LKMYNTS: Ink.

I haven't done one of these for a while. I suppose it's because I've mostly watched more bigger name films than smaller as of late. But I'm always on the lookout for relatively unknown films with good-to-great reviews. Such was Ink. It's hard to describe this movie. The best I can say is MirrorMask meets What Dreams May Come meets Donnie Darko meets Dark City. In other words, it's stylish, deep, and only occasionally makes sense.

This movie introduces a new mythos, one where opposing forces fight over the subconscious realm. There are the storytellers, those who give the sleeping masses good dreams; on the other end, there are the Incubi, those who give nightmares. John (Christopher Soren Kelly) is a successful businessman on the verge of a major win. But things begin to spiral out of control when his 8-year-old daughter Emma (Quinn Hunchar) falls into a coma. Emma falls into a coma because Ink, a creature attempting to become an Incubi, kidnaps her spirit (or something like that) to sacrifice to those that want her. A group of storytellers must team up with Jacob (Jeremy Make), a blind Pathfinder, to find Emma and bring her back to the living realm before it's too late and her body dies.

The movie is so many things, it's incredibly hard to give my thoughts in a cohesive manner. Let's start with the negative: it moves a bit slow in its first half. It isn't until Jacob shows up that the movie really starts to pick up, but it's not until a little after that where it really grabs you and refuses to let go. You really have no idea what the heck is going on for what is essentially the majority of the movie, leaving you in this perpetual mind freak and confusion.

Granted, it all comes together nicely once they actually start giving you some viable dialogue, story, and character development. The characters are compelling, and the new mythos of this dream world is engaging and interesting. The visuals are magnificent, as well. They aren't as overt and strange as MirrorMask (except maybe the Incubi), but they're interesting enough to keep you intrigued. And even besides the visuals, the movie is stylish. From the fight scenes to the camera work, we're given some interesting choices. And the movie plays with light, making almost every scene seem dreamlike, whether it's the real world or the dream world.

So besides the movie all seeming dreamlike, it also plays out of order. Some scenes, especially those with the father, are shown more than once, sometimes from a different perspective. One of my favorite scenes is the "chain reaction" scene involving Jacob, in which he reveals what makes him so special (and it's a scene that is shown more than once in the movie). And speaking of Jacob, I wish there was more of him in the movie. He was by far the most interesting character. He was quirky and fun, while keeping just enough mystery to not get boring.

The ending threw me for a loop, and I had to do a bit of searching to figure out what the heck happened, but once I did, it all made perfect sense. It's a great ending (once you realize what it all means and that it isn't some strange paradox). Overall, this is one of those movies that, like MirrorMask, I think I'll grow to love even more the more I see it. It has a good story, good acting, great visuals, good action, and great imagination. And it's not just me. With a near 7-point score on imdb and a 90-something percent score on Rotten Tomatoes, I can pretty much say it's not just me loving this movie. So while I'm sure my score will go up upon future viewings, I'm going to score it for how my initial viewing left me.



A Keanu 'Whoa'

LEGION.

I've been pretty psyched for Legion for a while. I just knew that, at the very least, it'd be a fun romp into the realm of cheesy B-horror. And what I got was... well... Michael (Paul Bettany) decides to come down to Earth and shed his wings to help the humans. But no, not just any humans. The most important of the humans: a pregnant girl named Charlie (Adrianne Palicki) who lives with a mechanic named Jeep (Lucas Black) and his diner-owning father, Bob (Dennis Quaid). Also 'round these parts is the cook, Percy (Charles S. Dutton); a lost traveler, Kyle (Tyrese Gibson); a father (Jon Tenney), mother (Kate Walsh), and their semi-slutty daughter, Audrey (Willa Holland). Of course, as we learn from the trailer, Charlie's unborn baby is going to save humanity... they just have to stay alive from the legion of angels that are bringing on the apocalypse by killing humanity and trying to get to Charlie. But what exactly is the baby going to do to save humanity? Why do the angels come off more as demons? What did he mean that the angels aren't necessarily the good guys? If God truly wanted to wipe humanity out completely, couldn't He have just thought it into happening or something? Why do the possessed dudes just kinda stand there near the end? Why is one specific character allowed to live so long if said character is just going to die a meaningless and unseen, off-screen death near the end of the movie? What's written in that angelic message? Who (and/or what) the fuck are the prophets? And did anybody else picture Jay and Silent Bob hopping over one of the cars with hockey sticks at that point? Stay tuned, because all of these questions (and more!) are never even remotely discussed, much less answered, in Legion!

At least the first 20 or so minutes of the movie feels like a running joke of "I'm trying waaay too hard." From the burning-cross hole in the side of the building to playing It's A Wonderful Life on the TV in the diner (which is named Paradise Falls, somewhere outside L.A., the "City of Angels," as it were). And so many other things in between. The rest of the movie plays like an ultimate collection of cliches, from character actions to the cheesy one-liner.

I know this has mostly felt like a negative review, but there is some positive. Paul Bettany and Kevin Durand are wonderful in their respective roles (albeit Kevin Durand having way too little screen time prior to the climax of the movie). And Willa Holland is hot (and she is 18, so I can say that). There is some pretty decent comedy, too. There's also some good action--mostly once Kevin Durand comes into the picture, because before that, it's mostly just an endless stream of bullets. And it's always nice to see Doug Jones, although his Ice Cream Man role (which is a good chunk of the trailers) is pretty much just what you see in the trailers. He's on screen for maybe a minute tops.

There's also some good camera angles and cinematography. Despite having a shaky script, there actually was some good direction. It kept the movie fresh, and the visuals (in those respects) certainly weren't boring. The CGI was a bit dodgy in places, but there wasn't much of it, so that's good.

But I'd say the movie's biggest downfall is its script. Besides the aforementioned issues with almost nothing being explained, there's some iffy dialogue, as well as a feel that they tried to flesh out every character, but never could quite make it past the surface with each. There's also a "twist" at one point that... well... shouldn't really be a twist. It's treated as one, but when you hear it (and when the characters are reacting all 'wtf mate'), all I'm thinking is "yeah... OK, didn't we already know this? I mean, he never said it directly, but taking what he did tell us, I'm pretty sure you could figure it out by association. Literally." Their reactions were just a bit too... nonsensical for the timing. Or something like that.

Anywho, I didn't hate the movie. I just didn't particularly love it. It'd be a good one for a rifftrax of some sort, I'm sure. I suppose I'm just easily entertained and not easily perturbed as others are. The little things usually don't bother me, and it takes a lot for a movie to get one of my lower scores. If there's any semblance of entertainment (and, again, easily happens to me), it gets some points. So... yeah.


Stop Saying Okay! Okay.

(P.S. Why, if they lived in California, did Mr. Tokyo Drift have a southern accent... and why didn't his father?)

THE BOOK OF ELI.

Warning: Potential mild spoilers.

----------------

This movie is not for everyone (obviously, considering the mixed reviews). But was it for me? The movie takes place in a post-apocalyptic near-future, where water is scarce, there's no soap, and the majority of the population can't even read. It centers around Eli (Denzel Washington), a wanderer with a book in his possession that he must get to the west. But along the way, he comes across a little town run by a man named Carnegie (Gary Oldman) who is searching for the very book that Eli possesses. And he will do anything to get it. Eli eventually teams up with a young woman named Solara (Mila Kunis), as well, whose mother is being held by Carnegie.

That's about it. It's no real elaborate plot or anything. And I honestly can't see what all the negative fuss is about the movie... that is, unless you're a close-minded religious zealot. Sure, it's a slow movie, but it's not that slow. The religion isn't even shoved down your throat. Yes, the whole movie is about it, but it doesn't say "this is the right way" or "this is the wrong way." In fact, that's one of the things I loved most about the movie. The way it treated the subject was just like anything else: in the wrong hands, it can be devastating and used for the wrong reasons... but in the right hands, it's precious and good. I read one review that said something along the lines of them not being sure, after leaving the movie, whether or not the movie's purpose wanted them to embrace or condemn religion. I say the movie had no such agenda, but instead showed us that, really, it's up to the individual to decide between what is right and what is wrong. And right and wrong isn't always black and white.

Outside of the story, the visuals are amazing. The post-apoc look is great, and the cinematography is excellent. There were two reason I really wanted to see the movie: 1) The cinematography looked excellent and 2) the action looked great. I was right on both counts. The action is, while typically short, is a ton of fun. One of my favorite action scenes, purely from a camera angle (no pun intended), was the "house" scene near the end of the second act. The way the camera swooped in and out of the house in what appeared to be an impossible single take was outstanding.

On the acting front, Denzel Washington is good, but there really isn't a heck of a lot for him to work with. But he's good enough. I always felt from the trailers that Mila Kunis seemed out of place. After seeing the movie, I'm a bit torn on that thought. Part of me still sides with that thought, but the other part of me thought she did a pretty decent job. The best part, though, was Gary Oldman being Gary Oldman. I love that man in whatever he does, and he can sure play crazy pretty well.

I also wanted to make note that, at one point, I thought we had become Harry Potter and the Book of Eli. Besides Gary Oldman (who played Sirius Black in the movies), we had the random appearances of Frances de la Tour (who played Madame Maxime in Goblet of Fire) and Michael Gambon (Dumbledore since the third). Though I have to be honest, seeing Dumbledore and Madame Maxime go all Rambo on Sirius Black was totally fun. And, Harry Potter aside, what is it with Malcolm McDowell and the apocalypse? Just from recent memory, he's been in this, Doomsday, and the guy who wanted to bring the end of the world in the first season of Heroes. And, according to imdb, he does a character voice in the show Metalocalypse.

All in all, it was a pretty good movie. I actually really enjoyed it, but I like post-apocalyptic stories, great visuals, fun action, Denzel Washington, Gary Oldman, and almost anything to do with theology... so I guess you can say it was going to be hard for me not to like this movie. (Despite its incredibly weak and open-ended V-For-Vendetta-cheap-rip-off ending).


A Keanu 'Whoa'

(P.S. I didn't even mention the freakin' awesome twist near the end of the movie... that I won't spoil. I totally wanna see it again, just so I can see it with the new mindset).

UP IN THE AIR.

Well, "the best movie of 2009" finally came to my town, so of course I had to check it out. I know I'm a bit late to the game, but I usually am when it comes to the big Oscar-type films. Up in the Air is Jason Reitman's follow up to the Oscar-winning Juno. And it's a whole different type of film. The movie follows Ryan Bingham (George Clooney), a man who goes around the country to fire people for a living. He's a bit of a loner and feels more at home at an airport than he does at his own home. He doesn't like having relationships tie him down, either, so when he meets a flighty (no pun intended) woman named Alex (Vera Farmiga) who is just as elitist as he is, he is enthralled. So it doesn't sit well with him when he's threatened with being grounded by his boss (Jason Bateman), who, in order to save money, is taking a more technological approach to the process as invented by a young up-and-comer named Natalie (Anna Kendrick). But she's too naive and doesn't know the ropes, so Ryan is forced to take Natalie around the country to show her what it really takes to fire people.

While I don't think it was the best film of 2009, I still think it was up there (again... no pun intended). Though it was really distracting that, while watching the movie, I'm staring at Anna Kendrick going "where the hell have I seen you before?" And after I get home, I had to imdb it... and it was very much to my surprise that she's one of Bella's friend in the Twilight movies. I just have to say this... I'm not sure if she has a good or bad agent... because she went from the bottom tier of films right to the top without any transition in between. But it also adds more proof to my theory that the female actresses of the Twilight films can actually act, whether or not they show the ability in those films.

Anyway, on to the movie. Personally, I thought the first act (before Natalie is introduced) was a bit too slow, and it actually reminded me somewhat of the non-killer parts of American Psycho. Just the conversations between Ryan and Alex about their elite statuses and the types of cards they carry really took me back. The second act (the part where Ryan and Natalie travel the nation) is the best part of the movie. It kept me engaged and entertained and was really fun. But then the third act came in (starting with the wedding stuff), and it felt like a completely different movie. For some reason, it just didn't meld well with me. But then it gets back to what I consider the movie... and seems to rush it. I think the closure with Natalie could have been better, like there was this elaborate setup for the events at the end that are mostly glanced over. And all three acts have three completely different tones. The first is more dry humor... the second, I suppose, is a more straight-forward humor... and the third act is mostly drama.

I know it seems like I'm panning the movie, but I'm not. I really did enjoy it quite a bit. George Clooney and Anna Kendrick were wonderful in it. Kendrick's character has a good transition from naive, ambitious, young woman right out of school to a more mature, experienced young woman. On the other hand, Clooney's Ryan goes from elitist loner to a more warm and human man. It also had some great cameos, such as Zach Galifianakis, J.K. Simmons, and Sam Elliot. It was also cool to see Danny McBride in a slightly more serious role.

The movie was stylish and fun and had some really good jokes, most of which came from Anna Kendrick's Natalie. There's really not much else to say. While I don't agree it was the best film of 2009, it was really good and I'd love to see it again.


A Keanu 'Whoa'

DAYBREAKERS.

This is probably the longest wait I've given before writing a review for a movie I saw in theater. I went to see this last night (Friday), and I guess I've just been preoccupied with other things to write a review. But let's get to it before I forget the movie. I've been interested in this movie since I saw the first trailer, as I thought it was a unique spin on the (no pun intended) dead-to-dying vampire genre.

The movie takes place in the near future where the majority of the human population has been turned into vampires. But the human race is nearly extinct, and the vampires are running out of blood. They're driven to either starve or feed off other vampires (or, worse, themselves), both paths turning them into bat-like monsters called Subsiders. The film focuses on (sigh) Edward (Ethan Hawke), a hematologist looking for a blood substitute. Unlike most vampires, though--such as his brother Frankie (Michael Dorman) or his boss, Charles (Sam Neill)--Edward refuses to feed off humans. He ends up meeting an underground band of humans including Lionel "Elvis" Cormac (Willem Dafoe)--a human who was once a vampire and somehow turned back. So now Edward must work with the humans and stay out of the government's grips long enough to figure out how to replicate the cure.

The first thing I noticed about the movie were its painful similarities to Twilight--a vampire named Edward who refuses to feed off humans, vampires having golden eyes that get darker the hungrier they get--but then the movie really started off and I was able to put those aside (except for the "Edward" thing. Every time Sam Neill said "Edward" all dramatically, I think I died a little inside).

From the trailer, the one thing I was worried about was that the movie would be all action and no substance, and I really wanted a vampire movie with a hearty balance of action and substance, which isn't very common (not even you, Let The Right One In. I think the only other one I can think of at the moment is Chan-wook Park's Thirst). And thankfully, I was treated to just that. It isn't the non-stop bloody action film that the trailer suggests. Yes, there's action and yes, there's blood, but it isn't the whole movie.

However, there were a couple things that I think could have been cut because they tried to add substance and, in the end, just added pointlessness. For instance, the subplot about Sam Neill's daughter really had no relevance to the overall plot except for an important taunt at the end. And one character's "backstabbing" moment at the end has no rationale behind it. It just felt like an attempt at one more bit of suspense. And maybe had they fixed those things, they could have figured out a better ending. It's like... the climax happens and the writers are like "Oh... uh... I guess we should end it now? OK, yeah. Cue pointless voiceover and one last scare attempt."

Those are really my biggest issues, though. The best part of the movie is its attention to detail. The golden eyes, the bite marks on the neck, the "blood creamer" for coffee, a random shot of a vampire character not having a reflection in the mirror... just things like that. It even goes into details of how vampires travel in the daylight if they need/want to.

The visuals are outstanding, for the most part. The bluish hues that tint the film add a coldness or deadness to its feel (while the human scenes have more orange/sunlight or life colors). The only visuals I didn't like were the ones of the vampires burning in sunlight. That was such terrible CGI, which is completely uncalled for in this day and age. There were those parts that reminded me of I Am Legend-level bad for CGI, but they were few and far between, thankfully.

And speaking of I Am Legend, who are you to be scared of when everybody is a vampire? In the aforementioned story, it's the remaining human. In this, it's the Subsiders. The Subsiders were an interesting twist and rationale behind why they needed to drink human blood. And some of the slow changes or different stages of transformation reminded me of District 9's gradual alien transformation.

As for the action, there was enough and it was great. Was it bloody? Oh yeah, especially the climax of the film. It's not the goriest stuff ever, though, for those of you who get bothered by that. There's just quite a bit of it--again, the climax is the heaviest part. The vampires don't really have super strength or anything (nothing explicit, anyway). The only 'super-strong' moment was with a Subsider. But as I said earlier, the movie was more about its characters than its action.

Finally, the acting was good, which is to be expected from the likes of Ethan Hawke and Willem Dafoe. And Willem Dafoe was actually pretty funny in the movie. I really enjoyed his character, who added some much needed humor to what's an otherwise dark movie.

Overall, it's a really good vampire movie with a good balance of action and drama. Good acting, mostly great visuals, and a creative and unique twist on an old story. So if you want to see a vampire movie that actually pays attention to the details, one that isn't just the same old thing, I recommend this movie. It isn't perfect, but it's good enough.


I Am McLovin!