Gaze Into The Abyss And The Abyss Gazes Into You

So, on Monday night, I undertook the second double movie session of the year (first was The Muppets and The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, for new readers and to clarify, I do choose which two movies I want to watch if time is on my side for two). Even though I usually go in the morning for cinema releases, neither of these films was feasible for a day-time showing (one of them was a film I had planned to see on its opening day until it became apparent I would need to wait for a night off), so I chose to go last night since I had it off from work.
The second film will be covered in my next blog, but first, here's the latest Clint Eastwood film, the biopic J. Edgar.

I've never known much about J. Edgar Hoover, and I'm unsure as to whether or not any biographies have been written about him (though I'm going to assume so, he seems to be a very controversial person, even to this day, and we all know how much controversy sells), but even I know that some of what's on display will have to be taken with a grain of salt. So, we'll have to see if the film can balance out being relatively truthful, portraying the subject realistically and also being entertaining.

J. Edgar covers several points in the man's life, going back and forth through time as it needs to. From his final days (not a spoiler) and getting his memoirs done, to his starting up the FBI, and various cases along the way like taking on gangsters and trying to solve the Lindbergh kidnapping. All the while, the film also shows what J. Edgar (Leonardo DiCaprio) was like in private and his relationships with his second-in-command, Clyde Tolson (Arnie Hammer) and his mother, Anna Marie (Judi Dench).

Of all the films I've seen recently, this is perhaps the most uneven and mixed. Is it bad? Not at all, but there a few things I found myself questioning and thinking about.

Let's start with something small: the time skips. Now, being a biopic in which the subject himself is narrating, obviously most of the film is going to be in flashback form. That's fine, I don't have a problem with that. But seeing as how we bounce all over the place, and sometimes when we cut back to the present there are new people we weren't introduced to before, it gets a bit confusing and we shouldn't have to play catch-up (more on the new people later).

Also, despite one scene early on, Naomi Watts really doesn't add that much to the film as Hoover's secretary, Helen Gandy. It's a scene in which Hoover and Gandy are on a date and he proposes marriage to her after impressing her with his skills in locating a book in a little over a minute, using a card catalog system. They're on their third date and Gandy declines, citing her desire for work over marriage. Hoover is impressed with such a reaction and offers her a position as his personal secretary. While this scene works well to establish how she came to be in his employ, after this, her role is reduced to simply being... well, a secretary. I'm not going to fault the movie for that, but since all she does is announce things over an intercom (up until the very end anyway), I fail to see why you needed Naomi Watts for a thankless role. You could have just gotten someone on the production crew to do it, or left it voice only. It's almost like, if the movie itself was Hoover, like the living, physical embodiment, the film is punishing her for refusing his proposal. It's like “Turn me down? Well, to Hell with you, hussy! I'll banish you to a less than adequate supporting role!”

No, for the significant female role, we turn to Judi Dench as Hoover's mother. Now, she plays the role quite well, as we expect, though I wonder if I'm the only one who kept thinking of Norman Bates' mother whenever she spoke. Big difference here is that whereas Mrs. Bates was an abusive monster... Anna Marie was just abusive, though emotionally so. Unlike Mrs. Bates, she did love her son but she was one of those “I will not accept deviation from the norm and you will climb to the top or else kill me now because you're breaking my heart” type of people. And in her mind, not being white and heterosexual was deviating from the norm. So, when she does die (again, not a spoiler, she lingers on for a while and each time you keep thinking “aaaaand now she's dead” before the umpteenth time jump), it's hard for us to feel sorry. Or, it was for me, since she was racist and homophobic. I don't care if they were the values of the time, they've always been pathetic values since their inception and it doesn't help when later, Hoover's wearing one of his mother's dresses and breaks down crying (the only time that Hoover's reported cross-dressing is even brought up).

Now, let's go into some good: Leonardo DiCaprio is once again showing he's breaking away from the “pretty boy” phase he once went through. OK, he's been out of that for a while but it's nice to know he's not going back and his role as Hoover is filled with confidence and poise and he is the best thing about it.
Also of note, Arnie Hammer as Tolson is both extremely sympathetic and witty. Of course, the dialogue helps, but out of all the people who are portrayed as people we're meant to be sympathetic to, he is perhaps the only one who is worthy of such sympathy.

But here's the thing: throughout the film, you can see them together, while not being “together” together and while it is taken seriously for the most part, I can't help but feel Eastwood was taking the piss with some of the moments with just the two of them. For example, when Hoover announces to Tolson that he's considering marrying his current partner, Tolson loses it. Hoover tries to calm him down but Tolson will have none of it and smashes anything he can find. The two fight, before Tolson kisses him square on the lips, leading Hoover to throw him out and whispers “I love you” to himself, before bursting into tears.
What problem do I have with the scene? Well, besides all the innuendo leading up to it seemingly being played for comedy, the physical portion of the fight looks more like they're play-fighting and it kind of demeans the film. I mean, I get the feeling that Hoover was a self-hating homosexual but the film can't make its mind up if it wants to mock the two of them or be sympathetic to the two of them. When you contrast the rest of the film, showing Hoover's efforts in law enforcement, its like Eastwood was told he had to have a comedy subplot or the film wouldn't be shipped and someone thought this should be treated with humor. Seeing as how the fight is never brought up again, it feels like it should have been a verbal confrontation only, seeing as how that's handled with better judgment.

That being said, the parts of the film that do handle the law enforcement aspect are very well done, especially the section that covers the Lindburgh baby kidnapping. I have to wonder how much of this Hoover had a personal hand in, when it comes to the forensics, but it's still impressive and if you don't know the story of the child, it's actually quite gripping.

But, if there is one thing, above all else, that drags the film down, it is this one fact: the film itself decides to show J. Edgar Hoover in a largely sympathetic light. I know his legacy in real life, about how he many presidents tried to get rid of him, about all the measures he took, but rather than lay out events, the ill deeds, along with the good, and let him be judged accordingly, the film largely feels like it was written by Hoover himself, glorifying him whenever possible. As I mentioned with DiCaprio's portrayal, he's confident, always has an answer (his relationship with his mother is perhaps the one time he's portrayed as being somewhat weak) and he stonewalls everyone who gets in his way. But he still looks like the good guy doing so.
He goes through at least three different typists for his memoirs, most likely because they'll ask a question or two and his response is to just be rid of them and put someone new in. It could also be down to paranoia but the truth is, he just wanted things to go his way and didn't like defiance, even when the people in power sometimes need to be defied, like Hoover himself had done in the past.
He only gets called out for his exaggerations towards the end, by Tolson, but that never leads to anything, since Hoover dies not long after. In the end, he was as stubborn as he ever was.

In a nutshell, the film is too sympathetic to a controversial figure and I have to wonder what Eastwood is trying to say.
Still, for all its faults, it still manages to entertain and the performances are noteworthy. Weighing all the factors up, I award the film 3.5/5

Worst. Armour. EVER

I think it's time I confess something when it comes to me and video gaming. Now, I've been playing games for over two decades now (Hell, I think Mario's only slightly older than me!) and I have several consoles, old and new, at my disposal. But, despite all that...

I haven't completed that many games.

When it comes to games, I buy them when they're cheap (or when I see something I've been eagerly awaiting, like Batman: Arkham City, though I paid for mine in advance) so that when I have more free time, I'll get around to them. My reasoning for that is if I waited until I had a couple nights off work, with no new DVD's to watch, the games I wanted might not be there anymore and I might lose out on some rare treasures in the meantime (like I did with Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem. I didn't want to dip into my savings to buy it, so I waited until I got paid next and by that time, it had been sold. OK, I got Super Smash Bros. Melee to make up for it but that's not the point. And for anyone who asks, I have played the game several times but that was while I was living at home with my younger brother, who owns that copy of the game).

Speaking of my brother, he's the opposite: he buys tons of games and completes them seemingly instantly. The amount of games he has would be enough to kill a man if you kept piling them on top of him. And he's completed a Hell of a lot of them.
Though, we both have different ideas about completing games. His is mostly “beat the final boss, do all the interesting stuff, done”. Mine is usually just beating the final boss, most likely because I've either gotten the interesting stuff as I've gone along or the game was average and I didn't care for all the collectibles.

But the point of today's blog is (provided no one's taken away my gamer card) to talk about the games of the NES that between me and my brother, we never completed. The games of the NES were among the hardest little bastards in all of gaming (that's why the trope is called “Nintendo Hard” and not “Dreamcast Hard”) and despite our many attempts at these games, we've never completed them (well, my brother might have through an emulator, I'll have to ask him).

Now, in order to make this list, the following applies:

We have to have owned the game or rented it frequently to count, so don't say “Metroid was way harder, your list is stupid!” or “What about Zelda 2: The Adventure Of Link?” We never owned those and we only rented Zelda 2 a couple times so we couldn't really get much play out of it (and especially don't ask about Contra, I don't even know if we GOT Contra over here, I do remember a game almost exactly the same called Probotector, which had robots instead of the two guys, but that was a long time ago)
If we could get up to, but couldn't beat, the final boss, it doesn't count because while it's a game uncompleted, I'm focusing on the games so hard we could barely make it halfway. So, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 2: The Arcade Game won't make it because we would constantly make it to Shredder but always be defeated by him and we were so disillusioned that we just played something else and kept trying over and over on other days
I'm focusing solely on the NES because most of our uncompleted games were on that console, we had more games than on most others and by the time the more advanced ones came around, higher focus on schooling and other aspects meant we wouldn't be completing games anyway.
We never had Game Genies or anything like that, so don't ask. Not that we would have used them, most likely.
Even though some games had special conditions for winning, in the mind of me and my brother, if we beat the final boss, that counted (biggest example I can think of is Bubble Bobble)

Now, much like my last blog, this will not be a top ten list and there will not be rankings (though, again, the final entry will be what would essentially be a number one)

So, what games frustrated us the most?

Battletoads
This one's first up since this is one we rented a few times, and every time, we got stuck on the third level (the one with the jetski-things). Now, the first level was tons of fun and hilarious, with some interesting gameplay choices, though the second level was hard. That third level? Forget it, you kept crashing into the walls. From what I hear, the game is unwinnable in two player mode anyway so what the Hell?

Bart V.s The Space Mutants/Bart Vs. The World
Tied because the gameplay was similar, difference being we had to rent the latter. Space Mutants, geez that was hard! The first level is annoying as all Hell with those useless items (what's with the whistle that summons a dog that hurts Bart?), you can't jump on most of the enemies and you have no real weapons to defend yourself. The second level has what I believe was wet cement. That pretty much broke it for me, we never got further than that. I don't even know what the rest of the game looks like!
Bart Vs. The World was a little kinder, and gave you a weapon, but most of the jumps were ridiculous and that ice level... ugh.

Adventure Island 2
While this game had some hilarious death sequences and was generous with the dinosaur buddies who would provide some extra power and provide another “hit point”, they weren't enough in the late stages. I can't remember where we got stuck on but I do remember a snow world and my brother somehow bypassing to one of the later worlds and not getting far. A prime example of how NES games were more difficult than the later consoles, due to most characters being one hit-point wonders.

The Flintstones: The Rescue Of Dino And Hoppy
Yeah, we had our share of licensed games, so what? A Hell of a lot of fun, it's one of those “frustrating but you're still enjoying yourself” kind of games, with a neat soundtrack and good graphics. The first boss is a cakewalk, the second was a little trickier but I put that down to my brother and I just wanted to speed through him and just clobber him with Fred's club, but otherwise he's not too hard. The next boss is a vampire and that's where things fall apart. I remember him being the most tricky part for a while. Sometimes we would conquer him, only to fail miserably on the next level.

The Incredible Crash Dummies
Yeah, we loved that one episode of the Crash Dummies and had some of the toys, so getting the video game was natural. And it too was very fun. Great music, good graphics and an actual attempt at varying the playable characters. That being said, using the white Dummy on the unicycle (can't remember the names, it's been years, people!) could be bothersome and again, we only got a couple levels in and I don't think there were passwords. There were so save states, which is what most games should have had, so that didn't help. In fact, the lack of save states, infinite continues and passwords were often the reasons why these games were so hard.

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
Surprisingly, we DIDN'T have trouble with the dam level, that was easy (why does everyone think it's so hard? It was annoying, yes, but not hard. Level 3 had several jumps that I call bullcrap on (why is that ledge preventing me from jumping that long distance to the next part of the stage?! I don't want to fall in the water that a turtle can swim in anyway!) and by the time you reached the next level, you had probably lost two of the Turtles anyway. Again, I had no idea what the endgame held, until I saw the Angry Video Game Nerd's video in which he revisited several games that he couldn't get past and we saw the Technodrome. Yeah, it looked impossible.

Ghosts 'N' Goblins
One of the earliest games I can remember playing. As a kid, it kind of freaked me out (mostly the eyes on the zombies and that sound effect but also the intro music). As I got older, it was one of the games that pissed me off the most. Arthur can only sustain two hits. On that second hit, he goes down for the count. And after the first, he loses his armour. What kind of knight loses their armour after something as simple as a zombie touch?! And several of the minions took several hits to kill and some could fly! Also, sometimes you would accidentally pick up a new weapon that replaced your never-ending javelin/spear supply. You had knives, which were pointless since they were basically the same as his regular weapon and fire, which rarely hit its target without major effort. I think we only got up to Level 3 and that's when they added ladders and such to make it harder because you'd take a leap of faith only to end up in the water. One of the absolute hardest for the NES.

The Legend Of Zelda
Unlike the other games listed, this did have a save state. But after Level 5, it was easy to get lost, in the labyrinths or out of them and too easy to get overwhelmed. Really, we just ended up replaying the early dungeons over and over because that's what we were good at.

Now, before we get to the final entry, I must admit this one bends one of the rules slightly, the one about “games that we couldn't get halfway on” but I saved this for last because this will probably cause the most uproar and bring my gamer status into question. Well, here goes...

Super Mario Bros.
Yes, that's right, the original. The two NES sequels, completed. Hell, Super Mario Bros. 3 we completed several times over (even my mother, who has never been much of a gamer, has defeated Bowser a few times!) and even done so on the ports like in Super Mario All-Stars for the SNES. But the original? Nope. I attribute that to the hit point factor again. Something they fixed in the third game and since then was giving Mario an extra hit if he loses his current power like the Fire Flower or the Hammer Suit. He'll go back to Super Mario, no worries. But if you lost the Fire Flower here, tough luck, you go back to regular Mario. And in a game where the Hammer Brothers are actually competent and the Bullet Bills waiting to get you (not to mention only one way to kill off a Buzzy Beetle. Or were they the red winged ones from the third game... damn my aging memory!), you need every bit of power you can get. Now, we did know of the cheats to get to the final Warp Pipes but I'm someone who likes to play through the whole game and get the whole experience. Also, that first level in World 8 is frickin' impossible! A great game but I doubt I'll ever complete it, at least not in the foreseeable future.

So, that was my list of tough NES games my brother and I struggled on. How about the rest of you, what NES games made you pull your hair or throw your controllers against the wall?

Film Wonders From Down Under

Despite the fact that it's the day after Australia Day here, it is still January 26th for a large part of the world, so I'm posting this today instead (plus work has been hectic and draining and I wanted to be in a good place when I did this blog). Now, I'm not going to post a history of the day, or what I'm proud of in Australia, because the truth is, while the country itself is one of the most beautiful, I'm not much for Australian history (if there were knights in it, maybe) and I don't care much for a lot of the people. Basically, if I don't know them, I don't care. It may sound harsh but then, they don't care about me and I'm fine with that. Plus, a lot of them tend to piss me off anyway.

So what to blog about that's related to my country? Well, I don't feel like ranting so it won't be on retired tennis player Margaret Court's homophobic rantings (Margaret, you are wrong. It may be your opinion but your opinion is wrong and that's a fact, so go to Hell already you bigot.) or how four fire trucks and assorted rescue crew were called out to rescue a silly bird that got its leg stuck (what, was it a slow day? No one owned it either, but you required four fire trucks?)

No, instead, I will stay on one of my favourite topics and list some of my favourite Australian films.
Now, Australia's film industry and I have a love-hate relationship. They love to provide me with crap and I love to see their crappy movies fail. Despite that, every now and then, we are capable of making magic happen and a great film is born. Unlike some of my previous lists, these films will not be ranked (though I will save my absolute favourite for last) and there may not necessarily be a specific number in mind.
So, without further adieu, I present some of my favourite films that my country has provided the world with.

Red Hill (Patrick Hughes)
The most recent film on this list that I have seen, the film stars Ryan Kwanten (you overseas viewers know him best as Jason Stackhouse in True Blood) as rookie cop Shane Cooper, who has moved to the town of Red Hill with his pregnant wife, Alice (Claire Van Der Bloom). On his first day (as opposed to being one day from retirement), he learns that a convicted killer by the name of Jimmy Conway (Tom E. Lewis) has broken out of prison and is heading into town to claim his vengeance against the police force.
A quiet little action thriller, it's good to see Ryan back at home and delivering a very good performance (yes, I still think True Blood is the finest thing he's ever done but that's not here or there) and the film maintains a strong balance between delivering enough exposition to keep the story going while letting the silence do the talking (so to speak), and shows off the Australian landscape to great effect, while not letting it overtake the movie's focus (something a lot of Australian films are guilty of, Lantana especially. Basically, a lot of our movies amount to scenery porn).
Another great factor comes with the mystery of the antagonist. He barely speaks, he's determined in his goal, he's not to be underestimated and there's more to his backstory than we're lead to believe.
Like I said, it's the most recent film on this list and probably the best we've offered lately (and probably the best we will be offering for some time).

Animal Kingdom (David Michod)
If there's one genre Australia manages to do well exceptionally well in, it's the crime genre. Loosely based on Melbourne's Pettingill family, it's a story about a young man, Joshua (James Frecheville) growing up in a household in which most of his family are dealing in criminal activities. He finds himself torn between family loyalty and the letter of the law.
I have to admit, this will be a little short since it's been a little while since I've seen it (a refresher course sometime soon might be in order) but this 2010 film (Red Hill was also a 2010 release, so a better year for Australian film all round) is still worth watching. Joel Edgerton perhaps gave the best performance, to me, and was the most likable character, which can be hard when most of the family are irredeemable at best. And it always kept you guessing, never telegraphing its punches.

The King (Matthew Saville)
A telemovie biopic, this spans from the early career of one of our greatest entertainers, Graham Kennedy (Stephen Curry) to his later years.
Stephen Curry has long played comedic characters in feelgood comedies like Take Away and Thunderstruck but despite Graham Kennedy being one of the biggest jokers in the business, Stephen goes above and beyond in portraying his tortured side, the offscreen dramatic persona. Stephen rarely plays the leading role and it's about damn time he got the recognition he deserves.
And as an added bonus, Australian treasures like Shaun Micallef and Angus Sampson lend their considerable talents to this picture. I will admit I am not all that familiar with Kennedy's body of work but with a movie like this, it makes me want to learn more.

Chopper (Andrew Dominik)
Another biopic, this time about a notorious crime figure (told you we do the crime films really well) Mark Brandon “Chopper” Read. Based on the books written by Chopper himself, it's mostly about a stretch in Chopper's life in and out of prison.
Easily Eric Bana's best role to date (and this includes Hanna, which places second), he escapes into this role with ease and he looks like he's having so much fun. Chopper is equal parts intimidating, complex and hilarious (in one scene, Chopper is being questioned by police about a shooting, after the man has ended up in hospital and responds with “Why would I shoot a bloke BANG, then drive him to the bloody car and wizz him off to the hospital at a hundred miles an hour? It defeats the purpose of having shot him in the first place.” I love that scene). Might just be Vince Colosimo's best role, too and the film even adapts one of my favourite anecdotes from the first book (been a while since I've read those, though I am pretty sure it's the first book. It's not in one of the later books, since it was around the fifth of sixth that Chopper turned the series into a fictional one).
Not for the squeamish but for everybody else, an absolute must see.

The Castle (Rob Sitch)
One of the most well known Australian efforts. Darryl Kerrigan (Michael Caton) and his family have carved out their little piece of paradise but developers want to take that away by expanding on the airport the family lives near. Darryl won't take this sitting down and vows to fight them off and keep his home.
When Australians talk about “the little Aussie battler”, the Kerrigans are often considered to be the quintessential battlers. A modest, quiet and funny Australian film, with a fantastic cast (Eric Bana and Stephen Curry show up here too) and lovable characters, it really makes me wish we could be more like the Kerrigans. Enthusiastic, full of fighting spirit, loyal and loving to our families. A must watch.

But now, for not only my favourite Australian film but one that's in my top 100 films of all time (I'll probably get to that list somewhere down the track):

Suburban Mayhem (Paul Goldman)
Katrina Skinner (Emily Barclay) is interested only in the superficial things in life like cars and manicures and commits petty crimes for the Hell of it. Whatever she wants, she gets and if she can't get it, she'll make you regret denying her pleasures. So when her father plans on getting her daughter removed from her care, she puts into motion the biggest crime she can think of.
There is so much to love here. Emily Barclay is a triumph as the manipulative Katrina, who disappears into this role so easily, you wonder how Emily shook it off when filming finished. Despite knowing how it ended, the plot still managed to shock. And the soundtrack? Frickin' awesome! Little Birdy's This Is A Love Song, Suzi Quatro's 48 Crash, The Spazzy's Paco Doesn't Love Me, the list goes on. Kickarse songs by kickarse women.
Also, this movie has Mia Wasikowska in it, so you have this to thank.

I could go on with more films (like BoyTown, Bad Eggs and Crackerjack) but to make up for it, I will review them somewhere down the track. And possibly some of our great TV shows too. But for now, go out and seek some Australiana for yourself!

Don't Think About Batman, Don't Think About Batman...

So, I finally saw Sherlock Holmes: A Game Of Shadows over the weekend. After organizing to go see it with friends, all the stars aligned, plans were made and good times were had by all.

But you don't want to read about that. No, you want to know my thoughts on the movie (well, I assume that's the reason you're here. If you came here by accident, I apologize for boring you and leave you to go on your way). And while I was going to watch a couple more new releases before I got to this movie, as it turns out, one didn't show up at my local cinema and the other is only playing in the evenings, which is when I'm sleeping before I work (midnight starts, in case you were wondering), so they've been postponed for the moment, until I get a night off and possibly see the one in the evening or DVD release.
Alright, let's get started. You may recall a little while ago, I did a blog on the first Sherlock Holmes film, as I had rewatched it in anticipation for the sequel, and complimented the acting and having Sherlock be more action-orientated. Well, lets see if A Game Of Shadows can expand on that.

Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey, Jr.) is doing his best to thwart the plans of Professor James Moriarty (Jared Harris) but finds himself being outmaneuvered at every turn. But with attempts being made on the lives of his faithful-yet-snarky companion Dr. Watson (Jude Law), the good doctor's blushing new bride, Mary (Kelly Reilly) and Simza (Noomi Rapace), a woman targeted because her brother works for Moirarty, the game just became more serious and Sherlock must use all his wits to overcome the evil machinations of the man he dubs “the Napoleon of crime”.

Now, much as I hate to compare it to something Batman related (and yes, obviously I acknowledge that without Sherlock, Batman would have turned out drastically different), A Game Of Shadows reminds me of The Dark Knight, in the sense that the arch nemesis was saved for the sequel and hinted at with the ending of the first film. This was a great move, as it increases the tension and it allows the hero to establish themselves before taking on a greater threat, thus making the antagonist that much more impressive when they lock horns and adds an air of credibility (though unlike The Dark Knight, Sherlock had already been operating before the events of the first movie, though the film is our first to see how the Sherlock of this universe operates). Jared and Robert play off each other well, with neither one disrespecting the other, both in-character and as actors. Jared manages to be menacing while remaining calm and relatively sociable, rarely if ever raising his voice.
And he has own aide in Col. Sebastian Moran (Paul Anderson), who serves as a foil for Watson in his own way, both men being members of the army, though Moran was dishonourably discharged and became a mercenary for hire. Paul Anderson is great and I'm really hoping we haven't seen the last of Moran in this series.

If Jared and Paul were great additions in a villainous capacity, then Stephen Fry is a huge bonus for the heroic side. He's dry and witty, much like Stephen Fry offscreen. I imagine that in playing Mycroft Holmes, all Stephen has to do is put on clothes from a different era and he's good to go. Like Paul, I'm hoping for a return in future installments.

Much like the previous film, Robert and Jude were great and further developed their love-hate relationship onscreen, mostly based on Sherlock's interference in Watson's honeymoon (and seriously, don't hurt his wife or else your neck will suddenly have hands around it) and have great banter between them. Bickering like an old married couple, as the saying goes.

Noomi Rapace was certainly interesting. This is the first role I've seen her in (she'd be best known for originating the role of Lisbeth Salander in the original adaptations of the Millennium Trilogy, which I actually picked up before seeing the movie. Funny how these things work out) and I think she did pretty good. The character is impressive with her knives and I'm glad they didn't force a romance between her and Sherlock, but made her almost like a second sidekick, like Sherlock is The Doctor.

Wait... that would make sense, Moriarty does look like a form the Master would take. His plan is something the Master would instigate, given the time period. Sherlock is almost always right, has amazing abilities, has a companion, has eccentricities and quirks, survives the impossible time and time again, remains cool under pressure... maybe Sherlock IS The Doctor? Hmm. Must investigate further.

But seriously, she is a nice addition and isn't just slotted in to replace the void left by Rachel McAdams, who does appear in this, albeit briefly, but makes good use of the time she has.

Much like the previous film, the action is fast-paced and frantic. Good ol' fisticuffs, with some gunplay in the second half (and a cannon. Yeah, that scene is frickin' sweet) and Holmes once again narrating his moves internally (and he's not the only one...) makes for some interesting fight choreography. His timing is impeccable and his deductive skills while fighting remain ever sharp, noticing weakness he can exploit (like Batman! Damn it, I promised myself I wasn't going to do too many comparisons to Batman).

The dialogue too is as sharp as to be expected, with the mind games between Moriarty and Holmes the highlights. Dialogue is even lifted from the Holmes story The Final Problem, the story that first introduced Moriarty and thus, one of fiction's earliest supervillains was born. And the finale, without spoilers, also refers to that story.

There's really not much, if anything, to fault here. Guy Ritchie's done another solid film, with an excellent cast and crew. We may have to wait a while for the next one (and even longer for The Real Rock'N'Rolla, unfortunately) as Guy is possibly preparing to do his own take on The Man From U.N.C.L.E but I'm a (mostly) patient man. As for this film, a solid 4/5.

The Cool And The Crazy Shapiro

Did you ever have one of those movies that you watched, enjoyed it, didn't think about it much for a while but then it comes back full force, compels you to watch it again and suddenly you love it? Well, that's what I had with the movie for today's blog, Hey Good Lookin'.

Directed by Ralph Bakshi, who also wrote and produced it, Hey Good Lookin' is set in the 50's and explores the typical things protagonist Vinnie (Richard Romanus) and his aptly named friend, Crazy Shapiro (David Proval) do with their time. Vinnie leads a gang called the Stompers, who are in constant conflict with rival gang the Chaplins. Vinnie wanders through life, not quite knowing what to do with himself, pursuing and also being pursued by Rozzie Featherschneid (Tina Romanus). Eventually, his ways bring forth a rumble between his gang and the Chaplins, with Vinnie struggling to decide where he wants to go in life.

Up until the third act, the film is largely a collection of set pieces, connected by its characters, with the rumble acting as the climax of the film and the culmination of what Vinnie's been heading towards since he got into the life he did. Actually, I should point out, the film has a framing device: a mysterious man tells a middle aged woman about where he got a jacket from, one he presents to her. This is what leads into the story of Vinnie.

Now, usually I would warn about spoilers at this point, but I think I can safely say what I need to without giving too much away. However, I do want to discuss the ending so I will put up an appropriate warning when we get to that.

As I mention in my introduction, I thought very highly of this film when I first watched it but after watching it again, I've been able to not only see things in a different way and understand them but also put my finger on what it is that brings me back.

First, the animation. Originally, the film was supposed to be a blend of live action and animation, much like Who Framed Roger Rabbit would be. Instead, it ended up being mostly animation (I say mostly, there were some live action shots with the animated characters). And it's amazing. It's very Looney Tunes-esque in places, while still being for mature audiences. Very mature audiences. The character designs, the little imperfections, the variance, it all works.
One scene in particular has some of the most amazing animation I've ever seen, in anything. Before the big rumble, several Chaplins are dancing and mocking the Stompers and the animation on the gang members is like another world unto itself. Even the trippy scenes have great attention to detail and certainly are memorable.

The characters themselves can prove to be quite complex, Vinnie in particular. Despite cultivating a tough guy image, inwardly he seems to be hesitant to actually be violent. He cares more about maintaining his looks (always seems to have a comb at the ready) and staying out of trouble than he does about anything gang related, despite being its leader. He kind of goes between a self-absorbed putz and a gentle, almost worldly fellow, particularly with Rozzie. One of his more positive traits is that he seems to be very respectful to women (usually), like in the scene in which he, Rozzie, Crazy and Crazy's girlfriend Eva (Jesse Welles) are at a hamburger joint and Vinnie insists that Crazy spend a little more time intimately with Eva. That could just be so he can have some privacy with Roz, but I'd like to think he has a code of honour when it comes to women (again, usually. I say that because he and Crazy do visit some prostitutes early on, though Vinnie seems to be unaware of this at first, with Crazy leaping right into it).
Throughout the film, evidence is dropped that indicates Vinnie's more of a talker than a fighter. He talks a big game but when the pressure's on to deliver on what he promised, he finds new excuses to weasel out of it. There's a scene in which he and Crazy have slept on a beach, and when they wake up, they find that the local mafia have all gathered, completely oblivious to the two. After Crazy goes off to ogle some of the women, Vinnie finds a corpse in the sand. His first reaction? Scream. Which brings both of them to the attention of said mafia. While Crazy's getting the crap beat out of him, Vinnie's hightailing it out and runs into the Chaplins, since its their turf. When Chaplins leader Boogaloo (Phillip Michael Thomas) suggests a rumble, Vinnie actually swallows his cigarette before regaining his composure and taking the offer up.

Crazy, on the other hand, shouldn't be called Crazy. He should be renamed Clinically Insane. I compared the animation to the Looney Tunes up above. Well Crazy could very well be the forgotten Looney Tune. He's always doing something wild, madcap. As is noted by Roz later, he might just have more balls than Vinnie, for its his actions that help bring the plot to the ending it reaches. Had he not been so hotheaded, things would have turned out differently.
In fact, early on, he's talking to Vinnie about how he loves going up to the roof of his place at night and looking at the stars and he feels like painting a picture. This hints at a deeper level of character, much like Vinnie, though it doesn't get explored all that much.

And for Roz, I feel kind of sorry for her (this will be addressed in the spoiler section) but she's still a pretty strong character in her own right.

One criticism I have for the film: now, I don't hate Eva but she's clearly the odd one out of the four of them. Dressed like she's in training to be a librarian, she doesn't seem like the type of girl to go for what Crazy's got going for him. But what's really weird is that she just disappears after the scene at the hamburger joint. She's never mentioned again, either. Uh, movie, did you forget something? Or someone?

(It is here that the spoilers will occur. If you wish to see this film and don't want to know the ending, skip ahead to my penultimate paragraph on the soundtrack.)

Remember the mysterious man and the woman he's telling the story to? As it is revealed in the final minutes of the film, it's actually Vinnie and Roz, neither of whom have aged very well. If you're wondering how it wasn't revealed at the start, it's because Vinnie's voice has aged and Roz doesn't speak at that point. Roz blasts Vinnie, saying he let her down by leaving and chickening out of the rumble but says he has a second chance to win her back now by fighting her husband who's going to walk through the door of the bar they're in at any moment. In his mind, Vinnie dismisses it and makes a crude remark about the female gender. However, he comforts Roz and makes it seem like he's going to stick around this time.

I'm not exactly sure of the intent, but I believe that while Vinnie's tempted to cut and run again, he ignores this impulse because that's all he's done in his life and he's tired of it. He's not getting any younger and he can't keep it up forever. Adding on to that, when he sweet talks Roz, he holds her like a lover would, suggesting he may just settle down after all.
Of course, that could just be me being foolish, but with the scene playing out the way it does, the evidence is there.
And this is where I go back to what I was saying about how I felt sorry for Roz. Just before Vinnie finishes his story, we see Roz going to a phone booth, barely containing her tears, wanting to make a dedication on the radio to Vinnie, who she believes died in the rumble. The emotion in that scene, emanating from the voice actress, really sells the whole thing and despite her own indiscretions and her tough girl attitude, she really felt something for the guy and I can't help but be a little moved by that.

(This ends the spoiler section.)

But one of the most memorable things is the soundtrack, which is probably the film's trump card. Oh my God, I love these songs! From the opening track baring the film's title, which sounds like it really was a song from the 50's, to Crazy's Theme, which is just as erratic and infectious as his character is, to the slick and stylish Burnin'. I'll often be humming along to Hey Good Lookin' or thinking of Burnin' and the soundtrack has just taken over my mind on occasion, as has this whole film. I really want a copy of this soundtrack, I am that obsessed with it.

I understand that this film is extremely hard to come by, no doubt in part because Bakshi himself has come to be displeased with it. Well, I say if you can find it, GRAB IT WHILE YOU STILL CAN! One of the greatest animated films I've ever seen, easily in the top five.

An easy 4.5/5 for this gem, and this will be the first of many Bakshi films I review (if not all of them but I'll save them for another time).

From Hell's Heart, I Snark At Thee

And now, for another edition of “Australians Being Complete Dumbarses”. If you recall, I once blogged about a boy who bought drugs overseas, got caught, was arrested and the story was being shopped around. Well today, about a week before my nation's national day even, I bring another story of my country's people making complete arses of themselves. So, in short, it's rant time again.

I'm fairly sure overseas readers won't be familiar with this oceanic incident (especially not with the current incident at sea, with the cruise ship hitting rocks off an Italian coast. And my thoughts on that are the sooner the captain is behind bars and getting beaten with sticks, the better) so I'll go into a little background: as is common knowledge, there has been considerable controversy on the Japanese whaling ships. In retaliation, protesters have taken their own ships out there to combat the whalers (one celebrity protester being Isabel Lucas, though I use the term celebrity loosely in her case. As if I didn't already have a reason to hate her, either. And on behalf of Australia, I apologize to the rest of the world for her existence. And Sophie Monk's, too).

Now, before I get into the main focus of this blog, I want to go on record and say I have no opinion on what the Japanese are doing out there. On the one hand, the protesters and activists aren't exactly being subtle with their campaigns and are making themselves look like the villains they're trying to paint the Japanese whalers as. On the other, what exactly can you learn from whales that you hunt and kill?

But what my blog is focusing on today is the behaviour of some of these protesters. A little while ago, three protesters got the idea into their heads that boarding a whaling vessel and forcing the whalers to stop was a stroke of genius. Armed only with a sign saying “Return us to shore in Australia and then remove yourself from our waters”, they boarded and remained on board for some time. Upon being rescued, it was established that this would end up costing Australian taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars for this rescue.

OK, where to start on how pissed off this entire thing makes me.

First off, I don't know much about law in the ocean and where one country's jurisdiction begins and another ends but I'm pretty sure boarding another ship is not only illegal in that your entry is unauthorized but by the fact that you may not even be in your own waters. I don't know if this happened in international waters but I'm sure several laws were broken.

Next, how arrogant do you have to be to assume that between three people, you were going to stop the whalers on your own? What, were they supposed to be awesomed by your presence? “Oh no, three Australians! Clearly we are no match for you, we should pack up and go, lest we incur your wrath!” I mean, I didn't think protesters would go packing heat but what did your strategy involve? Was there even a strategy?

Speaking of strategies, what was your exit strategy? Did you expect dolphins would show up at the convenient moment and whisk you back to Australia like you were in a 90's children's film? Did you think you were guests aboard the ship and that the Japanese would take a right and drop you off even though it was out of their way? Bet you wouldn't put in for gas if that was the case, lousy freeloaders.

The obvious fact that you are protesters already pisses me off, because you're part of the stereotype ones, the ones that think you're so high and mighty and better than the rest of us because you're defending the Earth. Newsflash: a lot of the animals you go out of your way to protect? They will eat you if given the chance. They won't go “Hey, are you that one dude that saved all the dancing bears? Sorry bro, didn't mean to bite at you, you're a hero! Can I have your autograph?” Most animals will not recognize the difference between good and bad human when they're hungry or on a rampage. So, your actions are for naught. Now, if you were content with merely stopping animal testing or protesting fur, more power to you, provided you don't act like dicks about it. But you guys missed that class didn't you?

No, I think what pisses me off most isn't the fact that this is coming out of our pockets, even though that is frustrating, or that you're making us look bad to other countries by showing them we're bullies who go where we please. No, it's the fact that you show no remorse for anything you've done and have not apologized.
I may be paraphrasing or misremembering slightly but I believe one of them said something to the effect of “everyone's entitled to one free rescue”. Being rescued from a burning building or crashed plane is more than acceptable, especially since it wouldn't be the fault of any passengers and probably not of crew. Being rescued from a boat you boarded, illegally I remind you, does not entitle you to the same privilege. Your general attitude towards the whole thing is immature and I liken it to a kid who has done something wrong, been picked up by their parents and not understood or cared about what has just transpired.

There. That's it in a nutshell. You are children. You're acting childish towards citizens from another country, you believe your way is right and you loudly announce so, you go where you please and you can't admit you've done wrong. Exactly like bad children. You owe not just the whaling ships an apology, but all of us too, for shaming us, costing us money in an already unstable economy and for acting like you've done the right thing.

Right, I'd better end this before I get too frustrated. And yes, I know I changed styles from talking about these idiots to talking to them but that's what happens when you rant, trains of thought go to all sorts of stations.

Bottom line, you want to protest, do it right and be smart about it. It's not about proving you're right by demeaning your opponent or lying, it's about using what you have to say “Well, this is my argument, here are my facts to back it up”. Bullying is not the way to do it. And again, I remind you all I am not defending the whalers. Sometimes, a conflict can have two villains. I'm not saying the whalers are but I do know they are least acting with more dignity than this trio of tosspots.

Should Have Taken Platform Nine-And-Three-Quarters

And to start off a new week, we have another 2012 release (by Australian standards, at least, like the last two movies I've reviewed) that I ventured out to see (still not Sherlock Holmes: A Game Of Shadows, and there will probably be a couple more films before that). This time around, I saw the latest Martin Scorsese picture, Hugo.

Hugo is based on the illustrated novel The Invention Of Hugo Cabret, written by Brian Selznick.
Hugo (Ava Butterfield) lives at a railway station in 1930's Paris after the death of his father (Jude Law), maintaining the clocks in secret while avoiding the station inspector, Gustav (Sacha Baron Cohen). Hugo strives to complete an automaton that he and his father were working on just before his father's death. This project involves him stealing parts from a local toy booth owner, Papa Georges (Ben Kingsley), who is apprehensive and cold towards the boy. His goddaughter, Isabelle (Chloe Grace Moretz), takes an interest in Hugo and together, the two set out to complete the automaton and uncover the secrets within.

Goodfellas. Taxi Driver. Gangs Of New York. Mean Streets. Casino. All works by Scorsese, all about violent people and none of them are definitely for the eyes of youngsters. Even his films like The Age Of Innocence and Kundun aren't really something he had in mind for the little ones. So, it's a huge surprise to see a film like this considering all that's come before. But I can understand wanting a change of scenery. I mean, he's got a daughter who I think is about 12 years old and it's not like she can sit down and watch any of his current filmography.

When I first saw the trailer, I have to admit I wasn't overly impressed. I kind of expected it to be a fantastical, whimsical and magical adventure, not unlike Harry Potter. I mean, it didn't look bad, but it didn't stand out. Having seen it now, I am relieved that the magic comes more from the heart than it does from spells and sorcerers.

Scorsese has assembled an impressive cast and a few of the actors and actresses I believe he's working with for the first time, too.
Though, oddly enough, it is the films lead that I find the most polarising. On the one hand, when he needs to emote, the kid can emote. His tears are sincere and when his face fills with wonder, it is such a joy to behold. But at the same time, the character can come off as unresponsive and rude (despite being told later that he has “good manners... for a thief”) as he doesn't say please when asking for things, especially whenever he asks for his notebook back and he doesn't respond immediately. And no, I will not accept “well, the death of his father at such a young age made sure he didn't develop the proper social skills” because whenever we see the flashbacks with his father, he seems a lot more well-adjusted. And yeah, the effects of death manifest in all different forms but it's not like he was raised by wolves when he died, he did have a life before the tragedy. If his father had died when he was an infant, this might make more sense. He does improve in the third act, but for the first two, you kind of understand why Ben Kingsley's character wants nothing to do with the boy.

Speaking of Ben Kingsley, his character is probably my favourite of the whole movie. Throughout the first two acts, he plays the role of a bitter, aged man without making him unsympathetic or hamming it up by bellowing for no reason. And by the third, when you understand his past better, it just makes him that much more a three dimensional character. And (spoiler alert!) knowing that the character is actually someone from real life, it makes the journey (character development-wise and literal) that much more heartwarming. It's not my favourite role of his (that's still his Dr. Watson in Without A Clue, equally tied with Itzhak Stern, and for the record, I have yet to see Gandhi or House Of Sand And Fog and a whole bunch of others).

If Hugo is aloof and serious, Isabelle is his antithesis. Well, she is serious but in the sense that she's mature for her age, not like Hugo who seems to be single minded. Chloe Moretz is delightful as the inquisitive, quick-witted adventure-seeking girl with a vibrant look on life. I actually think she makes a better protagonist than Hugo, which is kind of sad considering it's Hugo's movie.

Also turning in a great performance is Sacha Baron Cohen as the train station inspector. The man is able to come up with new and interesting performances with every project he undertakes and this is no exception. Despite being the closest thing this movie has to an antagonist (another factor I like about the movie, the lack of a conventional villain. I mean, sure, I love villains but if the film doesn't need one, it can make for more interesting viewing sometimes), he is still sympathetic with his own subplot about attracting the attention of a sweet and pretty flower girl (played by Emily Mortimer, who is ever so adorable in this movie. Not that she isn't in others, but especially here) and getting too tongue tied to strike up a conversation with her, not helped by his leg injury from the First World War. While his own backstory is only ever glossed over, it hints at a life not entirely unlike Hugo's and he also gets some of the funniest lines of the movie, like the running gag involving his conversations with another man expecting a baby with his wife, and is unsure if he is the father.

Much like The Muppets was a love letter from a lifelong fan to the entire franchise, so too is this a love letter to... well, movies themselves. The film goes into great detail about the first films ever made and describes how much of an influence they came to be. Hugo and his father loved the movies, and it is this that forms part of the drive for Hugo to complete his father's work. This film is a vessel in which Martin Scorsese is basically saying “For every thing you've allowed me to do and achieve in my career, this is my thank you.” He goes back to the beginning and it's not just the third act and all its revelations, the entire film holds homages to the silent era. A lot of the film relies on the expressions of its actors and scenes lacking dialogue to carry the movie and for the most part, they work. Heck, even the promotional poster of Hugo hanging from a clock is an homage to a film called Safety Last!, starring Harold Lloyd.

It may not be my favourite of Scorsese's filmography, but it is incredibly heartfelt. I give Hugo a 3.5/5.

Penny, All Grown Up

So, on the opposite side of the spectrum from the fun and frivolity of The Muppets, we have the grim and tense second adaptation of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, the second film I saw on Thursday. Yeah, that would look weird as a double billing on a marque.

Before someone asks, I will answer what will probably be the first questions that spring to mind:
Yes, I did read the book before I saw the movie
No, I haven't read The Girl Who Played With Fire or The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest yet, though they will be the next books I read
No, I haven't seen the first adaptations, I will reserve that for when I finish the books and watch all of them back-to-back.

Now, here's where I give my spoiler warning but it's a little different. If you haven't read the book, then yes, spoilers will probably pop up. If you have, aside from one thing I'll get to (and even then I won't overtly blurt it out), then you'll know roughly what the movie will contain.

So with that, let's get to the plot:

After losing a libel case against a corrupt businessman, Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig) takes leave of absence from his position at the Millenium magazine publication and receives a proposition
from a retired CEO, Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer), in which he will be handsomely paid, in more ways than one, if he can solve the murder of his niece, Harriet, a case from years before.
Eventually, he crosses paths with expert hacker, Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara) and the two team up to solve the case.

Now, that's just a condensed version of a summary (even more so than normal) but that's because Lisbeth has her own subplot before her meeting with Mikael, but I'll cover some of that in the paragraphs below.

On the merits of an adaptation, it's a solid translation from book to screen. Of course, not everything from the book was going to make it but what doesn't would have been cut for purposes of tightening the film and keeping the running time to a decent length (it's a little over 2 hours already). The characters have jumped to the big screen and lost little, if any, of their impact. And when you have characters as strong as these, tinkering around is something that will come to bite you in the arse.

On its own merits, it's a very engaging mystery, with intense moments in both the main story and Lisbeth's own subplot. Well, I only say subplot because while it is important for her character development, the mystery is what brings Lisbeth and Mikael together.

For the girl with the dragon tattoo herself, Lisbeth is portrayed wonderfully by Rooney Mara. Her character has hidden reserves of strength and her reactions to all the crap in her life are refreshing to see, since they mostly resolve with her becoming more determined to kick arse.
Take (here's a spoiler for those not familiar with the book) the very, VERY uncomfortable scene in which she is raped by her social worker/guardian. Now, it was shocking in the book, but like most things, what makes the movie worse (not in terms of sucking but in terms of horrific nature) is the inclusion of a soundtrack and the performance of the actress (unless anyone out there has a soundtrack playing in their head when they read book).
After a scene in the shower, in which she is visibly tormented, rather than have her break down and cry (but in all fairness, I would not blame her if she did, what she went through is not something I wish upon my worst enemies. Hydrochloric acid in their face, maybe, but not that), she gets her revenge and doesn't break down in front of him. She remains as fierce and stoic as she normally is and makes it clear how much of a living Hell his life will be if he doesn't obey her wishes (and she caps it off by using a tattoo needle to etch “I AM A RAPIST PIG” on his stomach, to warn future potential victims). If her character wasn't defined before, then this serves as her establishing character moment. They say Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned? No, Hell hath no fury like Lisbeth Salander pissed off.
Y'know, Lisbeth actually kind of reminds me of a grown-up Penny from Inspector Gadget, though obviously much darker (thus the title of the blog). She's an expert hacker, her parents are out of the picture, she cares for her guardian, she's on the side of good and she likes animals.

My absolute favourite scene is when Mikael comes to Lisbeth's apartment and discusses why he's there. At first, she's aloof and not interested in what he has to say. Once he mentions that women have been murdered or abused, her expression changes. She looks right at him, eyes wide, mouth slightly open as if in shock. It's almost like without words, she's saying “I'm in”. It is through this she displays her dedication to justice and fighting the corrupt and evil people of the world.

Daniel Craig is also more than exceptional in his role as the determined (there's that word again. If there's one word that defines these characters, its determination) and inquisitive Mikael. He remains undeterred and much like when Daniel plays Bond, if he's ever terrified, he doesn't let it show (and in a slight spoiler for two movies, anyone remember the scene in Casino Royale when Bond's being tortured and he mocks the guy, saying the world's going to know he died scratching Bond's balls? Minus the witty banter and ball scratching and Daniel's in familiar territory). The way his relationship with Lisbeth develops is great to see, especially with Lisbeth not being very trusting of men (or people in general, really. The fact that by the end of the movie, she considers him a friend, is touching in and of itself).

Also, props to Christopher Plummer and Stellan Skarsgard. Christopher Plummer adds another layer of warmth to a character I very much liked in the book, he's altruistic and family orientated (well, the family he can stand anyway. Which is... well, he could buy a new family if he wanted to). And Stellan Skarsgard is proving to be an actor I need to watch out for, after this and Thor, I'm hoping to see more of his work.

And on a smaller note, I was concerned that the story was going to be transplanted to America so as not to scare off American audiences, but if anything, all that's been done is just have the characters speak English, albeit with accents. Big thumbs up for that.

Now, if I have one complaint, it's in the form of a slight spoiler. In the book, Australia actually plays a big part in the resolution of the mystery and several locations are actually mentioned. In the movie... well, once again, we get the shaft. Seriously, are we repellent or something? Why couldn't have that part of the novel stayed intact?

But on a more positive note, the opening title. Not just for the awesome, almost music clip style opening, the song playing is frickin' sweet. It's a cover of Led Zeppelin's Immigrant Song as sung by Karen O of the Yeah Yeah Yeahs. And when I left the cinema, you bet I was humming along with it. It is the best Zeppelin cover EVER. I want that song on my laptop and I will get it somehow, dammit! In fact, I need a copy of the soundtrack, the entire score is sweet.

So, all in all, does the film stack up well compared to the book and on its own? A resounding yes on both counts. The Australian film season of 2012 has already gotten off to a great start, let's hope it can remain this consistent. The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo gets a 4/5 from me. And here's hoping the first adaptations (and the rest of the books) will be equally as great. And also, that Fincher, Craig and Mara see this trilogy through to the end.

Well, It's Not Quite A Mop, It's Not Quite A Puppet...

After doing my three part blog on the movies I saw in 2011, it gave me the drive to get out to the cinema more often and get these movies seen as soon as possible, and also to blog about each movie I see. Now, while I have been wanting to see Sherlock Holmes: A Game Of Shadows, that is not what kicks off my film season for 2012. I'll get to it, but when you're organizing movie days with friends, it's not so easy to get everything lined up. No, I have something else lined up for the first film of the year (and second, that will be covered in the next blog). What did I see first off? Well, as you might have guessed from the blog title, it's The Muppets.

I should preface this review by saying that I never saw much of The Muppet Show when I was a tyke. A few things here and there but it was never something I watched consistently. Same with Muppet Babies. Now, Muppets Tonight, that I watched and I really enjoyed it, and I credit that for my interest in The Muppets. I still have to check out their entire film series, but as of writing, I do have the first season of The Muppet Show in my seemingly never-ending “to watch” pile, so that will tide me over for the time being.

What's the plot? Well, Walter (voiced by Peter Linz) is a huge Muppet fan, as is his brother, Gary (Jason Segel). Upon visiting the old, run-down Muppet Studio, he uncovers a plot by oil magnate Tex Richman (Chris Cooper) to destroy the studio and drill for oil if the Muppets are unable to come up with ten million dollars. Walter, Gary and Gary's girlfriend, Mary (Amy Adams) seek out Kermit the Frog to explain the situation and stop the drilling. This inspire Kermit to get the gang back together and reclaim their studio.

Yeah, the plot's not breaking new ground but I don't care. It's like the Super Mario games: the song remains the same but that doesn't mean they don't tinker with it to produce a different experience every time. After being away for so long, it's just good to have them back in the limelight.

It's sometimes worrying when an old or long-running franchise gets some new blood running the show, you worry that they'll try and “modernize” it or do something for the younger crowd, like dropping loads of slang or references to things the characters shouldn't rightly know (I'd have probably come out punching a Muppet display if they had mentioned twats like that Nicki Minaj or Jersey Shore), it'd be like if Bugs Bunny teamed up with Myley Cyrus, you'd have huge fan revolts for including people who have no right being there. But it's like Jason Segel (who had a hand in writing the script) and the crew knew this going in and kept that feel-good Muppet charm. And that to me is how you go about it, it's like remaking a song: you don't change the song to suit you because the song may not work in that style and it shows arrogance. But you can't change yourself to suit the song because you compromise your own beliefs. Rather, you meet the middle ground and stay in spirit with the original work while adding that touch that makes it stand out. And that's exactly what has happened here, it's got the family-friendly charm while referencing the changing of times and the absence of the Muppets and the effect its had in entertainment as a whole.

Staying with the family-friendly charm, its so good to see that the Muppets can still be funny and keep it clean. A lot of the humor comes from the constant fourth-well breaking (“If I didn't know any better, I'd say you were reciting some sort of important plot point”) and just the general madcap world that the Muppets inhabit (like Gonzo having a remote with one button, whose only function is to blow up his plumbing business. It's even labeled Automatic Destroy Plumbing Business Button!)

Now, one of the best aspects of this film is how it wants to connect with its new audience, the young ones who have never seen or barely know the Muppets. Through Walter, they learn the basics of the Muppets but he also represents the lifelong fans as well, since he and Gary have been watching since they were kids. Walter, in a sense, is the gateway between the old and the new. He has the fan mentality of someone who grew up with the show (fan mentality in a good way, not a toll or stalker kind) but he's also possibly the first Muppet for many youngsters, and with this being his debut, he's new to all of us.
Walter is extremely likable and never comes off as a creepy fan, which also heightens the idea that the Muppet world leans toward the positive. Kermit never dismisses him, he's never looked down upon or treated as inferior. In fact, Kermit seems very eager to have him be a part of the show, which is also something I praise this movie for. While he's always been nice and non-confrontational, seeing that Kermit hasn't changed, regardless of the way things have turned out. He's still as humble and dedicated as always. And the fact the so willingly becomes the mentor to Walter, even when Walter wasn't expecting anything, just reinforces why he's so beloved.
And that's actually my favourite aspect of Walter, too. He didn't get the Muppets back together just to perform with them, and he didn't come with some big talent to show off, he just wanted to save something he loved. He didn't even think he should be a part of the show, he just wanted to help. Now, everyone's going to have their own opinions on what make a true fan for any franchise but I believe Walter displays one of the signs of true fandom, in that he doesn't want to join, at first, for fear of ruining something he loved. Much like his mentor, Walter is humble through and through.

While the humans (rightfully) take the backseat to the Muppets, they are far from useless. Both Jason and Amy are positively wonderful and their relationship is so sweet and innocent. While we're cheering Jason on in his attempts to help the Muppets, we're still sympathetic to Mary's desire to get Gary to pay more attention to her and maybe settle down. And displaying their feelings through song, it makes them even more sympathetic.

Speaking of the songs, oh my stars and garters are they fantastic! Life's A Happy Song is so cheery you can't help but bop along, Pictures In My Head is soulful and introspective, with glimmers of hope, Party Of One has Amy show off the best dancing I've seen in ages and Man Or Muppet is both deep and hilarious (also, Jason Segel's puppet double is awesome).

However, some of the songs also contribute to a couple of the gripes I have with this movie. OK, one song: Bad To The Bone. Yes, it's used to establish that one of the minor antagonists is bad and they don't play it long but really, that song is overused and I hate it. Whenever the song gets to the “B-b-b-bad” part, it always makes me think of a helicopter for some reason, or someone imitating one and for the life of me, I don't know why but I hate the song regardless. True bad boys don't boast about being bad, they let their actions speak for themselves. So piss off with your song.

Another thing: what the Hell is Selena Gomez doing in this movie? Does she even know who the Muppets are? She's part of the generation that thinks “old sucks, new is kewl, lolzor!!1” Hell, the first (maybe only line, can't quite remember) mentions that her agent told her to be there, all with a look of disdain on her face. Selena Gomez, leave the entertainment industry. NOW.

Also, fart shoes. This movie has Fozzie wearing fart shoes. That's just not funny. The Muppets are better than that.
On the flip side, here's my favourite joke from the movie: Rowlf's asking why, during the montage of getting the Muppets back together, they skipped over his story. We cut to that: it's Rowlf sleeping in a hammock, with Kermit coming up and saying “You wanna get back together?” Rowlf says “OK” and then it cuts back to the car with the rest of the Muppets, with Rowlf giving a chuckle and saying “Classic”.

To say this is the ultimate love letter to any fanbase is an understatement. If you are a Muppet fan, I'm sure your favourite is there (mine were, and incidentally, mine are Statler, Waldorf, Beeker and the Swedish Chef). If you're not, but only because you know little of them, I urge you to see it. It's fun and heartwarming. 4/5

The Original Defective Detective

With Sherlock Holmes: A Game Of Shadows currently out in cinemas all over the world, I thought I'd re-watch the first movie to get myself pumped for the second film (not that I need it, I was already excited for it after the end of the first. But I'm getting ahead of myself).

Now, you can already guess what direction this review is leaning towards, but I can still break down what I liked and the plot details and such. Speaking of, there may be spoilers (well, as much as I can spoil anyway. Having a sequel means some things are kind of already spoiled, but since I didn't have a blog back when this movie came out, I couldn't talk about it during its initial run in cinemas).

I don't think I need to go into an origin story for Sherlock Holmes, he's one of the most well known pop culture creations. And when it comes to media adaptations, I wouldn't be surprised if he has the most or at least makes the top five (I do remember reading somewhere it was Dracula who had the most film adaptations or just different media adaptations in general, I may be wrong though). He's had a few comics, appeared in all sorts of TV shows and even had one set in the future, Sherlock Holmes In The 22nd Century (I never saw it so I can't say whether it worked or not), and if you wanted a movie marathon with just anything Holmes related, you'd probably have to take a week off work just to get through them all.

I must confess, I haven't read any of the actual stories yet, or seen many of the adaptations/different versions. One I have seen and highly recommend is Without A Clue, which goes with the idea that Watson is really the detective but hires a drunken actor to be Sherlock Holmes and sells the stories. And I am not just recommending it because Michael Caine plays Sherlock Holmes (though that wording alone should be enough to entice you).
But what worries me is, from what I know of the public perception of Sherlock Holmes, Watson is assumed to be a fat bumbling sidekick (think Porky Pig but human and minus the stutter) and Holmes is some infallible, uncorruptable, altruistic detective who constantly carries a pipe and says “Elementary, my dear Watson” (which he never says, by the way. He does use those terms, but never together). What this movie attempts to do is challenge that perception. And challenge it does.

Let's get into the story: Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong) has been apprehended by Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey, Jr.) and Dr. Watson (Jude Law) for the murders of several women. Several months after his arrest, Blackwood demands to see Holmes and warns him three more people will die and the world will be affected by the deaths. After seemingly being hung, Blackwood's plans are carried out and it's up to Holmes and Watson to prevent his grim prophecy from coming true.

Suffice it to say, I really enjoyed this movie. Guy Ritchie stepped out of his pet genre of gangster-drama for the first (successful) time and took a popular character and gave him a fresh spin (well, fresh compared to the public perception). He created a lively atmosphere, with an almost steampunkish feel. The battle at the end is an excellent piece of work, with the Tower Bridge serving as a wonderful place for the denouement.
Guy chooses to go with Sherlock being anti-social, kind of arrogant, and obsessive with his work (though not so much that he won't take notice of women) and part of why this works is Robert Downey, Jr.'s acting. I made a comment once that it seemed like he was born to play the role of Tony Stark in Iron Man (and to this day, I still believe that to be partly true) but it's also entirely possible that this was the role he was made for. He cannot be flawed, he's that good. He portrays this Sherlock as being bored and looking for stimulation and when summarizing boring (to him) conclusions, his face conveys a look that says “Shoot me, that would be more fascinating an experience” which is what sells it. OK, the boredom thing isn't entirely new but the way RDJ does it, you could be convinced otherwise. When he's on the case, there's a twinkle in RDJ's eyes and you know awesomeness will soon follow.
Also of note, I do like the idea of Holmes as a combat strategist (the “fight club” scene, in which Holmes internally narrates the details he notices about the pugilist he's engaged in fisticuffs with) though I wonder if that was lifted from the books too. If it was, wouldn't surprise me, considering how the Holmes of the books was also fond of cocaine (you read that right. Those were strange times).

But where would Sherlock be without his snarky offsider, ready to add a human touch to the mechanical nature of Holmes' style of investigation? Now, I've never been much of a Jude Law fan, I always saw him as an English Leonardo DiCaprio: a pretty-boy who stares at the camera with a smug grin as if to say “I could say utter garbage like 'oodle banana fargle fingle-fangle' and you would not give a damn, you'd be undressing me with your eyes”. Like Leonardo, I have come to realize he DOES have talent, and for Law, it took Closer and the 2007 adaptation of Sleuth to prove it. But he's marvelous as Watson, looking dapper and proper, while also being a bad ass. He's more of a people person than Holmes, not just from his womanizing ways, but also in the fact that he's engaged to be married. There's an amusing scene in which Holmes meets Watson's bride-to-be, Mary (Kelly Reilly) and Holmes does his “detective work” on her and deduces some amazing truths based on small, inconsequential details, though getting her motivation wrong. Yeah, that shut you up, Holmes!
Portraying Watson as an equal is what sets him apart from the bumbling fool who seems to always be in awe of Holmes, regardless of the fact that being a doctor, he has abilities of his own!

Mary is not the only woman giving Holmes something to think about, though. Perennial thorn in Holmes' side (probably to him, anyway. Story-wise, she only appeared in one of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's original stories) Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams) turns up on orders from her employer to spur Holmes into action. I can see why RDJ wanted her in this film, she's really good. Conniving and charming, she and RDJ play off each other well and you can see the romantic subtext blossoming between them.

Mark Strong also turns in a solid performance as the antagonist, Lord Blackwood. He's always calm and collected and sure of himself, never hamming it up. He's like Holmes in a way, unfettered and methodical.
And he provides an interesting mystery, which is integral not just to a good Sherlock Holmes story but to, well, any mystery film. The film hints at a blending of the occult with science and making Blackwood look like a force from beyond the grave or at least in allegiance with the forces of darkness. And with the target being Parliament, its high stakes indeed.

But what of Holmes arch nemesis, one of the first and most well known arch nemesis, Professor Moriarty? Oh, like a good arch nemesis, he stays in the shadows, pulling the strings. But he will be seen, in Sherlock Holmes: A Game Of Shadows, which I intend on seeing sometime soon.
Until then, I have this rollicking action film to enjoy, a film I give 4/5 to.

P.S I have seen the new Sherlock series, the first season, and I really enjoyed it. Bring on the next set of episodes!

The Next Transformers Movie Has A Lot To Fix... (Part 2 Of 2)

Alrighty, last time I went over my first few dislikes about the Transformers film series, including the colour scheme of the Decepticons and characters that are here one day, gone the next. Now for the remaining five gripes.

5. Say Megatron, what are we going to do tonight?
Each movie, Megatron has a new plan to restore Cybertron in some way. Fine, the G1 Megatron had a new plan virtually every episode. The problem is, with the plan of the third movie, you have to wonder why he didn't implement it right from the start. Yes, the Allspark was primarily what he was searching for, but having a space bridge as a contingency plan wouldn't hurt. And in Revenge Of The Fallen, harvesting the sun for Energon? But, wasn't the plan to restore Cybertron? Yeah, Energon will help but when you have a planet in ruins, wouldn't restoration of the structure be your first step? I mean, an Energon shortage certainly doesn't defeat the Decepticons in Dark Of The Moon.
There's no issue with the plans themselves, just that they seem kind of random. Or maybe that's just me.

4. Alas, poor...uh, dead guy?
I'm not expecting anyone in-universe to mourn the loss of the Decepticons (even if we are. Sniffs Poor Soundwave...) but it gets my goat that we're expected to care more about the human characters possibly dying than we are about the Autobots. What kind of eulogy does Jazz get after meeting his death in battle in the first film? NOTHING. Optimus says very little, opting instead to talk up his new awesome human friends.
Que/Wheeljack (that's how little they care, they can't decide on names for half the bloody Transformers) gets killed off unceremoniously too, probably killing him off in Dark Of The Moon because Bumblebee was too much of a cash cow.
Ironhide is about the only Autobot death that gets treated with some dignity and it's actually a true moment of horror for the viewer.
And no, I do not count the “death” of Optimus in Revenge Of The Fallen. That's what Optimus' do, they die and come back. It's like a TV rule or something. It's in the contract: Optimus dies, comes back, everyone has cake. Though, some of the series may have subverted it. Again, having not seen Armada or the sequel series, I cannot confirm one or another. Though, Transformers Animated has the shortest time between death and resurrection I believe.

3. Who are the stars again?
Sort of a combination of the points I made above, the amount of character development for most of the Transformers is... well, a lot of them don't get ANY development. Like I mentioned above, some of the Transformers aren't even named on screen, and those that are named in the credits will often have more than one name, with neither name being related to the other in some way.
About the only Transformers who get significant development throughout the series are Optimus Prime (naturally, being the leader and an icon), Megatron (same again), Starscream, Bumblebee (being the mascot and all) and to a lesser extent, Soundwave and Ironhide. Hell, Soundwave gets all of four lines in Revenge Of The Fallen! Four! And that's the movie he's introduced in! I may be biased since he's my absolute favourite Decepticon in most incarnations (particularly G1, though)
but considering he's part of the “big three” of the Decepticons, you think he'd get a bigger role. Now, that being said, it's my favourite aspect of Revenge Of The Fallen, especially given his alternate mode was a satellite, which totally works with his functions of spying and communicating.

In the first movie, it was easier to get a handle on the characters. While some of the Decepticons were characterized only by their basic traits of destructive nature and intimidation, they had their charms and quirks (like Bonecrusher and his now memetic status of hating everything). And with five Autobots, everybody had a chance to showcase who they were. OK, Jazz and Ratchet didn't get much to do, but at least we established that Jazz was fearless and seemed to take well to human culture, with Ratchet being scientifically minded (being a medic, it's not all that surprising) and desiring peace.
But with the sequels, most of them just become generic brawlers. As Bumblebee and Optimus get more screen time, and more Autobots inflate the ranks, it gets harder to pin down the personalities of each Autobot. I'm sure the tie-in comics and books go deeper, and more power to them, but it shouldn't be up to the extra materials to do that. I'm not saying they don't count, but if you can't get a hold of them, well, how does that help you?
But no, I'm sure the screentime is going to more deserving characters. Like... Sam's random classmates! Or... Leo! Or... Alice, the Decepticon Pretender!
Ugh, Alice. Don't get me started on her. Much like Skids and Mudflap, the few Transformers in sequels to get screentime and they suck. Isabel Lucas is not an actress, she's a whiny little bitch who thinks she's better than she is.

2. Toilet humor... yeah, you're aiming real high now
Not just toilet humor, but some of what passes for “humor” is just crap. The first movie brings us such “gems” as Bumblebee pissing on a human and Sam's parents being over eager in their sex talk. And maybe dogs humping, it could be the sequel. Or both, I wouldn't be surprised.
And what does Revenge Of The Fallen offer? Frat boys arguing over tight shirts (not toilet or gross humor per se but stupid nonetheless), a testicle joke made about Devastator (so this is what you think of the mighty Devastator? A goddamn punchline?) and Mrs. Witwicky getting high off pot brownies.

…

That is my least favourite part of the entire series, tying with anything to do with Alice, and is largely the reason Revenge Of The Fallen is my least favourite movie of the three. Now, I get that Mrs. Witwicky may or may not have gone to college but is she really that goddamn stupid that she doesn't even suspect there may be something a little off? And in this day and age, is it really that funny to see a middle aged housewife get high? Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic. I thought I was watching a Transformers movie, not “Kitty Foreman Wannabe Gets High And Acts Like An Idiot”.

Dark Of The Moon largely tunes it out, thank Primus, but Sam's parents are still there to be wacky. And annoying.

And this brings us to the number one problem I have with the Transformers film series.

1. You DO remember what the name of the series is, right?
Transformers is responsible for a term I use in regards to character creation and development. I call it “Squishy Humans Syndrome”. That's when a series with fantastical settings or concepts chooses not to focus on the cool stuff and decides we need more whiny, self-absorbed humans to fill up the character slots. The live action Green Lantern is also incredibly guilty of this, and my last few points have been hinting at it, but yes, the biggest problem is TOO MANY GODDAMN HUMANS!
Look, I get that we need some humans, G1 had Spike, Sparkplug, Carly and Chip Chase in the first two seasons. And they were great, we actually gave a rat's arse about them. But the number of likable characters (Dutch, Simmons in Dark Of The Moon, Epps, Keller, Maggie Madsen) are easily outnumbered by the characters you feel mixed about (Sam himself, Lennox, Charlotte Mearing, Carly just barely) or characters you hate with a passion (Sam's parents, Mikaela, Leo, Glen Whitmann, Bruce Brazos, Jerry Wang and especially Dylan Gould).
Michael Bay attempts to give these fleshlings backstories and histories and I have to ask “Why?” I came to see giant robots fighting each other, not for subplots about women with criminal histories who just happen to be good with cars while looking like Megan Fox (I call bullcrap on the whole thing, too. There's fanservice and then there's just looking like the old guy who wants the kids who thinks he's “hip” and “funky” and “down with the kids”. Screw the kids, kids are idiots).

G1 may not have bee perfect (loads of animation errors, new characters popping up with no proper introduction, no real changes in status quo until the third season with the exception of new characters) but at least it understood that the show was about giant, non-dull looking robots with personality taking each other on in a war for resources. Michael Bay may not have grown up with the show, and I admit I didn't see a lot of it as a kid, but I've come to respect what it started. I respect its origins. Somehow, I don't think Michael Bay does the same entirely.


Well, that was my top ten list of the problems I have with the film series.
I may do more Transformers related stuff down the track, especially focusing on the “trilogy of series” G1, Beast Wars and Beast Machines.
Will I do a top ten on what I did like about the series? Probably not, though I will come back to the films and review them individually and see if these problems can't be challenged on another viewing.

Rock'Em Sock'Em Robots This Is Not (Part 1 Of 2)

This probably won't come as a shock to anyone, but I am a Transformers fan. Now, while I know next to nothing about Transformers: Prime, Animated, Armada or its sequel series, I have seen every episode of the very first animated series (commonly referred to as G1), Beast Wars and the sequel to that, Beast Machines. Though, these days, most people will think of the Michael Bay directed film trilogy (with a fourth installment being planned).
Now, I enjoyed all three films, some more than others, but when looking at the trilogy as a whole, there are certain aspects they share that either never get fixed or choose to hide for certain movies and pop back up when they please.
So, below is my list of the top ten problems I have with the trilogy as a whole, starting with number ten. Only rule here is I won't be singling out anything found in one movie and one movie only, or at least not as its own entry. For example, the idea that the American government could cover up the battle from the first film with such a flimsy reason in Revenge Of The Fallen. That is a problem with that movie and that movie alone. Also, expect spoilers here and there, though this will mostly apply to anyone who hasn't seen the first two films yet.

10. Blight of the Bumblebee
At the end of the first film, the formally “mute” Bumblebee has his ability to speak restored, meaning he no longer has to rely on soundbites from films, radio, etc. All well and good, even if it's never made clear what cured him (some say the Allspark, others say Ratchet's medical tool). For the next two films, however, he's gone back to using soundbites. The reason given in-universe (meaning the explanation through the characters) is that he's “being cute”. Now, there is a comic tie-in which suggests he had is vocal units damaged again but either way, it's kinda cheap. You had him speak for a couple of lines in the first movie, was it really that hard to keep Mark Ryan around? Yes, he alternates between radio and his own voice in Dark Of The Moon but that just makes it harder to tell.

9. Where the frag is Frank?
The casting of Peter Cullen in the role he originated was a smart move, as it gave the series credibility and if I ever make a list of positives across the series, Peter's voicing of Optimus Prime would make the list undisputed. Back when the first film was in production, Frank Welker was considered to reprise his role of Megatron. Ultimately, Bay felt his voice had aged too much for what he wanted.
But... Frank would later go on to voice Megatron for most of the game tie-in's and in the latest TV series, Transformers: Prime. Yes, the series isn't connected to the films, but clearly the love we have for Frank Welker (the untouchable when it comes to voice acting. Seriously, Fred from Scooby-Doo, Nibbler from Futurama, Dr. Claw from Inspector Gadget, Thaddeus Plotz and Ralph the Guard from Animaniacs and various animals and animal noises) is uncontested. And yes, Frank did voice several of the smaller characters in the last two films, as well as reprising his role as Soundwave (one of the positives, again, even if they forgot to alter the voice like they did back in the original series, which explains why Soundwave sounds like Dr. Claw) but if we can hear him as Megatron in the games, we should have him in the films. So, he may be around, but if you don't play the games, you're probably not going to notice.

8. Now you see them, now you don't
While this will contrast with what I'll say later, this needs to be said. Between films, some characters that don't die just vanish with no explanation. Now, this can be handwaved by something like “Well, with the main character being at a different place in his life, these characters are no longer needed”. I'm not saying I want a gigantic reunion, but one or two lines of dialogue. Really, is that too much to ask?
Take Leo Spitz, for example. OK, I wasn't that big a fan of his character. Or a fan at all, but considering how he was originally supposed to be in Dark Of The Moon, would a line about what he was doing since the events of Revenge Of The Fallen have killed the script writers?
But some of the worst offenders have to be the Transformers themselves. Between Revenge Of The Fallen and Dark Of The Moon, the characters of Jolt, The Doctor and possibly half/three-quarters of the Constructicons vanish without a word of their fate. Hell, Barricade is absent from the final confrontation of the first film and doesn't reappear until Dark Of The Moon! And briefly, at that! And I swear some characters disappear in the movies that introduce them...

7. And it ends... now!
Mostly applying to the second and third films, the ending takes a long time rolling around. Revenge Of The Fallen has a lot of, to quote the Nostalgia Critic, firing in the desert. And slow motion shots just to drag it out. And I wasn't even in the cinema for that one. I was for Dark Of The Moon, though, and toward the end, when the Autobots weren't on screen, it really felt like the movie was shuffling its feet to reach a conclusion.

6. I see fields of gray...
While the Autobots are mostly in bright, vibrant, distinguishable colours, the Decepticons could very well be mistaken for each other when gathering for a group photo. In the first movie, it's not so bad, as the ones that don't have colour schemes have other distinguishing features (like Scorponok being... well, a scorpion) but as the ranks grow higher, it gets harder and harder to tell the Decepticons apart. Megatron, Starscream and Soundwave largely escape this due to screentime and status but what about guys like Sideways and Grindor (who I actually thought was a resurrected Blackout at first. I mean, some of the underlings went into the ocean to get Megatron back online, so why not all their fallen brethren?) I mean, did everyone need to be gun-metal gray? And don't give me the whole “striving for realism” schtick. It's a series about giant alien robots, I can suspend my disbelief for more colours on the palette.

Next blog, I'll go over the next five things that grind my gears about the Transformers film series.

Lock, Stock And Two Squirting Seltzer Bottles

And welcome to the first blog of the new year! So, what do I have in store to mark the occasion? Oh, something special, something I've been planning for a while, something so out-of-the-box with its thinking and-
Actually, no, nothing like, it's just another comic review. I HAVE been planning this one for a while, though. And it is a little different, for not only is this perhaps the first alternate universe tale I'm reviewing, but also the first DC title I've done. Today, we dive into the work simply titled Joker, written by Brian Azzarello and drawn by Lee Bermejo.

Before I go into the review, perhaps I should go over the “alternate universe tale” angle a little.
In comics, people will come up with a great story idea but can't utilise it in the main universe because it's often in the future or involving altered versions of previous events. Thus, they write it as an “out-of-canon” (canon meaning the history of the universe) story, or set in the canon of another universe. So, if you want to spin a yarn about Superman fighting the Terminator, you can! (And they did, it's called Superman Vs. The Terminator).
Marvel has its own series that it does every now and then called What If? While DC has the banner Elseworlds. Now, usually what makes the two different is that Marvel goes the “path unexplored” direction, usually taking an event and altering it slightly to produce a different outcome, but otherwise things are the same. DC usually creates whole new worlds with bold new premises, like The Nail, which offers a scenario in which Superman wasn't adopted by the Kents because their vehicle had a tire punctured on the way to the orphanage. Because of that, there is no Superman in the modern day.
Or the classic The Dark Knight Returns, set in an alternate future, where Bruce Wayne steps out of retirement and comes back as the Caped Crusader, ready to deliver fresh Hell upon the scum of Gotham City.

Actually, Batman gets a lot of these. He's been a vampire (Batman And Dracula: Red Rain and its two sequels, Bloodstorm and Crimson Mist), a Victorian era crimefighter (Gotham By Gaslight, the very first Elseworlds title, though not baring the Elseworlds logo), a pirate (Leatherwing) and the Green Lantern of sector 2814 (In Blackest Knight). However, today's focus is on his arch nemesis.

Joker is narrated by Jonny Frost, a henchman dispatched to retrieve the Clown Prince Of Crime from Arkham Asylum, with the implication of money changing hands leading to Joker's early release. What follows is Jonny's observations of the Ace Of Knaves and how he goes about his days, with a little insight into the underbelly of Gotham.

Simple premise, executed masterfully. Joker may be well known for being unpredictable and scary as all Hell, but what makes this one terrifying is that he lacks the tricks of the mainstream Joker. No electrocuting joy buzzers, no flowers that can squirt acid if he so wishes, no Joker venom. Much like the Joker portrayed by Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight, this Joker relies on the simple pleasures in life and has no grand plan, just falls into whatever he wants to do and does it until he gets bored.

Speaking of The Dark Knight, I should address something now. While Joker is drawn to heavily resemble Heath and his mannerisms are nearly spot-on, from what I understand, it's a huge coincidence. Though it was originally going to be called Joker: The Dark Knight, due to the creative team having previously done Lex Luthor: Man Of Steel (another damn fine book), but with the movie on the way and all, obviously they had to trim it to the one word.

About the art, it's really good. The detail in the faces is exquisite, the violent imagery is striking and Gotham inspires a noir-setting. In this universe, Killer Croc's just a regular looking guy and Lee makes him look as menacing as he can and I don't think it would have worked if he had been drawn to look like a large crocodile like in the main universe.

Speaking of the differences, the biggest difference is perhaps the aspect that leads me to declare why I love this story. Besides Batman, there are no other heroes in this story. All other supervillains are portrayed as looking regular and if they have garish clothes, it's nothing to do with a supervillain motif and everything to do with a gangster lifestyle. Even the Riddler's clothes look like they belong on a flashy drug dealer (though in this universe, who's to say he's not a flashy drug dealer?) Slightly off-topic, Riddler gets only one big scene in this book but I love it, makes the Riddler seem more badass and he still gets to be a man of mystery. Kind of reminds me of Ozzy Osbourne, the way he's drawn...

But anyway, my point is, even though I love the exploits of costumed crimefighters fighting it out with madmen, murderers and marauders, this is almost like if the Batman mythos was getting the British gangster film treatment. Seriously, I could see Guy Ritchie directing this. Jonny Frost reminds me a little of Paul Bettany's performance (and Malcolm McDowell's narrating) in Gangster No. 1, a British gangster film that while not being directed by Guy, it could pass for it. The character's descent into madness even resembles the Joker's, so it works for both characters. Despite me imagining Joker with Heath's voice and Two-Face with Richard Moll's (the voice actor for the character in Batman: The Animated Series), almost everyone else I can imagine as being characters from a Guy film, whether it be Snatch or Rock'N'Rolla.

Speaking of characters, you know who's barely in it? Batman. Hell, he gets all of four words in this story (three in one sentence) but that might also be why he's so effective: he says little but what he does say is among the most memorable parts of the book. I will not spoil it for those yet to read it but if you enjoy the book like I do, you'll probably regard that as a well-written part. And I should add, he does get more dialogue than Harley Quinn,who gets not a word but she is there to essentially be the sanity for Joker. Ironic that despite this Joker being a bigger bastard than arguably most of the other incarnations, he has more regard for Harley in this continuity and she seems much less of a goofball and more a consort that knows how to keep Joker calm.

So, if you want a fantastic DC story that you don't need years and years of backstory to understand, pick this up. Realistic to a point and filled with great dialogue, it's one of my favourite Elseworlds titles. And once again, I also recommend Lex Luthor: Man Of Steel. Brian's run on the Wonder Woman title in the New 52? So far... approach with caution.

(P.S, for anyone who wants to read it, here's a little tidbit for you: after the full page image of Joker leaving Arkham, look at the second panel of the following page. Then the fourth on the same page. See what you difference, besides the lightning, you can notice)