Daybreakers

J: I have lately heard critics lamenting the recent glut of vampire movies and, while I agree to some extent, I have to say that “Daybreakers” provides at least an entertaining new twist on the genre.

It’s the year 2019 and the vampires haven’t been made in the traditional way, they are a result of a viral epidemic. As most of the world’s population is turned to bloodsuckers (how could the politicians stand the competition?) the powerbrokers naturally figure out a way to make money off the misery. As the virus spreads and humans become outnumbered by vampires some allow themselves to be turned while others decide that little scenario bites. Those poor schmucks have only two choices, go underground to retain their humanity or be captured and farmed for their blood by the new super-corporation run by Charles Bromley, played by a wonderfully creepy Sam Neill (guess Bill Nighy was busy!). And so the world keeps perking along although with a few MINOR differences, like blood in the Starbucks coffee, everything happening at night and cars customized for driving in the daylight if absolutely necessary.

There’s one itsy-bitsy problem, however. These suckers are running rapidly out of blood. So, to preserve their cash flow, the corporation puts their crack hematologists, headed by Edward Dalton (Ethan Hawke) on the fast track to developing a synthetic substitute, but it’s not going well and the results are pretty ugly. Meantime, riots are breaking out all over the world as the supply trickles down to nearly nothing and Mr. Bromley is suffering a bottom line breakdown because the rich vamps are removing their personal supplies from his ghastly hanging garden of human blood bovines. Oh yeah, and when deprived of blood, these pretty little fanged humans turn into neat creatures that we would normally associate with being a vampire – human façade gone poof!

A happy accident, well car accident actually, leads Edward to Lionel “Elvis” Cormac, played by Willem Dafoe, who was a vampire and accidently (again a car accident) cured himself by burning in the daylight before dowsing himself in water. This leads Edward to the cure he’s looking for but he has a little trouble selling that to the corporate geeks. See, they are more interested in the steady cash from the rich vampires than watching their profits burn up as everyone returns to non-sucking humans.

Now, even though I approached this flick with low expectations and was at this point guessing at the predictable ending for all this blood and gore, I was pleasantly surprised with a pretty nifty twist to the end. Not to mention, copious amounts of the aforementioned blood and gore – something that I will not hesitate to remind my PIC about next time she says “no” to a zombie movie! So, I will not be the spoiler here but will suggest that anyone who adores a well acted bloodbath ooze on over to their Cineplex and indulge in Daybreakers. Oh yeah, it actually made me jump once and believe me when I say that does not happen very often – BONUS!

K: I, like my PIC, was also pleasantly surprised. I liked that it wasn't your typical rehashed vampire movie plot. I'm always a sucker for an original story - and vampires running out of blood is pretty original. And I loved the little twists in the story that I didn't see coming. I also have to say that I enjoyed the gore, much to my surprise. I haven't seen a gory movie in a long time so it was good to get into a couple scenes that were bloodbaths.

In addition to good story, Sam Neill, Ethan Hawke, and Willem Defoe all did a tremendous job with their roles. I love when good actors aren't afraid to take on a fantasy/sci-fi role when presented with a good script. This was a darn good movie. I don't know why it was shelved for two years. I'm glad it finally got to see the light of day (pun intended).

Avatar

J: “Avatar” (which should also be known as “James Cameron Saves Hollywood”) was so exquisitely beautiful it reduced me to tears for most of the movie. Sure that’s an awful lot of hyperbole, which isn’t like me at all, so let’s temper it a bit. Having said all that, I’m the first to admit the message in the movie, or at least the delivery of said message, is a little heavy-handed. The one thing I think everyone can agree on is that, once again, James Cameron has moved filmmaking to a whole new amazing level – something that only a handful of directors can claim. Yes, it cost several human limbs and maybe a first-born or two, but the beauty of that is once the technology is in place, the rest is gravy. Just ask Peter Jackson and George Lucas. The perfect blending of live actors and stunning animation in 3D is clearly where Hollywood was heading – it’s the best of both worlds.

I’m not going to rehash the plot because if you haven’t seen it yet you probably aren’t going to and if you have, you’re probably on your third or fourth viewing. But I would like to talk about something my PIC said – that Avatar is just “Dances With Wolves” on steroids. It’s a fair comparison but I think that’s just the point. The Earthlings are doing just what Earthlings do best – exploiting natural resources to the point of destruction and seizing whatever they want, whether it’s there for the taking or it belongs to someone else and violently if necessary. Basically, if you are weaker, you’re toast! But the message I really appreciated was the close connection the Na’vi on planet Pandora had to the natural world around them; the importance they gave to the plants, trees and animals – even the ones they killed for food were honored in death and not destroyed wantonly or without respect. A little more of that attitude in this world would be a welcome change.

What made me cry? The sheer beauty of the planet Pandora and the feeling in 3D that it surrounded me; that I felt I was really there was a breathtaking experience. The little bugs that floated around in the air looked so real I was tempted to reach out and touch them. Jungle paths that lighted up when the Na’vi walked on them and then went dark after they passed – what an imagination!

What made me mad? Yes, I now circle back to the heavy-handed delivery of the message. I think the military “bad guys” would have been better served, and would have given critics a bit less ammo, if the reprisals had been toned down a bit. Well, maybe toned down isn’t the right phrase; how about a bit less of it. I didn’t need 45 minutes of nuclear bombing and Marine hoo-ra to “get it”. The other really glaring thing for me was the object of all this greed and avarice – some goofy rock called “unobtanium”. Are you kidding me? What a stupid name! And we never get to know what it was the silly rock did – unless I was swooning and missed it! The other thing I believe is going to bother me after my second or third time seeing Avatar (you bet – I’ll support a genius like Cameron!) is the rather flatness of the characters but I’m sure that will be addressed in the next movie – yes, of course there’ll be another 10 or 15 – this is Hollywood, right? I also would like to have seen a bit more redemption from some of the characters – notably, Giovanni Ribisi’s corporate suck-up administrator, Parker Selfridge, who is this mysterious unobtainium’s biggest fan. It was hinted at for a moment but then he was being packed off back to the dying Earth with the rest of the military grunts. Maybe next time?

I do admire what this movie has done as well as what it tries hard to represent and really do look forward to the next installment, and the next, and the next….. well, you know the drill.

J's Best of Picks for 2009

J: Yes, the inevitable year-end wrap up. However, not being much for lists per se, I’m going to put my two cents worth in a bit differently than my PIC did. Here goes:

Best Movie of 2009: I gave this an awful lot of thought because I was torn between two excellent films. However, I had to be true to my review and stick with “2012” as the best movie of the year. As a long-time loyal Trekkie this was a VERY difficult decision and, in the end, better science (more to the point, lack of science) won out. I have watched “Star Trek” several times now since its release on DVD and I just cringe when Young Spock and Old Spock have their little confab at the end of the movie – I can’t help but hear the fabric of space-time ripping to shreds in the background! My second big issue remains the infamous Red Matter. Come on now, couldn’t the writers have given just a little more thought to that? Even a made up chemical sounding name would have been better! And I’m truly sorry but watching Spock snogging Uhura every chance he got still turns my stomach. While those negatives broke the tie, it was the quality of the characters, the fabu special effects and the fact that 2012 lived up to my expectations that sealed the deal for me. The relatively happy ending, for an apocalypse anyway, also sold me. 2012 fits my theory about hoping for the best but preparing for the worst very nicely. Can’t wait until the DVD comes out! Congrats! Now, for a few other succulent picks:

Worst Movie of 2009: This was easy but somewhat unfair to my PIC – “New Moon” hands down. Even Michael Sheen as Aro was not enough to save this muscle bound mess. The review in the local paper named Kristen Stewart as the real vampire in this movie because she sucked the life out of it – so true. Look for a similar Worst of for 2010 because, after dragging my PIC to Avatar, I have to return the favor by seeing the next Twilight movie without the benefit of Michael Sheen to save it. Dracula help me!

Funniest Movie of 2009: Flew solo on this one – “Zombieland” was the funniest movie I’ve seen in awhile and got bonus points for having zombies in it. Doesn’t get much better than that, folks!

Best Movie With Vampires and Extremely Sexy Lycans of 2009: Yeah, that’s right! I felt so bad that I couldn’t fit “Underworld: Rise of the Lycans” much less any other of the Michael Sheen movies we saw this year – although I gave “Frost-Nixon” consideration as Best of the Year – that I decided to make up a Best of just for him. Sue me! That’s how Team Michael rolls!

Avatar

K: I'd like to start out by saying that I did like Avatar, I just wasn't overly thrilled with it like everyone else seems to be. The animation was spectacular. I especially loved the little floating puffy things that looked like jellyfish. I wish they would have put as much effort into the script as they did the animation. The plot was trite and completely predictable. It was a half-assed Dances With Wolves wannabe that lacked any subtlety whatsoever.

My main issue with the plot is that I know it didn't have to be that bad; someone was just too lazy to care about it. I would like to point to Up and Wall-E as examples of how a high tech movie ought to be. The animation in these two were spectacular, of course. But beyond that they had me captivated in a riveting story with characters I really cared about. In my mind I was trying to justify Avatar's plot by telling myself that they were aiming for a broad audience that encompassed kids (unlike Dances With Wolves that is clearly for a mature audience only). But that argument just doesn't hold. Up and Wall-E were aimed directly at children but they bewitched and enchanted people of every age.

So I know it can be done: there can be a successful marriage between CGI technology and decent scripts. It's just up to the producers to care enough about making a quality movie and not just a flashy one.

K's Top 10 Movies of 2009

1. Star Trek
2. Inglourious Basterds
3. District 9
4. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
5. The Hangover
6. Good Hair
7. This Is It
8. Up
9. Pirate Radio
10. The Road

Star Trek probably won't get an Oscar nomination for best movie, but it should because it's clearly one of the 10 best movies of the year (if not THE best, as I state above in my list). Aside from the action and great special effects, it has a fabulous story that (re)introduces all of our favorite characters brilliantly acted by the entire cast. And since it starts from the very beginning, it's an open invitation to all to come join the experience. It's a wonderful movie that everyone should watch - especially those movie snobs who get to vote on the Oscars.

Sherlock Holmes

J: “Sherlock Holmes” is a thrilling, if a bit exhausting, piece of filmmaking and quite enjoyable. This is one of those movies that have been on our radar since the first trailer hit theaters some time ago, with its intriguing director, Guy Ritchie, and high eye-candy quotient in Robert Downey, Jr. and Jude Law. In those things this movie did not disappoint.

There can be little argument that Guy Ritchie is a “guy’s” director so one can expect A LOT of action sequences but very interestingly done and Sherlock Holmes is definitely all that and a bag of popcorn. BUT, and yes it’s a big “but”, this movie could have benefited by cutting the action back a bit and letting Robert Downey Jr.’s Sherlock do a little more cerebral sleuthing. The constant onslaught of fights, chases and explosions had me thoroughly exhausted at about two thirds through the movie.

The other hallmark of a Ritchie film is his always interesting and complex characters. In this film, he gets to put his spin on established literary characters and does a very good job of making both Holmes and Dr. Watson (Jude Law) flawed but fascinating figures. Particularly Dr. Watson, who in the past has gotten a somewhat dim-witted treatment – obviously to make Holmes seem even more the genius. This movie portrays them more as equals and actually gives the good doctor a love interest (played by Kelly Reilly), who is taking him away from Holmes and Holmes does not like that much. The opening scene finds the two men rushing to stop the antagonist, Lord Henry Blackwood (Mark Strong), from committing a ritualistic murder of a young woman. And they do so, in the nick of time, naturally. In a few months, Holmes is called to Lord Blackwood’s jail cell just prior to his hanging where Blackwood delivers some ominous warnings about murders yet to come for Holmes to chew on and we get to see that his cell walls are covered with strange occultism markings. Soon after, Lord Blackwell is hung, although not well (sorry about that – don’t often get to use a pun that good!) and Dr. Watson confirms his death. Ah, but apparently death does not come swiftly to Blackwell as his tomb is smashed open from the inside and his coffin contains the body of a red-haired dwarf – ironically, the same dwarf a certain woman from Holmes’ past has hired him to find. Rachel McAdams plays Irene Adler, an American con artist who is the only person to outsmart Holmes – twice in fact, which doesn’t say much for this Holmes’ ability to keep his fly buttoned.

Even though we have had a couple of fights and at least one extended chase scene by this point, the action only continues to ramp up, with fights and explosions in abundance. And this is my one issue with this movie. As I said at the very beginning, the action sequences, while well done and very exciting, overpower the film and take away what should be the true heart of this movie – Holmes and Watson cleverly observing clues and making all the correct assumptions. All of the clues that Holmes collects throughout the course of the film are explained away in a few scant minutes at the end of the movie. Rarely, really only in Holmes’ descriptions of his coupe-de-gras in beating his fight opponents, do we ever get to witness the super-human ability of Holmes to grasp and correlate the clues as he goes along in his investigations. And that is exactly what any Sherlock Holmes movie is supposed to accomplish. While I have no problems with the new takes on the characters and did very much enjoy the “buddy movie” feel in the relationship between Holmes and Watson (including some very witty repartee), Sherlock Holmes is a detective who can take the most mundane item and turn it into the solution to the crime – something that was missed by all others – and that is what this film needs to be a worthy Sherlock Holmes picture. Now, as we clearly get the set-up for the next movie in the introduction of a truly Holmes-ian character (won’t be the spoiler here) it would be well worth mentioning this small bit of advice. Hopefully, in the next installment, we will see a more cerebral Holmes that is less the pugilist and more the brilliant detective.

K: This was a fun movie and I enjoyed watching it, but it could have used about 20 minutes of editing in the middle of the movie. I would have liked to have seen more of Holmes' powers of deduction in action instead of saving it all up for the end. However, I definitely recommend it to everyone.

Pirate Radio

J: It’s the feel good movie of the year! No, not some stupid, sappy chick-flick, I’m talking about “Pirate Radio” – a groovy trip back to the 1960s and the difficult birth of freewheeling British rock & roll. It has a terrific ensemble cast that features Philip Seymour Hoffman as an American expat DJ, The Count and Bill Nighy (geez, what CAN’T he do!) as Quentin, the boss of the ship called Radio Rock that serves as the offshore radio station of the title. The rest of the motley crew of DJ’s work around the clock to send out the trippy vibes of fledgling rock the BBC, and British government, apparently cannot abide by.

This is truly the Swinging Sixties and Young Carl (Tom Sturridge), Quentin’s godson has been sent by his mother, played with great humor by Emma Thompson, to spend time on the Radio Rock to get “straightened out”. Of course, this is the worst place for that and quite expectedly, hilarity ensues. Not surprisingly, the crew sets out to make sure Young Carl loses his virginity, but he is stymied at each turn, mostly by the man trying the hardest to help with the task, the DJ Dr. Dave (played by Nick Frost, normally a foil for Simon Pegg). Dr. Dave somehow manages to end up in bed with the very “chicks” destined for Carl, most notably, Quentin’s niece, Marianne (a charming Talulah Riley) who does eventually succumb to Carl’s modest charms.

Enter the Evil Empire in the guise of the British government. The mission of shutting down pirate radio falls to a completely, but typically, tight-assed Brit, Minister Dormandy, played with brilliant buttoned down maliciousness by Kenneth Branagh – complete with slicked down hair, dorky glasses and a decidedly unfunny family. Clearly, if he can’t have any fun in life, then neither can anyone else. He is aided in his quest by – get ready for my PIC to break out laughing – Dominic Twatt (explanation – she inexplicably cannot keep from laughing at this particular Brit euphemism, but who can blame her really) played by Jack Davenport of Pirates of the Caribbean fame. They conspire to shut down Radio Rock, which proves to be not only very hard but very unpopular as well – but that never stopped a mid-level British government functionary. More hilarity ensues.

Ok, cut to the chase. I’ve read a few reviews about this film, both from the UK and the US, and I have a question. Why is it so difficult for people to just sit back and have a good time at a movie? Why does every movie need to have a deeper meaning and loads of pathos? The simple answer is – it bloody well does not! I know I’ve launched into this rant before, but too many good movies have been sunk by this kind of thinking. I personally had a ball watching this flick. It had terrific actors that I enjoy watching whether they be vampires, petit authors or zombie best friends and terrific music to which I boogied along with in my seat. I shed a tear as the boat started to sink with all aboard and cheered when all were rescued – even The Count, which looked dicey for awhile. I had, in short, a terrific time. Too bad there are so many critics that can’t seem to do the same thing and in doing so, rob people of some potentially good natured fun. So, if this movie is still showing at a theater near you, blaze new trails, be a renegade worthy of Pirate Radio and go see this movie. You won’t regret it, Baby and you’ll be feeling groovy!

K: I agree with my PIC. This is a great movie that was fun to watch, and when you left the theater you were whistling the tunes. Definitely rent this movie when it comes out.