Recommendations: August 31

Lawless -A western-crime film set during the Depression, Lawless is from newcomer Megan Ellison and already critically acclaimed director John Hillcoat.  IMDb is predicting great things of it, with one writer saying "if this film bombs, I give up and will only watch Fast & Furious/Step Up movies for an entire month."  With a response like that, I almost want Lawless to bomb.

For a Good Time, Call... - About a pair of girls (presumably fresh out of college) who become roommates and through a series of events decide to start their own phone sex line.  This movie is already being compared to Bridesmaids, which I think means it's supposed to be good, but in my opinion can really mean just about anything.  Presumably, it'll be funny.

Battleship - The latest game-turned movie film, Battleship is somehow inspired by the board game of the same name while being about aliens.  I've yet to actually hear a single good thing about this movie... but it has Alexander Skarsgård in it, so it can't be that bad, right?

The Lucky One  - The latest Nicholas Spark film, this one staring Zac Efron.  Like most Efron movies this definitely isn't the best, but still enjoyable.  Don't forget to check out my review of it.

The Pirates! Band of Misfits - I really wasn't a big fan of this animated children's movie, thinking that it kind of fell short of my expectations.  Not the worst, but definitely not up to the bar that Pixar's set.

The Fault in Our Stars - I haven't actually read this book myself, yet, but a friend from work recommended it to me and the little that I've looked at so far has told me that it's going to be a good and funny read.  It's about a teenage girl with cancer, so I'm sure that it's going to end up being of the dark humour type.

Armageddon vs. Deep Impact

When discussing the movies Deep Impact and Armageddon separately its rather challenging to not end up comparing the two.   Deep Impact was released just a month before the similarly themed Armageddon, but took the journey into a different direction - where Armageddon was about great men doing great things to save the planet, Deep Impact is about people trying to survive, although the great men do feature.  Both are really bad movies, but at the same time both are really great as well.

In the long run, I think Deep Impact is the better movie.  There are a lot of flaws behind it, both in the general plot and the way that the film itself is conveyed to its audience, but it's still a good movie.  It's heartwrenching and devastating and depicts more than just the people saving the world - it's also about the people being saved, or not saved.  The science also seems a lot better in this movie, it all makes just a bit more sense.  The one big issue is the whole idea that there's only one ship being sent up into space, with just one pack of nukes - you would hope that they'd send as many ships up with as many bombs as possible, but whatever

Armageddon, however, is the movie that's stood the test of time better.  There is a lot about Deep Impact that reveals itself as a product of the nineties, from the technology used to the sheer appearance of a lot of the cast.  The first time that Jon Favreau's character shows up on screen I had to do a double take - he looks so much younger.  I did a similar double take with Bruce Willis in Armageddon - he has hair! - but there's a lot more of it in Deep Impact.  In general, there's also a lot more about Armageddon that feels almost, although not entirely, timeless.  It feels as though it could be set during any period between when it was released (and even a few years earlier) to now.  Deep Impact, however, is firmly stuck in the ninties.

Deep Impact (1998)

Starring: Robert Duvall, Téa Leoni, Elijah Wood, Vanessa Redgrave, Maximilian Schell, Morgan Freeman

Director: Mimi Leder

Genre: Action, Drama, Romance

Rating: C+

Another disaster movie about a comet coming to destroy the planet. Given just how frequently this one comes up, it's almost as though the idea is ingrained within our human DNA - although if that's true, then one might have to question the origins of many horror movies.

May, 1998 a high school astronomy club discovers a comet that is eventually revealed to be heading towards the planet, set on destroying life as we know it.  Astronauts are sent up to the comet to destroy it, while people on Earth are left trying to deal with their impending doom.  The film alternates between telling the story of these "heroes" and the people who are left behind.

I think my favourite part about this movie is the many shots of the comet in space.  While I have no clue just how scientific Deep Impact is, the feel that it has to it is a lot more realistic than that in its compatriot, Armageddon.  This isn't about the great individuals saving the world, this is about the world facing the end of humanity and dealing with it.  One of the criticism of the film is that it's not a particularly emotional one, but in fact I found it to be more emotional than Armageddon - but I can be a bit of a sap.  The start of the film isn't emotional, it's bleak but not heart moving, but as Deep Impact begins to reach its climax it starts to pull the heartstrings.  It's hard to not feel emotion as everyone begins to really face the demise of the planet.

Deep Impact juggles three storylines - following the astronauts, lead by Captain  sent to destroy the comet, named Wolf-Biederman; reporter Jenny Lerner (Leoni) as she breaks the story and deals with the plethora of problems resulting from her divorced parents, Robin (Redgrave) and Jason (Schell); and Leo Biederman (Wood), the boy who discovered the comet.  These were each handled really well, although I think I would have liked less of Leoni's storyline and more of the Wood and astronaut lines.  I also would have liked to have seen more of Morgan Freeman, who plays President Tom Beck.  You can never go wrong with more Morgan Freeman.

Armageddon (1998)

Starring: Bruce Willis, Billy Bob Thornton, Liv Tyler, Ben Affleck, Will Patton, Keith David, Steve Buscemi

Director: Michael Bay

Genre: Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi

Rating: C+

This is not a good movie - few Michael Bay films really are.  It's lame and cheesy and ridiculous and I absolutely love it.  Unlike the similarly themed Deep Impact, Armageddon is pretty much entirely about the attempt to save the planet and not really at all about the people left behind, facing the end of the Earth.  Sure there are some brief moments showing the latter half, but they're not what's important.  That's typical of a Michael Bay film though; they're not about the little people, they're about the great men doing great things and the women who love them.

Armageddon opens with the discovery of an asteroid the size of Texas that is going to hit the planet and wipe out all life on it - even bacteria - in less than a month.  NASA scientists, lead by Dan Truman (Thorton) try to devise a way to save the planet, the best plan of which involves sending a group of astronauts up to it, drill a big hole into the asteroid (named Dottie), drop a nuke into it, resulting in an explosion that will divide the asteroid into two halves - if done before passing the magic line, Dottie will fly past Earth, but if done too late then both halves will still collide.  In order to do this, NASA needs drillers, specifically Harry Stamper (Willis) and his crew, considered to be the best deep-sea drillers on the planet.  This group of ragtag drillers are sent into space with NASA's best, all hoping to blow up the asteroid before its too late.  Oh, and there's a love story - Harry's daughter, Grace (Tyler), is in love with reckless driller A.J. Frost (Affleck), a fact that Harry is not happy about.

Where to start... So, it being a Michael Bay film, the science isn't exactly... well, science-y.  Bay depends on one-liners, flashiness, and things going boom, not intelligence.  There are no real good moments of solitude and reflection, something is happening every moment of the film.  When the people on the earth are reflecting about the impending doom it's always in this moment of passion and anger, there's no calms or moments of sorrow.  When things go wrong its huge and disastrous - such as the explosion of the Russian space station.  A lot of this creates confusion, it's hard to tell just what it is that's going on at points in the movie.  It's also rather messed up that Armageddon doesn't do anything to show any contingency plans and what not - in Deep Impact there's the Noah's Ark style backup plan, but there's nothing of the sort mentioned in Armageddon.

Actually, I do want to take back part of an earlier statement.  This film does take little people and makes them into great people.  In the end it's really the same result, but it's not entirely the same intent.  There are some great moments of Liv Tyler's that are really moving, as well as a few with the crew themselves.  For the most part though, it's all just silliness.  Armageddon doesn't really address the issue of the impending doom so much as the issue of how to stop it.  No one's caring about what happens after the team fails, just about ensuring that the team doesn't fail.  As such there's this huge gap to the film, this thing that's missing.  Despite that, though, I still love it.  Its an old favourite and I suspect it always will be for me.  Definitely not the best action film out there, or the best Armageddon movie, but still a good one.

Sparkle (2012)

Starring: Jordin Sparks, Whitney Houston, Derek Luke, Mike Epps, Cameron Ejogo, Tika Sumpter, Omari Hardwick, Cee-Lo Green

Director: Salim Akil

Genre: Drama, Music

Rating: C

Have you ever gone on Wikipedia and read the reviews or reception section of a movie and found yourself thinking "wow, this is incredibly biased"?  That's how I felt about Sparkle.  While a good portion of the reception section of Sparkle's Wikipedia page acknowledges the fact that it's not exactly the best movie, the way that it starts really implies that people think otherwise.  People should not think otherwise.  While Sparkle is an enjoyable movie and definitely has its great aspects it's not a particularly good movie.  The music is there - Sparks, Ejogo, and Sumpter each have great voices and Houston is a legend - but the plot itself is unoriginal, cliched, and predictable.  If I could think of another way to say something along those lines, I'd totally say it.

Sparkle tells the tale of Sparkle Anderson (Sparks), her sisters, Sister (Ejogo) and Dee (Sumpter), and their journey into fame, despite the opposition of their mother, Emma (Houston).  Sister is acknowledged as the best singer of the group, as well as the most reckless, and basically a whore.  Dee is the smart one of the trio; she mostly stays out of trouble and is attempting to get into medical school.  Sparkle, however, is somewhere in between - she acts demure and innocent and has horrible self esteem, but has the potential to be a talented songwriter and singer.  All of this, however, is disapproved of by their mother, who once attempted to become a singer as well, but failed rather miserably, and is now a uber religious, uper proper, respectable woman.

For a movie that's coming out now, I'm actually kind of embarrassed by how overused so many of the plot points were.  There really wasn't anything original about Sparkle, beyond the music itself.  You've even seen the characters before, although I do give each of the actors credit in doing their best with the roles that were given to them.  I love both Whitney Houston and Cameron Ejogo, who I felt brought the most to their roles.  They might have been characters that you've seen many times before, but I still enjoyed the journeys that they took.  I pretty much knew what was going to happen before it happened, but I still found myself hoping that they would make the right decisions.  I did kind of find something ironic about the fact that Whitney Houston was playing a church going woman with a troubled past, who happened to be the mother of a singer with a drug problem and an abusive husband.  Is Satin (Epps) her husband?  I'm not certain; they do get engaged and it's implied that they might have gotten married, but we never see it and it's never really established.

That lack of establishment is actually part of the problem of the movie.  It washes over the romantic elements of the plot and rushes the more dramatic elements, focusing instead on montages of the girls singing and Sister being beaten.  While the music is the film's strong point, I think Akil forgot that there was more to the movie than just that.  The relationship between Satin and Sister is developed some what, as is the relationships between the girls and their mother, but everything else is kind of left hanging.  It was a bit of a disappointment, really, although the fact that what they did develop was pretty much stereotypical of a music based movie, I guess the lack of development wasn't all that bad.  It might have been interesting to see just how many more cliches they could have tossed in there, though.

Pete Smalls is Dead (2010)

Starring: Peter Dinklage, Mark Boone, Junior, Steve Buscemi, Rosie Perez, Seymour Cassel, Tim Roth

Director: Alexandre Rockwell

Genre: Comedy

Rating: D

This was not a good movie.  I have to apologize twice; once for having recommended it in the first place - even if said recommendation was somewhat of a joke to begin with - and again for having delayed this review so much.  In my defence, however, the recommendation came before I'd seen the movie and the delay was due to an unplanned schedule change as the result of celebrity deaths.  Not entirely excusable, but it's something.

Pete Smalls is Dead is about three friends - K.C. (Dinklage), Jack (Boone), and Pete Smalls (Roth).  They each set out at some point to make it big in Hollywood, but the only one to actually be successful is Smalls - who becomes a big shot director.  Jack ended up becoming an acting teacher, while K.C. owns a laundromat, is ten grand in debt, and his best friend is his dog.  The film opens with Smalls' death then follows up with K.C. being attacked and his dog kidnapped (dog-napped?).  K.C. has no intention of going to Smalls' funeral, until Jack offers to give him the money that he needs to get his dog back.  This offer, however, is a lot more complicated than it seems, and from the funeral to the end of the movie K.C. and Jack are on this intricate journey to get the money that K.C. needs and embark on the project that Jack always believed was theirs.

The thing that sucks most about Pete Smalls is that it could have been a great movie - it should have been a great movie.  There's this amazing cast, from the people with larger parts to the bit parts.  There's more than a few people who I didn't really know in this, but I found that their acting ability was able to keep up with the two primary leads of Dinklage and Boone.  There was also a really interesting premise behind the film, one that's fairly tried and tested, but at the same time it's being approached from a different angle.  It's a movie that has all this potential but it falls short.

The problem with Pete Smalls is not the acting or the script or anything, but the fact that the movie is just too convoluted.  It's too unrealistic and ridiculous.  I love the characters of K.C. and Jack, but everyone else in this movie just made me go "what the...?" occasionally with an expletive or two added on to the end to it.  While I did enjoy where the journey ended, the actual journey itself isn't really worth it.  The movie's just too messed up, too over the top, too convoluted.  There's a lot to it that is reminiscent of an old film noir, but not actually enough to make the film actually good.  It's one of those films that could have been, but wasn't.

The Mystery Knight

Author: George R.R. Martin
Genre: Novella, Fantasy
Rating: A-

The third novella in George R.R. Martin's Tales of Dunk and Egg "The Mystery Knight" reunites us with Ser Dunk and Prince Egg, and of course Egg's boot.  In this story, Dunk and Egg are headed north when they are sidetracked by a wedding feast, and tourney, in honour of the marriage of Lord Ambrose Butterwell and a daughter of Lord Frey.  Things are not all what they seem at the tourney, however, and there is a lot of talk of the Blackfyre Rebellion.

I think the thing that I like most about "The Mystery Knight" was that it divulged more into the history of Westeros while also making it part of the present.  There's the whole cliché that history repeats, and here Martin proves just how true that is.  I like the way that Dunk's life has drastically changed since he met Egg, and I also really like how, despite being a Martin creation, he's a very likeable character.  He isn't exactly the brightest and he certainly isn't the best jouster - both facts which he is well aware of.  He's almost like a Stark in that you really can't help but root for him, no matter how many times his actions lead him into trouble.  In contrast, there's Egg who while being likeable is far more arrogant than his counterpart.  You learn a lot more about Westeros from the mouth of Egg than you do from the thoughts of Dunk, but half the time his mouth opens you can't help but cringe and hope that Dunk clouts him.  Especially when he's mentioning his boot, which the contents of have caused as much trouble as relief.

My favourite part of this story was the fact that Dunk finally got to see the consequences for some of his previous actions, notably those in "The Hedge Knight."  The consequences of that first story are huge, as is Dunk, and it's nice to see that people haven't forgotten him.  Likewise, it's nice to see consequences to Egg's arrogance.  I'm not exactly sure that Egg's learned from his actions, but a lot of "The Mystery Knight" was showing the reader just what would happen if Egg's identity ever became common knowledge. Even when he does pull out his boot things don't exactly go the way that he expects, although once again I'm not sure if Egg realizes as much yet.  Once again, I'm looking forward to the next installation in this series.

Lord John and the Plague of Zombies

Author:Diana Gabaldon

Genre: Historical,Mystery, Novella

Rating: A-

 “Lord John and the Plague of Zombies” takes Lord John Grey to Jamaica, where he must deal with slaves, rebellions, corrupt Englishmen, snakes, and zombies, although not in that order.  At the start of the novel Grey has just arrived at Jamaica, summoned by the Governor to suppress a slave rebellion.  The rebellion is not entirely what it seems, with those rebelling against the English rule being not slaves but rather the descendants of the descendants of runaway slaves, no one knowing just who technically owns them.  What’s more is that the Governor’s home is overrun by snakes and a slave warns Grey to stay away from the Governor or else run the risk of being assaulted by a flesh eating zombie.  As per usual, it all goes to hell from there.

This story would have fit in well within the Lord John and the Hand of Devils anthology, had it been published later.  The way in which Gabaldon brings up the idea of the supernatural and then dismisses it is handled very nicely, although she does less dismissing than done in the previous novellas.  There are still a few questions that one could ask, although none that are of any great significance.  I really liked the way in which she continued to bring in old foes for Grey to encounter – even going so far as to re-introduce a foe from the early Outlander books.  I really like the way that each of these stories is for the most part a standalone story, with the plot being largely resolved by the story’s conclusion, but at the same time are all interconnected.  “Plague of Zombies” is like this, with elements of the story coming from The Scottish Prisoner and “The Custom of the Army.”  The one thing that I did dislike a bit was that there wasn’t really indication as to just when this story takes place; I know that it is at some point after the events of The Scottish Prisoner and before some of the events of the Outlander novel Voyager, but not exactly when. As such, it’s a bit discombobulating, trying to figure out just exactly what the time frame is.  Hopefully when Gabaldon publishes “Plague of Zombies” in her own anthology she remedies this by including a date at the start of the work. Otherwise, I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Week in Review: August 20 - 25

Notes - This past week we were marked by the deaths of director/producer Tony Scott, comedian Phyllis Diller, and astronaut Neil Armstrong.  The world is a different place without them.

Movies - This week's Bond movie was You Only Live Twice and the new movie was The Bourne Legacy.  I wasn't really a big fan of either.  To mark Tony Scott's passing I did two of his films, Top Gun and Domino.  One is a classic, the other not so much.

Books - Book of the week was E.L. James' Fifty Shades Freed, the final instalment in the Fifty Shades trilogy.  To Mark the completion of the series, I also looked at the many signs of domestic abuse that the series marks in a note.

TV - TV show of the week was the first season of Revenge.  While I enjoyed it, I'm not entirely sure if I'll be tuning in to the second season; I don't think it'll be one that will keep me watching week-by-week.

Recommendations - New movies this week are Premium Rush, Hit and Run, and Robot and Frank.  My guess is that the best of the bunch is going to be Robot and Frank, which will also be the hardest to see given its limited release.

Next Week - The plan for next week includes the much delayed Pete Smalls is Dead, and a tribute to Neil Armstrong with the space-related disaster movies Armageddon and Deep Impact - because if you're going to do one, you might as well do them both.  New movie of the week will be Whitney Houston's final film, Sparkle.  Bookwise we're going to wrap up (for now) both the Tales of Dunk and Egg series and the Lord John series, with the short stories "The Mystery Knight" and "Lord John and the Plague of Zombies."

Requests -What about you guys? Anything you'd like me to watch or read?  Let me know in the comments.

A Note: Neil Armstrong

"That's one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind."

It was reported yesterday that Neil Armstrong, the first man to walk on the moon (assuming you believe that man has walked on the moon), has died at the age of 82.

Whether you believe that man did in fact walk on the moon or you believe that the government perpetuated a wide scale cover up saying as such, Armstrong still represents just all the things that we as a species have achieved - his one small step was in fact a giant leap for mankind.

His family has stated:

For those who may ask what they can do to honor Neil, we have a simple request. Honor his example of service, accomplishment and modesty, and the next time you walk outside on a clear night and see the moon smiling down at you, think of Neil Armstrong and give him a wink.

This, of course, has lead to the Twitter hashtag of #WinkAtTheMoon, because that's the kind of people we are now.  There's also a call to have August 25th become Wink at the Moon Night.  Not sure what to make of this legacy... but hey, at least Armstrong can be comforted with the thought that he didn't appear in Transformers: Dark of the Moon.

Revenge (Season 1)

Starring: Madeleine Stowe, Emily VanCamp, Gabriel Mann, Henry Czerny, Ashley Madekwe, Joshua Bowman, Connor Paola, Christa B. Allen, Nick Wechsler

Creator: Mike Kelly

Genre: Thriller, Mystery, Serial Drama

Rating: A-

I’m still not exactly sure how I feel about Revenge’s premier season.  I like the basic story, although it’s one that I’ve seen before, but the overall tone of the show kind of got to me after awhile.  After awhile I couldn’t help but feel like I was watching a daytime soap opera instead of a primetime TV series.  As the series wasn’t on the CW this feeling was a bit annoying.

Revenge follows Emily Thorne (VanCamp) as she moves to the Hamptons in order to pursue a plot of revenge against the Graysons - Conrad (Czerny), Victoria (Stowe), Daniel (Bowman), AND Charlotte (Allen) - an elite family that spends every summer at the Hamptons.  Seventeen years prior Emily’s father, David Clark (James Tupper), was framed for a terrorist attack by the Graysons and their colleagues, resulting in David Clark spending the rest of his life in prison and his daughter, then known as Amanda Clark, being shipped off to foster homes, an institution, and later a juvenile prison.  Now with a new identity and a lot of money Emily has a carefully detailed plot against those responsible for her father’s downfall.

I think the series can be kind of divided into two halves; the former where Emily’s beginning to carry out her plot and is a somewhat likeable character, even if she’s also a rather devious bitch, and the latter where Emily’s become rather consumed by her plot and is just an outright bitch.  There are a lot of big reveals – affairs, illegitimate children, multiple identities, murder, and so on – but the more that they happen the more disinterested with the show I became.  At some point the whole thing just seemed to be about everyone in it trying to screw over everyone else in it.  I don’t think there’s a single character in this show who actually has a descent nature – even Jack, who’s the nice guy uncorrupted by money, can be a bit of a dick at times, and when he’s not it’s hard to think of him as anything but a shmuck.  Making things worse is the fact that the more reveals happen the more the show feels like it’s little more than a soap opera – I’m seriously waiting for a character to be randomly recast or a baby to be born and then rapidly aged, or someone’s long lost evil twin to appear.  The show started with an interesting premise, but it just becomes a bit much after awhile.

Recommendations: August 24

Premium Rush - Joseph Gordon-Levitt's latest, this movie combines the classic car chase with... bike messengers. I really have no clue just what to expect from this movie, but I'm sure it'll be fun.  I mean, really, car chase plus Joseph Gordon-Levitt.

Hit and Run - Okay, so I hate that I want to see this.  It's going to be lame and ridiculous and lame.  But I've seen the trailer for it more than a few times now, and it also looks like it might be fun - that or like every good bit of this movie is in the trailer.

Robot and Frank -A futuristic movie about robots and jewel thieves, except not exactly in the way that one might typically predict - an ex-jewel thief, Frank, is given a robot butler by his son.  What starts out as a robot looking after an old man turns into the two becoming a heist team.  This film has a limited release, but the premise and the cast, I'm totally interested.

The Rescuers - Not the best Disney movie, that's for sure, but still a cute one.  The Rescuers tells the story of mice Bernard and Miss Bianca as they search for a little girl who has been kidnapped by treasure hunters.  It's been pulled out of the Disney vault just in time for its 35th anniversary.

Good Will Hunting - The 15th anniversary of critically acclaimed movie, written by Matt Damon and Ben Affleck.  While this wasn't either's first role it was the film that took them out of bit parts and stoner flicks and into the greater world of fame that they have since achieved.  Damon has since acted in a lot of good movies and Affleck has proven to be a great director and at worst a mediocre actor, but this is where it all really started.

The Host - I know what you're saying: recommending a Stephenie Meyer novel? Really?  Yes, really.  The Host is actually a good novel, although it's rather slow at points.  I enjoyed the world that Meyer created here.  It's a quick read, but enjoyable nonetheless.

Domino (2005)

Starring: Keira Knightley, Mickey Rourke, Édgar Ramírez, Jacqueline Bisset, Delroy Lindo, Mo'Nique, Mena Suvari, Dabney Coleman, Lucy Liu, Christopher Walken

Director: Tony Scott

Genre: Action, Crime, Drama,

Rating: C

This might be the worst movie I've ever seen Kiera Knightley in - which says a lot, because she's been in movies like Phantom Menace, Bend it Like Beckham, and King Arthur.  Actually, I'll take that back; this isn't the worst Knightley movie I've seen, but it might be the worst Tony Scott one - I've seen fewer Tony Scott movies.

Domino claims that it's the true story, mostly, of real life actress turned bounty hunter Domino Harvey (played by Knightley), although having watched it I suspect that's as legit as saying that Pearl Harbor is based on the true story of the attack of Pearl Harbor.  It tells the story of an angry girl who never really fit in until she became a badass bounty hunter.  The film alternates between being flashbacks, telling her journey into being a bounty hunter and the incident that got her arrested, and her interrogation by FBI agent Taryn Mills (Liu), to which she is all too willing to tell her story.  Not that you really believe her story.  The whole thing comes across as this ridiculous concoction, which is made worse by the fact that the movie pretends like it's based on a true story.  I think had it dropped that premise - had it simply said that the character of Domino was base on the person of Domino but that the story was a complete fabrication, it would have been better.  The entire film is really rather ridiculous, requiring viewers to suspend their disbelief - which is hard to do when it's pretending to be based on truth.

That's the biggest problem with this movie.  It's not the acting or the script or the shooting choices - all of which vary between good and not so good, but none of which alone make the movie a bad one.  It's the fact that it asks the viewer to suspend too much of their disbelief.  It's important to not ask too much of your viewers.  I can suspend a lot of disbelief in a science fiction or fantasy movie - I love being sucked into some sort of alternate reality, a world which is the result of the imagination of its creators.  At the same time, however, I hate it when someone pretends that something is set within the real world, pretends that this is even a real story.

Despite that, however, I don't really dislike Domino.  It's not a good movie, but it's kind of fun.  There's action and there's some funny bits - thanks largely to the likes of people like Mo'Nique.  The plot could have been hugely simplified, the story cleaned up a lot, and the script tightened.  But the biggest problem is definitely going to remain the fact that this film pretends like it's real when anyone can see that it isn't.

Top Gun (1986)

Starring: Tom Cruise, Kelly McGillis, Val Kilmer, Anthony Edwards, Tom Skerritt, Michael Ironside, Meg Ryan, Rick Rossovich, Whip Hubley, James Tolkan

Director: Tony Scott

Genre: Action, Drama, Romance

Rating: B

This has long been a favourite movie of mine, and is in my opinion probably one of the best Tony Scott films there is (which is either saying a lot or not much at all, depending on your overall opinion of Tony Scott movies).  Top Gun is ridiculously cheesy at points and really kind of bad, but at the same time it’s so good it’s easy to forgive the cheese.   It’s not exactly a mindless action film, but it definitely has a lot of the characteristics of one – if you don’t spend too much time thinking about the movie and just enjoy the ride then it’s a good one.

Top Gun follows US Naval Aviator Lieutenant Pete “Maverick” Mitchell (Cruise) and his wingman Radar Intercept Officer Lieutenant Nick “Goose” Bradshaw (Edwards) after they essentially luck out and get a ticket to the Top Gun school at NAS Miramar, despite the fact that Maverick is considered to be a rather reckless fighter.  There, Maverick competes with fellow pilot LT Tom “Iceman” Kasansky (Kilmer) for the position of top pilot – with Iceman considering Maverick to be dangerous – while also wooing civilian instructor Charlotte “Charlie” Blackwood (McGillis).  Oh, and there’s the music.  I love the soundtrack to Top Gun, which is furthered by the fact that my three favourite songs on the soundtrack are all original songs for the movie itself – “Danger Zone,” “Take My Breath Away” and “Top Gun Anthem.”  If you don’t like the first two, you might want to skip this movie as they’re both played a lot.

Okay, so the premise of the movie is a bit ridiculous and in many ways rather typical of the armed forces (in whatever variation) type movie, especially when an outright war isn’t actually used.  The acting, however is good – whatever you might feel about Tom Cruise’s personal life, you can usually count on him to bring in a good performance.  I’m not sure if you can say as much about the rest of the cast, with the exception of Tom Skerritt and Anthony Edwards, who I either don’t know from anything else or can be a bit unpredictable in the roles they pick.  Granted, Tom Cruise has become a bit unpredictable as of late too.  I enjoy the chemistry between Maverick and Charlie, even if I do question just how quickly their relationship progresses – we don’t really get to see it develop, it just happens.  The film’s a bit bogged down by the whole search for why Maverick is the way he is; the daddy issues are both over used and unnecessary.  I would have completely bought the whole “Maverick is reckless because he’s a young guy who’s flying a fucking jet” storyline.  More depth wasn’t really necessary.

Where this film really succeeds, however, is in the jets.  The flying is cool, even if it’s reckless and possibly unrealistic.   I actually really don’t care (or know) if it’s unrealistic and the fact that it’s reckless is a huge part of why it seems so cool.  It is fun watching people do stuff that could potentially get them killed.  That’s why people like watching action flicks; it’s all about the danger that the characters appear to put themselves into.  Top Gun appears to have a lot of danger and cool stunts, which the characters are always eager to point out to us.  Where the movie fails is in its drama and romance, both of which really provides a surplus of cheese.  While there’s chemistry between Maverick and Charlie there’s nothing original, unique, or really cool about the relationship.  The music does kind of fail here too; as much as I love the soundtrack, I do have to say that the same songs are played over and over again, in a way to the detriment of the film itself.  It’s one thing to have a thematic song for a movie, it’s another thing to have a few thematic songs and to play them almost exclusively – something that’s made worse by the fact that this isn’t a movie that should need to depend on the soundtrack.  I love music based movies where the one song is sung more than a few times because it’s the song that the characters are writing or it’s part of a performance, or whatever.  But when it’s just the background music, it can get a bit stale and kind of suggests that there isn’t that much in the way of a music budget – they probably spent it all on the jets.  Which, really, was a wise choice.  I mean, it’s jets.  I can forgive a lot of cheese and a repetitive soundtrack in favour of stunts with jets, especially when I enjoy the songs themselves.

The Bourne Legacy (2012)

Starring: Jeremy Renner, Rachel Weisz, Edward Norton, Joan Allen, Albert Finney
Director: Tony Gilroy
Genre: Action, Adventure, Thriller
Rating: C-

I think my biggest problem with The Bourne Legacy was that it didn’t need to be made.  The Bourne Trilogy ended well – both book-wise and movie-wise.  Robert Ludlum wrote three Bourne novels, concluded the series, wrote a number of other books, then died.  Then in what has the appearance of being a case of greed and laziness the Ludlum estate gave permission to Eric Van Lustbader in order to write more Bourne novels.  The ending that had wrapped the trilogy up was shattered and Van Lustbader to this day is popping out a Bourne a year.  As someone who enjoys writing and creating characters this rather bothers me – I don’t particularly like the idea of continuing someone’s work posthumously.  It’s one thing in the case of Robert Jordan, where he made arrangements for it to happen prior to his death and wrote down how the story was supposed to end so that someone could continue The Wheel of Time series.  It’s another thing if the author ended the series, died some time later, and then someone decided to resurrect his books.

Okay, so now that that rant is out of my system, let’s move on to the movie itself. Continuing the theme of The Bourne Legacy didn’t need to be made, or at least didn’t need to be a Bourne film, is the fact that it doesn’t actually involve the titular Jason Bourne – at least not really.  In my opinion plans for the film should have been axed once Paul Greengrass and Matt Damon announced that they would not be involved in the film.  Despite being set in the same universe an being based around another member of the Treadstone Project Legacy has a really different feel to it and in my opinion could have easily been based in a similar but different world.  In fact, I think it would have been better off had they taken that route.

The events in Legacy are initiated by Jason Bourne (Damon, seen only via a photograph) exposing Operation Blackbriar and the Treadstone Project, leading to an investigation of CIA Deputy Director Pamela Landy (Allen) and Operation Blackbriar supervisor Noah Vosen (David Strathairn).  Upon learning of this, the CIA calls in Eric Byer (Norton) to deal with the situation and make it go away – which he does by eliminating all members of Operation Outcome, which I think was another aspect of Blackbriar and Treadstone.  This elimination is a problem for Aaron Cross, codename “Number Five,” who would rather not be killed.  He goes on the run, but he’s disabled by his dependency on pills the agency has given him to enhance his physical and mental capabilities – greens and blues.  Conveniently for him, the CIA is also attempting to kill all of its Outcome scientists, leaving Dr. Marta Shearing (Weisz) pretty much dependant on him for her continued survival.

So, just to start, this series does not need the Bourne connection.  The premise can exist really easily without the Bourne connection and would have been better off having severed it.  The few actors who were in both movies aren’t utilized properly – but then few of the actors in this movie are utilized properly at all.  The characters are, for the most part, flat and dull.  They fit stereotypical roles and are never given any real reason to expand.  I was particularly disappointed with Norton, who basically just stood around and barked orders.  Renner and Weisz bring a lot to the show and really stand out simply because they make the most out of their flat characters and try to add some depth.  I don’t know what’s motivating any of the CIA type agents, beyond the fact that bad guys are bad guys.  I only know that the good guys are motivated by the hey, let’s stay alive mentality of things – I’m not really given any reason to root for them beyond the idea that I should be rooting for people to stay alive.  There are a few good moments and I actually really liked Weisz’ role in the chase scene.  Her role was, in my opinion, the only perfect element about both this movie in general and the chase specifically.

With that one perfect moment behind us, let’s discuss the other failures of the movie. The chase scene where Weisz was awesome was, in my opinion, poorly done. There were elements that I loved about it – namely the fact that the police weren’t shooting at the fleeing protagonists, which is something that I always hate in action movies (if you’re fleeing from the police in a crowded area, they’re not going to shoot. The chances of hitting one of the many innocent bystanders is too great). The music was lame and rather redundant, which I guess kind of made it fitting for the sequence itself, which was also rather redundant. There were a few good action sequences overall, but none that was worth the cost of admission.  Really, when it came down to it this was an unremarkable addition to the series.  Oh, and the ending sucked.  I'm not going to explain why, because that would be a massive spoiler, but it was a let down.  I'd say skip this movie and hold out for The Expendables 2.

You Only Live Twice (1967)

Starring: Sean Connery, Mie Hama, Donald Pleasence, Akiko Wakabayashi

Director: Lewis Gilbert

Genre: Action, Adventure, Thriller

Rating: B-

Once again, Bond is back, this time in a movie that is just really weird.  At the start of the film, James Bond (Connery)'s death is faked, enabling him to go undercover in Tokyo, where he investigates whether or not the Japanese are involved in the hijacking of an American spacecraft.  Bond hooks up with another Bond girl, SPECTRE is revealed to be involved, and a lot of things happen that make you wonder just how we haven't succeeded in blowing up the world yet.

I really don't know how I felt about this one.  It was short, or at least it felt that way, and so I didn't get bored - which has happened with other Bond movies - but I didn't really feel enticed either.   I actually found a lot of this movie to be based on racial stereotypes, more so than in previous Bond films.  Once again, a lot of this movie reminded me of Austin Powers (fitting, because it is part of the basis for the parody), and its strengths seemed to lay in the fact that while being similar to the Mike Meyers film it wasn't actually Austin Powers.  This is going to be a rather short review, simply because I don't really know what to say about this movie.  I didn't really enjoy it, but at the same time I didn't really dislike it either.  It's a weird one, sorry.

A Note: Phyllis Diller

It appears as though this is a really bad week for celebrities.  It started with Tony Scott, and now the latest celebrity death is legendary comic Phyllis Diller.

I stumbled onto Diller's comedy completely by accident; she was a frequent roaster in The Dean Martin Celebrity Roasts, which I've always enjoyed (seriously, watching people from the 70s sit around and call Dean Martin a drunk and Betty White a slut is hilarious). Diller was an amazing comic and really paved the way for other female comics.  While she hadn't really done stand up much lately, Diller was still an icon and we've lost a legend.

Because of the nature of Diller's work I don't intend to (as of this moment) do any special review for her this week.  She was a stand up comic, not an actress, so I don't think it'd really do her justice to review one of her movies.  I'm not all that familiar with them, so I don't know what role would be fitting to commemorate her.  If there's a Diller movie that you think I should review, let me know in the comments.

Fifty Shades: Abuse

If you do a quick Google search you can rather easily find a comparison of the relationship between Twilight's Edward and Bella and the "Signs That You're In an Abusive Relationship" chart, which can be found here.  In this search, the searcher looks each of the "signs" and compares it to the relationship between Edward and Bella, although without providing context this comparison can easily be dismissed.  I don't agree fully with the comparison itself, but I also don't disagree with it.  There are many forms of abuse within the Edward and Bella relationship, and I do think it's a huge problem that the books present this as normal.

But, I'm not here to talk about Twilight, I'm here to talk about everyone's favourite erotica Fifty Shades.  The comparison done for Twilight made me want to do a comparison for Fifty Shades - although, I am going to try to avoid reference to the sexual aspect of their relationship.  I don't think that the bondage and what not that Ana and Christian partake in is abusive, not most of the time.  There are a few moments when Christian might cross the line for Ana, but they do utilize a safe word and I think in cases where Christian crosses the line and Ana doesn't use the safe word then what happens to her is her own fault - if you don't safe word, you appear as though you're consenting, and we do see Ana safe word in Fifty Shades Freed, causing Christian to immediately stop.  That being said, there are many other signs.  Just a quick note: I'm only including in this list the signs that are relevant.  In the original list, there are twenty-four signs, with the note that "the more 'yes' answers, the more likely it is that you’re in an abusive relationship."

Your Inner Thoughts and Feelings

Do you: Feel afraid of your partner much of the time?  While Ana's fear of Christian does appear to diminish over time she does spend a lot of the first two books constantly afraid of him.  Even when this fear does seem to lessen after their marriage she still walks on egg shells around him and fears his anger.

Avoid certain topics out of fear of angering your partner? This, combined with the first sign, is the most important one according to this chart, which states "the most telling sign is fear of your partner. If you feel like you have to walk on eggshells around your partner—constantly watching what you say and do in order to avoid a blow-up—chances are your relationship is unhealthy and abusive."  This is also really characteristic of the relationship between Ana and Christian.  Even post-marriage, Ana is constantly avoiding telling Christian things because of how he might react.  She fears telling him about her decision to keep her surname at work and is often annoyed with Kate for bringing up subjects that are going to upset Christian and, consequently, get her into trouble.

Believe that you deserve to be hurt or mistreated? This one's a bit tricky and borders on their sexual relationship.  There are times when Ana does seem to think that she should be punished for her behaviour because it doesn't meet with what Christian approves of.

Feel emotionally numb or helpless? This one's a bit tricky.  There are certainly periods when Ana appears to feel helpless, although I'm not certain if it really qualifies here.  She definitely appears rather helpless in regards to preventing Christian's anger, short of giving up her autonomy.

Your Partner's Belittling Behaviour

 Does Your Partner: Humiliate or yell at you? Christian yells at Ana and often.  While this in itself doesn't necessarily say that it's an abusive relationship - people fight, it happens - the cause of his yelling does.  Christian yells at Ana when she fails to obey him, and the degree of obedience that he demands is abusive.

Treat you so badly that your embarrassed for your friends or family to see? Ana is definitely embarrassed when Christian yells at her, although he does tend to restrain himself in front of friends and family.  The closest that we can see here is his treatment of her in front of Mrs. Jones and Taylor, which often embarrasses Ana.  A good example of this is his reaction to finding out that Ana's pregnant - she's horrified to realize that Mrs. Jones heard the interaction.

Ignore or put down your opinions or accomplishments? I don't think that Christian ignores or puts down Ana's accomplishments per say, but instead he does seem to treat her as though she can't accomplish more without his help.  When she gets her job, he treats it as though she only succeeded in getting the job because her new boss wanted to sleep with her.  He then treats her as though she's incapable of rising in her chosen career unless he buys the business and gives it to her.  She's incapable without him.

Blame you for their own abusive behaviour? Even outside of the bedroom, Christian does blame her for a lot.  He's very much a 'I wouldn't have to yell at you if you did what you were told' type of person - which is even furthered by the fact that he repeatedly says how he'd like to punish her in a non-sexual manner for his misbehaviour.

See you as property or a sex object, rather than as a person? This one's really tricky, and is more evident in the first book than the later ones.  The thing that really distinguishes Ana from Christian's previous partners is that Ana insists on being seen as a person and not property or a sex object.  When looking at it this way, it strongly suggests that Christian's relationships with his previous subs were abusive - as was his relationship with Mrs. Robinson, although there he was the abused.  I'm not going to criticize the subculture to which these relationships belonged, but I am going to say that the way that Christian entered into them is a sign of abuse.

Your Partner's Violent Behaviour or Threats

Does your partner: Have a bad and unpredictable temper? I would actually say that Christian has a very predictable temper. He's almost always angry about something that Ana has done, no matter how small it might be.  At one point he gets angry with her for going to pick up her boss a coffee, despite the fact that doing so is within her job description.

Hurt you, threaten to hurt or kill you? Christian often threatens to hurt Ana, or talks about his desire to punish her for her behaviour.  In the second book part of the plot is fuelled by the fact that he keeps on threatening her in emails sent to her work address.

Threaten to commit suicide if you leave? I'm not sure if Christian ever threatens to commit suicide if she leaves, but he does completely shut down when he thinks that she's going to leave.  The threat of a physical death may not be present, but the threat of a more mental/emotional one is.

Your Partner's Controlling  Behaviour

Does your partner: Act jealous and possessive? In Christian's mind every man who meets Ana wants her, something that causes numerous fights between the couple.  Ana is even afraid of mentioning Jose, her longtime friend, because of the fight that might ensue.

Control you where you go or what you do? Control is a key part of Christian's personality, and his control over Ana is an important part of the plot.  Through the course of the three books he tries to restrict where she can see her friends as well as what friends she sees, and what she does.  He tries to keep her from going to work and doesn't seem to understand her desire to have a job or a life that is in any way independent from his control.

Keep you from seeing your friends or family? This is kind of a yes and no.  Christian seems to want to dictate what friends Ana's allowed to see, as well as the terms under which she's allowed to see them.  Jose, is one of the friends that he tries to keep her from seeing, while Kate is one of the friends that he tries to restrict how she can see.  The fact that there is the possibility of a sexual relationship between Jose and Ana (even though she insists that she's not interested, and after his attempt at a pass during which they were both drunk he doesn't continue to pursue her) is irrelevant, given Christian's continued relationship with both Mrs. Robinson and his es-subs - many of whom he supports financially.

Limit your access to money, the phone, or the car? Christian does limit her access to cars rather regularly.  Ana is only allowed to drive when Christian gives her permission to do so.  While he doesn't limit her access to money specifically, he seems to think that the only money she should have is money that he gives her - he tries to limit her ability to earn her own money.

Constantly check up on you? And how.  Christian stalks Ana to such a point that it even becomes an important plot point - the way she's able to survive the third book is because she expects him to have access to her phone's GPS so that he can stalk her after she appears to leave him.  This isn't the first time that he's done so, stalking regularly comes up.  He does send her regular text messages throughout the day and calls her regularly too. While I'm not going to say that that in itself is abusive or stalking, his reaction when she doesn't answer immediately is rather extreme.  Rather than assuming that she's busy or unable to respond right away he gets very upset if she doesn't respond back or call when she says she will he constantly overreacts.  On several occasions he has stormed into her place of work simply because Ana didn't answer her phone.  He has also cut short business trips because he was unable to get a hold of Ana and even invades her trip to visit her mother - which she took in order to take a break from him.

So, yeah.  The chart listed twenty-four signs, seventeen of which can be applied in a manner to the relationship between Christian and Ana.  While not all of these are very clear cut signs of abuse, a lot of them are.  Furthering this is the information from the chart that I used as this post's picture.  According to this, "abusive individuals need to feel in charge of the relationship" - as seen by their need to make decisions for you or the family, the expectation that you "obey without question" and the fact that they might "treat you like a servant, child, or even as his or her possession" - all of which apply to Christian.   Furthermore, an abuser may "prevent you from going to work" and "you may have to ask permission to do anything, go anywhere, or see anyone."  Ana even has to ask permission to drive her car - compounded by the fact that she is denied permission to continue driving the car that she owned at the start of the series.  For me, the clincher is Christian's excuses.  The site says "they will blame their abusive and violent behavior on a bad childhood, a bad day, and even on the victims of their abuse."  This certainly applies to Christian.  In my opinion, however, the worst part is the fact that within the series even the people who know about Christian's behaviour - most notably his psychologist Dr. Flynn - support him in it and encourage Ana to stand by him.