, big explosions, big muscles and lots of swearing, macho one-liners and off-color jokes. It’s like a cocktail of adrenaline and testosterone injected directly into the heart sack. The 1990 follow-up – “Predator 2” - starring Danny Glover and featuring the reprehensible Morton Downey Jr. is probably one of the worst movies of all time. After a lame two movie tangent into the world of “Aliens”, Robert Rodriguez brings the Predator series back towards decentness with this 2010 effort directed by Nimrod Antal (if that is his real name). The characters didn’t have the same interesting intangible qualities that the original had, and I’m not sure if that is because of the characters themselves, the actors or portraying them, the script, or a combination of all those things. It had plenty of explosions and gunplay - and even featured a rather unlikely sword fight – but it couldn’t quite capture the magic of the first movie. I think part of the reason is that in the end the final body count is 6 dead humans and 4 dead predators. That sort of death ratio removes some of the mystique of what used to be a nearly unstoppable alien killing machine.

Endgame

*** - Starring the black guy with the upper class English accent that played that bad-ass bad guy in “Serenity”, this 2009 film set in mid-80s South Africa is kind of neat despite the fact that it is extraordinarily slow moving and has no real action or tension of any kind. It is kind of like an extended version of one of the dramatizations from “Unsolved Mysteries” minus the ghosts, UFOs and/or murder. What makes this political drama neat is that everything about it seems to indicate that it was purposefully made to feel like it was filmed contemporaneously. The film stock was a little grainy, the camera was kind of shaky (but more in a sloppy 80s TV show kind of way than in a purposeful edgy steady-cam kind of way) and the score was full of the meaty synth lines and ambient electronic noodling that was so prominent in the early to mid 80s. I can’t say for certain that this was a result that was intended by the filmmakers, or if it – being a relatively low budget made for British TV movie – is just all they had to work with. Because it starred two of my favorite actors (the afore-mentioned black guy and the always outstanding Mark Strong) I choose to believe that it was a choice of the filmmakers. That alone makes it worth a few stars.

The Girl Who Played With Fire

***1/2 – This second film in the Swedish-made adaptations of Stieg Larsson’s ‘Millennium Trilogy’ of books isn’t as entertaining as the first (“The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo”) but is pretty good and well worth watching. With a bit of a buzz surrounding these films due at least in part to their imminent American remakes, I think it’s going to be interesting to have seen the Swedish versions first, if for no other reason than having the ability to compare. The first film had a very fresh feel to it, and although it had some slow spots, the engaging mystery plot easily made up for the lulls. In this sequel the dull spots seem to be a bit more prominent since the plot isn’t quite as interesting and borders a bit on being hackneyed, as it deals with the somewhat media-saturated sexual slavery market. I can’t deny the quality acting that this film contains, although the actors (or perhaps more accurately, the characters that the actors play) aren’t particularly appealing, especially the faux-cyberpunk lead actress (Noomi Rapace) and the rather lumpy and pock-marked male lead (Michael Nyqvist). I don’t consider myself a superficial person, but seeing people that are a bit easier on the eyes in the lead roles probably wouldn’t be unwelcome.

Antichrist

* - German weirdo Lars Von Trier takes a clumsy stab at ‘high art’ with this revolting and barely watchable 2009 train wreck. While there does indeed seem to be some sort of plot at the beginning – a man (Willem Dafoe) and his wife (French singer Charlotte Gainsbourg) grieving over the loss of their toddler son, who threw himself out of a window after seeing his parents fornicating (probably not a bad choice in the long run) – it is soon dropped and replaced with a series of images and scenes that are probably meant to be shocking and eminently artistic. Sadly, these scenes – which include the wife masturbating the unconscious husband until he squirts blood and then hacking off his member, her snipping off of her own clitoris with a pair of scissors, and her poking a hole in her husband’s lower leg with a hand drill – are less shocking and artistic then they are gross and completely unexplained. The movie is about an hour and fifty minutes long, but I couldn’t sit through any more than an hour and a half. This is the first time since I’ve been reviewing movies that I have been unable to finish a film. That’s how bad this movie is.

The Good Shepherd

***1/2 – My understanding is that this movie got some mixed reviews from critics due to its length, lack of action and somewhat slow pace. I can see the point of many of these critics who felt this way, but quite frankly, I found myself surprisingly entertained by this film. Matt Damon stars as a somewhat fictionalized version of one of the founders of the CIA while Robert DeNiro directs and also has a small role. The acting was all quite good, and the plot that heavily involves the Cold War, espionage, intelligence and counter-intelligence is interesting enough to keep my interest through it’s over two and a half hour length. And I think that is pretty high praise from a guy who gave Oscar Winner “There Will Be Blood” a **1/2 rating due to its length and boringness. “The Good Shepherd” is certainly not without its faults, though. The main issue I had with it was the lame Angelina Jolie subplot as the wife of Damon’s character. She had a relatively small role at the beginning, which I was fine with, but became far too prominent near the end and became nearly the dominant figure at the film’s conclusion. Part of that shift also moved the plot away from espionage and toward family drama, which annoyed me a bit. But overall, this was a pretty good movie.