REVIEW: Broken Flowers (2005)

Jim Jarmusch is artsy. Not in a bad way, but certainly to an extent that might turn away potential viewers of his films who can't stand the slow pace, somewhat rambling dialog, and the lack of explosions and fast food. His most recent film, "Broken Flowers", which came out in 2005, stars the great Bill Murray, who's very existence seems to warrant film documentation.

My first impression of "Broken Flowers" was that it bore incredible similarities to several other independent films starring Bill Murray. Of course, Bill has been featured in several Wes Anderson films, including "Rushmore", "The Royal Tenenbaums", and "Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou", as well as Sofia Coppola's "Lost In Translation". In all of these, Bill Murray seems to play a similar character, an older, quiet guy with a very dry sense of humor. He is a far cry from whatever he was in "Caddyshack", and it is a welcome presence. I have read several descriptions by film critics who see him as depressed, droll, and "The Depleted Man". These are accurate descriptions, but ultimately nothing describes Bill Murray's acting in these movies better than simply Bill Murray.

In "Broken Flowers", Bill Murray plays Don Johnston, an older gentleman with a long list of former girlfriends. Women are genuinely attracted to him, but judging by his bachelor status after a break-up at the beginning of the film, he has trouble holding on to relationships. His only friend appears to be a next door neighbor named Winston (Jeffrey Wright). When Bill Murray- wait, I mean, Don Johnston, receives a mysterious letter in a pink envelope, it reveals that he might have a 19-year old son looking for him. It seems that his prolific past as a "Don Juan" has caught up to him. He brings the letter to Winston, who arranges an entire travel itinerary for him to visit several of his past girlfriends in the hopes of finding out who had sent the letter.

The story of "Broken Flowers" develops slowly, with its most poignant moments found as Bill travels to each woman's home. His feelings of loneliness, of a past and no future, and regrets over his relationships, creates a picture of a man without a true identity. He simply follows Winston's itinerary and appears before these women. While he chats with his former girlfriends, he is quietly looking for "clues" to determine which woman might have sent the letter. The film ends with the blank stare of Bill Murray.

Jim Jarmusch creates a truly poetic piece of work in "Broken Flowers". It contains the usual elements of independent cinema (quirky characters, great music) but ultimately places the focus on the characters in the story (compared to Wes Anderson and his sets, props and wardrobes). Perhaps the best indicator of a good movie is what the actors in "Broken Flowers" are able to do: while the women live their lives completely independent of one another, there is a subtle thread that connects them all together, through Don Johnston, and through the atmosphere of the film. It received the Grand Prix award at the Cannes Film Festival in 2005, and quite deservingly. So many films are constantly churning and frothing from the abyss but "Broken Flowers", with its slow pace and deliberate dialog, creates a contained world while displaying what makes a great film, or more importantly, what is great about film.

REVIEW: Imaginationland (2007)

., Some people feel Imagination isn't real But I tell them that they're wrong Cause whenever I Want to play and pretend, I just sing the imagination song

Comedy Central just aired the hilarious "Imaginationland" South Park Special, and it reminded me of how spot-on and hilarious Trey Parker and Matt Stone still are. The story was about Stan and Kyle's trip to Imaginationland, which is literally the world's imagination. They arrive and are met by all the cheerful characters invented by humans, including Ronald McDonald, the Care Bears, and plenty of other iconic cameos. Its an extremely funny foray into the idea that the images and characters that we have created are just as real as "reality", and an icon like Bugs Bunny will live longer than any single person. It has been released on DVD and I'm sure it will air again on Comedy Central.

RANT: San Diego Comic-Con '08

Every year in late July, thousands, and now hundreds of thousands of people descend to the San Diego Convention Center in California to experience what is known as "Comic-Con", the largest comic book convention on the planet. At this point, it attracts 150,000 people, most of them nerds. I have yet to attend, but there is enough coverage to satisfy anyone interested in finding out what goes down in lovely San Diego during those few days.

One of the oft-cited highlights of Comic-Con seems to be announcements regarding some of the more nerdy movie and television shows. The event has built hype for both major movies like "Iron Man" and "The Dark Knight" (which are clearly comic-related) but also features tons of comic vendors and large booths devoted to major comic publishers (DC, Marvel, Image, Dark Horse etc.). Tons of people dress up as their favorite characters and wander around, talking and gushing about nerdy things. As a fan of these nerdy things, I think it sounds great. But after seeing so much coverage of the event, I want to comment on some aspects of the massive convention that seem ignored:

1. There are a lot of people.
Obviously, this is a good thing. It means the comic book genre has grown in popularity and focus on creative works such as comics and movies is going up, as more and more people realize that they can contribute to the vast array of mediums represented at the Convention. They have pretty much made every single major superhero into a massive-scale movie in the last 10 years. But as each strange and unique nerd holds their own special interests in their hearts, and goes to Comic-Con to show this love to maybe even the creators, it seems like just as you have a thought about something you love, there is suddenly a line of hundreds waiting in front of you for the same thing. It makes the nerd market feel jammed, which really sucks.

2. Major marketing schemes
Comic-Con is basically a massive store, that takes any money you have out of your pockets and then tells you to go to the back of the line. While sure, it is a nerd mecca, does being a nerd simply equate to "buying things"? 150,000 people come to show love, but the main purpose of the event is to promote movies with the veil of a personal connection to the audience. However, when films like "Pineapple Express" with Seth Rogen shows up, it feels like pandering for ticket sales. That is a stoner comedy and has little to do with with comics or anything Comic-Con supposedly is about. It's become more of a gathering for hype and selling shit. Perhaps the most important aspect of the convention are panel interviews with creators and developers of popular shows, but the audience does everything but perform sexual favors for these people, with little attention given to the actual quality or importance of any of these things. It's like, OK, you guys make "Lost", I like "Lost", wow listen to J.J. Abrams talk down to me!

3. The verdict is still out on most of the movies previewed this year.
It might be nice to go through some of the movies and shows previewed this year at Comic-Con.

- Punisher: War Zone (Dec. 15, 2008)
In the same way this year's "Incredible Hulk" simply pretended that the 2003 Hulk movie never happened, "Punisher: War Zone" is a new take on the Marvel superhero, disconnected from the 2004 film starring Thomas Jane. While the Punisher isn't the best superhero Marvel has, he is definitely very cinematic. The new movie looks like nerd action fare, with a dash of "Boondock Saints". Very violent (which is good for the Punisher), but honestly, not that true to the comic book in terms of look and feel other than its brutality.

- Friday the 13th (2009)
What the fuck? From the series that had already brought you eleven too many, this franchise is getting the reboot....from the same assholes who already remade "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and "The Amityville Horror"so poorly. All 3 of those movies also have something else in common: they were produced by the scourge that is Michael Bay. The originals were worthwhile because they were...original. Is it too far into the future to make new, entertaining and iconic horror movies? Maybe.

- Red Sonja (2009)
I never saw the original, but the remake is slated to star Rose McGowan with production by the man, Robert Rodriguez. I love Robert Rodriguez's movies for their originality and memorable characters (definitely similar to Quentin Tarantino's work), but this time around it seems like a pretty uninspired concept. It's not too out there for Rodriguez to produce this... It contains a strong female lead and plenty of gore, so it might sort of end up being "Sin City" meets "Kill Bill" meets the original "Red Sonja". Could be cool.

- Terminator Salvation
The trailer for "Terminator Salvation" was a great addition to the previews before "The Dark Knight", mostly because Christian Bale is going to be starring as John Connor. He seems like an actor that doesn't put up with bullshit (going completely by his performance in "The Dark Knight"). Other than that this is just a rehash of some old shit as well. See a theme in these new movies developing? Plus, it is directed by a guy that calls himself "McG".

- Quarantine
"Cloverfield" technique with zombies.

- Ninja Assassin
Sounds fucking badass. It might turn out to suck, but at least it doesn't have any pretentious or lofty goals that it is trying to live up to. It is simply a film about a ninja assassin, produced by Joel Silver and the Wachowskis. Starring Korean pop star 'Rain'.

- RocknRolla
"RocknRolla" is a fast-paced British crime film with a large cast of shady characters from London's underworld all fighting over money, and is directed by Guy Ritchie. Expect plenty of authentic English dialog. I'm sorry, but this movie has already been made. The only differences between "RocknRolla" and "Snatch" are the inclusion of Ludacris and Jeremy Piven (which does make sense) and a lack of Jason Statham.

Of course, as discouraging as those movies are, there is one that could potentially save the next year for film...that movie is definitely "Watchmen". More on that highly anticipated better-be-good movie in a minute.

REVIEW: The Dark Knight (2008)

If you haven't seen "The Dark Knight" yet, you should. Even if you are too cool for comic-books and superhero movies, at this point it is more of a cultural phenomenon. Breaking almost every box office record in history (biggest midnight premiere, highest grossing weekend, etc.), "The Dark Knight" is perhaps the most hyped up movie ever. It seems as though, after five previous Batman screen incarnations, the character is still considered the greatest superhero of them all. Either that, or hype for a movie exceeds subject matter. If you are a fan of Batman, this movie is the most current, relevant, and perhaps realistic incarnation of the "caped Crusader". In terms of a summer movie, it shows that darkness, maturity, and a message increase the marketability of a movie. It is the smartest summer action movie in a long while.

The film is actually closely based on a plot from the Batman comic book series called "The Long Halloween", which deals with the relationship between the three most zealous crime-fighters in Gotham City; Batman, Commissioner Gordon, and District Attorney Harvey Dent. "The Dark Knight" film takes these three characters and creates a Scorsese-like crime drama where the importance and influence of each is considered from a real-world perspective; Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) is known as the "White Knight" of Gotham, and is a regular man pursuing justice within the legal boundaries of a courtroom. Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) is more willing to bend the rules, and assists the vigilante Batman (Christian Bale) in finding and ending criminals. Batman respects Harvey Dent's genuine devotion to justice and believes him to be the savior of Gotham that Batman could never be, perhaps because people are less willing to trust and believe a man wearing a high-tech suit.

Honestly, it seems redundant to even mention who comes on to the scene of Gotham's crime world in response to Batman...but, I will repeat it: the Joker (Heath Ledger). He is a fucking psycho that wears make-up and dresses in a purple suit, and basically toys with people and sets up elaborate terrorist threats and media spectacles. I am so glad that everyone involved with the film decided to allow the Joker free will in this movie: it feels like a horror movie in the sense that you don't know how far he will go, but the fact that he is as genuinely violent and destructive (and successful at both these things) is perhaps the biggest payoff for this movie. Shit is real in "The Dark Knight". The Joker kills many people. He puts Batman's weaknesses on full display: Batman is seen as a psychopath by Gotham's citizens, he is rejected by his love interest Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhall), and he fails to save lives. Life sucks for both Bruce Wayne and the Dark Knight. The plot centers around the Joker's terrorism, and features brilliant scenes that illustrate the Joker's distinct mental disorders and split personalities; he is a liar, a killer, a child and a man, and a gangster. People have described how they love it whenever the Joker's on-screen. My guess, whether you want to admit it or not, is not just because you are looking at a ghost... it is because he serves us such delicious portions of violence and destruction.

"The Dark Knight" is easily the best comic book movie ever, because of its perfect hybrid of both film and comic book action, generating popcorn cinema that works well for fans of any form of media, and viewers of any age bracket and level of interest. It relies on simple character archetypes who turn in excellent performances. The film is just so unique, and that is a MAJOR accomplishment unto itself. I mean, when you compare "The Dark Knight" to "Spiderman 3" or "Pirates of the Carribbean...3", it makes those movies look immature. In an interview with Christian Bale, he describes how there are no"winks at the camera". That perfectly describes the difference between "The Dark Knight" and "Pirates of the Carribbean", which features so many bad jokes and Johnny Depp one-liners it barely even qualifies as a movie. Thankfully, "The Dark Knight" seems to indicate that people want more from Hollywood movies, and constantly hearing about the hundreds of millions of dollars that movies deal in suggests that there is no excuse for films to deliver anything less than what "The Dark Knight" provides: a good, serious, memorable movie.