A Strange, Yet Captivating Experience

Steven Soderbergh. One look at his directing resume on IMDb heralds an interesting result. No, I haven't seen every movie on that list, but the ones I have are nothing like The Girlfriend Experience. In fact, I was convinced during my screening that this wasn't the same Soderbergh I had become accustomed to, labeling whoever it was, for one reason or another, David. But no. This is indeed Steven Soderbergh, the man behind Traffic, Erin Brockovich and the Ocean's films. Maybe it's because I haven't yet had the chance to see his more downplayed, independent productions, like Bubble, but The Girlfriend Experience left me baffled, in awe of the simplicity of its production, but confused as to its meaning, if one did indeed exist.

The Girlfriend Experience is about a young woman named Chelsea, played by real life adult actress Sasha Grey, a call girl whose clientele don't ask only for sex, but for the entire experience of having a real life girlfriend. She seems to be doing great for herself, running her own business, making thousands of dollars an hour and in a relationship with a weight trainer who accepts her lifestyle. After a new client catches her fancy, Chelsea believes there may be a connection and decides to pursue her desires, hopefully getting away from her customary life, even if that means taking a chance on compromising everything.

Most films, although not necessarily predictable, have something that lets you know that it is heading towards some type of conclusion. There's something of interest that, even when surrounded in mystery, keeps the story flowing. In The Girlfriend Experience, no such thing exists. You're not wondering where it's going to end up. You're wondering when it's going to start. There's never any indication that the movie is leading up to any type of conclusion, which is noted by the abrupt ending, where nothing is resolved.

Maybe that was the point. Chelsea's routine is monotonous, periodically succumbing to the sometimes sick pleasures of her clients, and she has no escape. Her dilemma has no foreseeable conclusion, so the film never provides one. When she finally sees an opportunity to run off and start anew, things all come crashing down on her and she is relegated back to where she began, hurt and afraid, her previous relationships shattered, with the exception of the manufactured relationships she sells on a day to day basis.

I apologize. Thus far, this hasn't been so much a film review as it has been a non-critical analysis of its many aspects, but The Girlfriend Experience is just that, an experience that requires careful deliberation afterwards, although even after my long and arduous thought process (much of which will not be typed here to avoid longevity), I still don't believe I've come to any real conclusion, except for the fact that I'm coming to love this film more and more. I walked out of the theater in ambivalence, but any movie that allows you to think and discover more about its intricate, yet simultaneously uncomplicated story deserves recognition, despite the occasional flaw.

At the start of this movie, it looked like Soderbergh was going to make an argument. It doesn't merely bring up our crumbling economy, it makes it a potent point in the lives of these characters, continually discussed through many different scenes. At times, I felt like a connection was being made between Chelsea's clients and America. Just as the characters in the movie spend their money frivolously, we do the same, wasting it on things that we don't need. But then it drops the economy stance and seems to wander towards nothingness. Did I miss something? Perhaps, but if it was trying to make a political point, it wasn't apparent enough to notice.

I also felt like the acting was sometimes hit and miss. Sasha Grey, a professional porn star, conducts herself with aplomb at times, playing her character on one note throughout. That may sound like a back handed compliment, but that's what her character called for. Chelsea's repetitive and misguided life echoed her attitude, so she did a fine job in her role. However, her amateurish acting ability shone through during some key scenes. During her date with the client who she starts to make a connection with, she is called on to genuinely laugh, but the problem is that you can tell it's artificial, a laugh produced solely because the script called for it. At other times, when she was supposed to be serious, it was apparent that Grey was attempting to hold back a real laugh so as not to ruin the take. It was distracting. I was infatuated with her performance on occasion, but once in a while, I could see why she was a porn star rather than a movie star.

Steven Soderbergh, despite the style different from the one I've become acquainted with, directs the movie exquisitely, knowing when to put the camera down and let his actors do the work, which he does quite frequently. At many points in the movie, more than I can count, the camera is positioned in one place and the actors play their parts in one take, with the camera never cutting. This was incredibly impressive, on the part of the director as well as the talent, and gave the film a more realistic, voyeuristic feel. I felt like I was watching real people, spying on their private lives, looking at things that I had no right looking at, which made the proceedings more personalized and grounded.

In my notes, I wrote, "It isn't the story that pulls this one through so much as the interesting direction," but now I've come to realize that isn't necessarily true. While Soderbergh's downplayed direction, putting faith in his actors by placing the camera in one spot and letting it role, was one of the key elements to the film's success, the story is just as prudent. It's not like other movies where you know where you stand on it as soon as it's over. No, this film requires reflection. It doesn't just ask you to think. It demands it. Although my review is now over and my score doled out, I feel like my opinion of The Girlfriend Experience will only grow over time, a mark of any great film.

The Girlfriend Experience receives 4/5

The Brothers Bloom a Rousing Success

This summer has been one giant disappointment so far. With the exception of Star Trek, nothing has come out that can be deemed a "must see." That's where The Brothers Bloom comes in. With plenty of heart, emotion and laughs, it doesn't just adequately pass the time. It instead offers up a lighthearted, but surprisingly challenging film that deserves to be seen. The Brothers Bloom is pure entertainment.

At the start of the film, we are introduced to Stephen (Mark Ruffalo) and Bloom (Adrien Brody), two young boys who one day decide to become conmen, with their first target being a group of fellow children, who they swindle for 30 dollars. Flash forward 20 years and the two brothers are rich from the many elaborate cons they have pulled off, somehow gaining millions through carefully layed out plans. But Bloom is sick of the game and decides to pull out, moving far away. After tracking him down, Stephen talks him into pulling off one last con in an attempt to fool Penelope (Rachel Weisz), an eccentric, oddball heiress into giving them her money. But as the con unfolds, Bloom begins to fall in love with Penelope and further complicates the matter.

The Brothers Bloom are what you would call gentleman thieves. Their motto is that the perfect con gives both parties what they want. Sure, they're robbing their victims of money, but in return, they're providing them with something more, a sort of lucid exchange for their services. The conundrum here, though, is that the two brothers don't see eye to eye. Bloom doesn't decide to quit simply because he's tired. He quits because he's sick of manipulating innocent people through trickery and he knows in his heart that what he is doing is wrong. Stephen, on the other hand, has no reservations and never questions his intentions, not for one second wondering whether his actions are morally bankrupt. This is where the film succeeds where so many others have failed. While a movie like Ocean's Eleven can still entertain, internal conflict rarely occurs due to the abundance of characters with their eyes all set on the same goal. In The Brothers Bloom, the two primary characters are at odds with one another. It allows for more depth and character development, traits lacking in many con films.

But that doesn't mean the film is all serious. On the contrary, the biggest asset to the movie is its humor. Because of the nature of the characters--Bloom emotionally drained and serious and Stephen playful and nonchalant--you'd think that the two comedic styles would conflict. Bloom is more deadpan while Stephen is more witty and fun, but rather than create a contradiction in style, the two styles converge to the same point, combining to form a unique and incredibly funny experience.

While the actors deserve credit for sure, it's the writing here that shines through. Throughout the film, I was provided with smart storytelling, well written dialogue and ample amounts of intrigue. At one point in the movie, it felt like everything was wrapping up and the way it all seemed to be resolved would have been sufficient. I would have been perfectly content to see the movie end this way because my experience with it to this point was stellar, but it goes the extra mile and prolongs the ending to dive deeper into the story. When most movies do this, they tend to flail about wildly, creating unnecessary plot twists that further muck up the narrative, but The Brothers Bloom stays riveting, diving deeper into these interesting characters and bringing the story around full circle. It worked marvelously and now, upon reflection, I can't see it ending any other way.

There were a couple of missed opportunities, however, including the first kiss between Penelope and Bloom. Penelope's character is offbeat, easy to like, but also easy to laugh at, and this moment was played for laughs, which took away some of the romantic fervor that the scene would have had otherwise. The romance between these characters is one of the largest foundations of the story, narratively and emotionally, so I would have loved to have seen a more serious approach taken to this pivotal moment in the story. Sometimes, it just tried too hard to be funny.

Still, these minor moments don't detract much from the overall experience. Near the end, the movie starts to con you, the viewer. You're along for the ride the whole time, but at this point, you begin to question Stephen's motive. Is he conning his own brother, another elaborate scheme to get what he wants? Or has the situation truly gotten out of hand? It's this sudden character/audience relationship flip that drives this movie until the end.

The Brothers Bloom is a hidden gem that I fear may fly under the radar in the wake of other more high profile films releasing this summer. Let's hope not because this is one of the best films to be released so far this year. It's a tad early to assume it will land a spot on my end of the year list, but don't be surprised if you hear me praising it when that time rolls around. The Brothers Bloom is a remarkable achievement and one of the most delightful films to be released in recent memory.

The Brothers Bloom receives 4.5/5

BDK and the Beard Podcast #6

Usually for these blog posts, I try to say something witty or do some sort of explanation, but if you're a regular visitor to this site (there has to be at least one), you should know the drill by now, so I'll skip the semantics and cut straight to the chase.

BDK and the Beard (that's me!) have joined up again to produce another of our weekly podcasts reviewing the week's new flicks. This week we have two high profile films, Terminator Salvation and Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian, and one relatively unimportant piece of dreck, Dance Flick. So click the link below and get to listening!

As always, don't forget to listen to BDK's Movie Show every Friday night from 7-10pm on 106.7 WJFK, or listen live at wjfk.com. Also, read BDK's movie reviews right here, after reading mine first of course (my opinion is more relevant...in my opinion).

BDK and the Beard discuss May 22nd new film releases: Terminator Salvation, Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian, and Dance Flick.

Dance Flick? More Like One Trick...Pony

Here's a movie that can't even get its title right. While it does spoof a few dance movies like Step Up, it also rips on movies like High School Musical and Hairspray. Sorry, those are musicals. Just because there's dancing in them doesn't make them dance movies. Are movies with no laughs dramas? If so, then Dance Flick should be filed as far away from the comedy section as possible once this disaster hits DVD shelves.

When I write reviews, I usually like to do a quick rundown of the plot right about now. Here it is. White girl meets black guy, learns how to dance "street," and earns respect. In other words, who cares? It's a spoof movie. The plot is irrelevant.

Like many recent spoof films, Dance Flick's source material comes from movies that don't follow what the title implies. On top of the ones already mentioned, it lampoons Ray, Little Miss Sunshine, Superbad, Black Snake Moan, Twilight and more. Also like many recent spoof movies, all it consists of is gag after gag with little regard to continuity or narrative and are inconsequential to the overall plot. After the Black Snake Moan reference, the movie transitions through a fade to another place and time. Why did it do this? Because the reference was so awkward and unneeded that they had nowhere to go. The simple solution was to just end it.

The problem here is that the jokes are in bad taste, offensive at every possible opportunity. It randomly and unnecessarily makes fun of Ray Charles' blindness and tries to create humor in suicide, blackface, child abuse and more. Why not throw a rape joke in there while you're at it?

The jokes that aren't morally reprehensible are offensively unfunny, a fate just as bad when making a comedy. Dance Flick continually goes for the easy jokes, with punch lines that you'll see coming well before they land. At one point, Shawn Wayans' character goes to see his son. He's a neglectful father trying to make amends and when he shows up at the door, he says, "I'm here to pick up my son." So what does he do? He picks him and puts him back down. Hilarious.

The difference between the utter idiocy of this movie and the brilliance of one of the Wayans Brothers earlier spoof films, Scary Movie, is that horror is ripe for parody. Horror flicks, especially slashers, have a rigid formula that gives spoofers boundless resources for jokes. Dance films practically spoof themselves. I haven't sat through one dance movie and not laughed my ass off due to the sheer stupidity of their stories. So what this film does is merely recreate a scene from a dance movie, throw in a farting sound effect and pass it off as funny and creative. It's neither.

There was one mildy clever recurring idea here that made me smile. In all of those idiotic dance films, the only that matters to the characters is respect and Dance Flick is quick to take jabs at this foolish mindset, because we all know respect doesn't mean jack in the real world. You can have your respect. I'll take my college education.

Still, that isn't enough to salvage this debacle. While it's certainly not as bad as the Aaron Seltzer/Jason Friedberg atrocities (Meet the Spartans, Disaster Movie) that are hastily pumped out year after year , it's still a piece of crap, a celluloid abomination with little to no laughs. Dance Flick is much like the films that inspired it: shallow, arrogant and a complete waste of time.

Dance Flick receives 0.5/5

You'll Be Sleeping Through This Night

One week ago, I was asked to go to the world premiere of Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian as a member of the press and take pictures of the celebrities as they walked the red carpet. We were asked to arrive over two hours prior to their arrival, so in order to curb our boredom, we received a lengthy press release detailing some interesting information about the new film. In it, Shawn Levy, the director, talks about how they approached the sequel, saying, "Ben Stiller and I had always agreed that we wouldn't continue this tale unless we had a great new story - so when the idea came up of taking Larry and his friends to the Smithsonian, we knew this was it." Great. Too bad that's not a story. That's a location.

And that is the fundamental problem with Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian. While the original was certainly no masterpiece, it at least provided a decent enough story. It wasn't simply locked into the museum setting. It dealt with problems outside of that sliver in Larry's (Ben Stiller) life. He was a divorced father who was desperate to win the affection of his son who was about to get a new stepdad, a successful Wall Street bond trader. It also gave him a love interest in the form of Carla Gugino, who was skeptical of his ramblings about the exhibits coming to life. Sure, the movie might not have been the imaginative escape we all hoped it would be, but it had depth. The sequel has none. It's merely a CGI spectacle with little regard to narrative.

In this movie, the exhibits are being moved from the American Museum of Natural History to the Smithsonian for permanent storage in the federal archives. Although the Tablet of Akmenrah, the magical stone that brings all of the exhibits to life at sundown, was supposed to stay, one of the monkeys stole it and took it with him to the Smithsonian. As you would expect, this brings everything to life, including Kahmunrah, a Pharaoh who has stolen it in order to unleash demons of the underworld and become ultimate ruler.

The great thing about this Night at the Museum sequel is that it has free reign to travel through the Smithsonian, a chain of 19 museums, which could have resulted in endless fun. Disappointingly, it stays secluded to a small portion of that area, mostly in the underground archives, which takes away a lot of the enjoyment of exploration.

Still, the film does manage to show a hint of creativity when the pictures and paintings come to life. When Larry and Amelia jump in the famous photo of the sailor kissing a woman in celebration of the ending of World War II, I was thoroughly charmed. It was clever, fun and promised of brighter things to come. What fun it would be to see these characters jump in and out of famous paintings, living through those universes imagined by some of the most artistic minds the world has ever seen. Surely the filmmakers would relish in this opportunity. Nope. After this one brief stint, the film reverts back to running amuck through the halls of the storage facilities, abandoning any chance of keeping things fresh.

Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian has a talented cast. Ben Stiller, Amy Adams, Ricky Gervais, Hank Azaria, Owen Wilson, Bill Hader, Robin Williams and more round out this stellar ensemble, but almost all are wasted. The problem here is that there are too many characters, making it a bit too much to juggle when it comes to screen time. Bill Hader is a comic genius and plays his role as General Custer superbly, but for the majority of the movie, he's locked inside of a giant crate with a plethora of other characters, including Sacagawea (Mizuo Peck), who played a role as Teddy Roosevelt's (Robin Williams) love interest in the first film, but here recites a couple of lines and then falls to the wayside. The only major player that seems to be having fun in the movie is Azaria, who plays his character uniquely and humorously, providing one of the only major laughs in the entire film.

There's a brief, two minute sequence in the movie with Jonah Hill who plays a security guard at the Smithsonian that is just great, proving his talent as a comedian, although much of it was spoiled in the trailer. And that's the story of this movie. While not a total drag, every mildly funny gag was ruined by the TV spots and theatrical trailers. Of course, the other jokes are basically rehashes of the previous movie anyway, including the slap fight between Larry and the monkeys. It wasn't funny in that one. It's doubly unfunny in this one.

There's a moderately amusing 300 spoof during the climactic battle, but by this time, it was too little, too late. Outside of a couple of inspired moments of comic ingenuity, Battle of the Smithsonian is painfully unfunny, no doubt thanks to the writers, Thomas Lennon and Robert Ben Garant, whose writing resume is shameful, with stinkers like Let's Go To Prison, Balls of Fury and Herbie Fully Loaded forever attached to their names.

Not being a fan of the original, I can't say I had high expectations for the sequel. The bar was set low. Surely it would be better. It wasn't. Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian is a bore and you'd be better off visiting the actual museum and learning something instead.

Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian receives 1/5

Interview with McG, Director of Terminator Salvation

On Tuesday, I was lucky enough to participate in a conference call with McG, the director of the new release, Terminator Salvation (sort of - it's a long story). The hospitable director was kind enough to answer many different questions, including the decision to make the film PG-13 rather than R, hiring Christian Bale in the pivotal role of John Connor and a deleted scene featuring a naked Moon Bloodgood that may show up on the director's cut DVD. Interested yet? I've picked out the best questions and have posted them here. Have a look and don't forget to check out Terminator Salvation, which hits theaters everywhere today.

Were you contractually obligated to direct a film that would end up being rated PG-13 rather than R?

No. Not at all. We were given freedom to direct whatever version of [Terminator Salvation] we liked. There’s a guy named Jeff Rubinoff who runs Warner Brothers. And a woman named Amy Pascal who runs Sony Pictures. They’re releasing the picture collectively. And from day one they were free – they gave us freedom to create an R rated picture if we saw fit to do so. And we just shot the film we wanted to shoot. And at the end of the day there were a couple of scenes in there that seemed like it would have taken the film into an R rating but they weren’t really in the service of the story or the characters so we lifted them out and got the PG-13. We really did it without sacrifice and feel great about the movie that’s getting out there now. And I think we live in a time where you see films like The Dark Knight that are made compromise free that ultimately garner a PG-13 rating. And we feel as though we made the film without compromise. So that’s just the honest truth.

You were recently quoted in an interview saying, "You’ve got to earn your stripes and pay your dues and I’m certainly willing to earn mine. Fortunately, I am most comfortable in this genre, ironically." I was wondering if the reason why you’re most comfortable in this genre is because you, in fact, grew up on it?

Yes, I grew up loving these films. These are the films of my childhood that I love the most and you guys know as aspiring journalists and journalists that you do what you’ve got to do to get your shot and show people that you have a talent for what’s been asked of you. And then as you get a little bit more juice in your respective community you’re able to branch out and seek what you’re most passionate about. Maybe you had to start on the food column and your passion was movies and you had to work a little bit until you get over there to a place of writing about the movies.

The same thing with me. I was excited about the challenge of Charlie’s Angels because people said you couldn’t make a successful female driven action franchise. And I thought that was bullshit, we certainly can. So we got some talented girls who were funny and physical and wonderful to entertain. And I think we broke down that glass ceiling.

Then I made a movie called We Are Marshall which was largely about a plane crash. I did that to help overcome my fear of flying and it was very cathartic for me in that way. And now here I am making a Terminator movie which speaks most directly to the films I’m most passionate about that are very exciting to watch for two hours. But by the same token, on the way back to the car and hopefully for many days afterwards you contemplate what was being suggested in the film. And I think the first Matrix picture does that in a very, very high level.

What would you say was the biggest challenge about working on this film?

Just honoring the credibility of what James Cameron and Arnold Schwarzenegger put into motion. I think the film had lost its way after the third film. And all of the fans were hoping for a reinvigoration. And we were hoping to reinvigorate to the degree that Chris Nolan and Christian Bale certainly captured that credibility in the relaunch of the "Batman" series with Batman Begins and of course the mighty Dark Knight.

Also I think there’s a good example in Daniel Craig in [James] Bond. I think he got very much back in touch with what we all liked best about the Bond series. And that’s what we aim to do with Terminator by making a credible film that comes with story first that all of the passionate fans can believe in. That’s certainly the goal.

Obviously, getting Christian Bale attached to the project was a really genius way of bringing the film the credibility it deserves after losing Arnold and after the third film. How were you able to convince him that John Connor was the right part for him? Because I know he’s a real big character actor and summer flicks usually aren’t his thing.

That’s very fairly put. But we talked very specifically about the character having a beginning, a middle, and an end, and a destiny that is more of a burden than an asset. I mean here’s a guy who’s told hey, you’re the one who’s got to lead us to salvation. And sometimes, you’ll notice in the picture he wishes the bullet would find him. And there’s a real responsibility with when somebody taps you on the shoulder and says you’re the one. And you say, "I’m just a computer hacker named Neo" and they say, "No, no, no you’re much more than that." Or "I’m a high school photographer named Peter Parker" and somebody says, "With great power comes great responsibility."

And the same thing goes for John Connor. He didn’t ask for this responsibility, but he knows it’s his calling to assume it, drill down, and make it happen on behalf of humanity and the resistance. And it’s a tremendous burden. And watching Christian Bale manage that is the joy of the picture.
You’re to the point where you’re an outstanding producer as well as director. Do projects sort of fall into your lap? Or are there still things that are off limits to you? Are there still things that you want to do as far as directing and producing?

Absolutely. I mean you’ve got to earn it every step of the way. And I’m attached to make, if you guys know this play, Spring Awakening that was running in New York for a while there that swept the Tony’s. It’s effectively a tragedy. I’m very excited about making that picture and bringing it to the big screen. But I’m also developing 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea and I’m chasing Will Smith to be in that which should be a really, really fun action adventure based on 19th Century Classic Literature of Jules Verne so we’ll see how that goes. And then who knows, with a little luck we’ll be right back after it with a second and a third picture in Terminator.

And then, of course, we’ve got our TV world going with "Supernatural" going into season five. "Chuck" just got picked up for season three. And now we’ve got a new show called "Human Target" that’s going on Fox that was based on a DC Comic property that we’re very, very excited about it. And as a vote of confidence from Fox, they gave us the spot right after "American Idol." So I can’t complain. Things are good. And I’m always looking to talk to people like you guys for fresh new ideas and keep it cracking.

How do you feel that Terminator Salvation upholds the franchise?

Well, we wanted to be respectful of what James Cameron and Arnold Schwarzenegger put into motion all of those years ago. I was raised on those pictures. It was important to me to go down and kiss the ring of Jim Cameron and kiss the ring of Arnold Schwarzenegger. And I remember asking for Jim Cameron’s blessing. And he said, "I’m not going to give you my fucking blessing, what are you talking about?" And he said, "I don’t know what you’re going to do with the movie. I haven’t read the script."

We both kind of giggled. And he said, "I sure hope you make a good picture, not a bad picture." And he went on to tell me the story about how he felt following Ridley Scott after Alien. People wondered, who the hell is this guy Jim Cameron who had done Piranha 2 and how does he have the balls to follow Ridley Scott after Alien? Alien is a very sacred picture to everybody. And at the end of the day he followed the mythology very well and I think we’re all happy that he made Aliens the follow up to Alien. And that was a great picture. And obviously Jim’s gone on to do great things.

I would never be so bold as to say I’ll have the same good luck, but I’ll promise you that I’ll try as hard as I can.

How is the tone of this film different from the other films since it does take place after Judgment Day? And also if you do make another Terminator movie, will Christian be in it?

The tone of this film is different because it is indeed after Judgment Day. And I think the film had become a little bit farcical after the third Terminator and we wanted to get back to credibility like I said very much in keeping with what Chris Nolan and Christian Bale did with Batman Begins and into The Dark Knight and what Daniel Craig had done so successfully with the Bond reinvigoration.

So we wanted to make sure that we honor the audience by saying, hey, we take this very seriously. And we want to get it right so you feel respected as fans. And yes, Christian and I are both signed up to do a second picture, but we would never be so bold as to presume a second picture. That’s in the hands of you guys. If you guys get online and you talk about how you want another one, we’re going to be ready to talk about what happens with Skynet, what happens to Connor, how did Marcus get that way, where’s little Kyle Reese headed, the whole nine yards.

And not to mention we haven’t even gotten into time travel yet. I’m thinking about making the next picture a present day picture where Connor comes back in time to 2011 and has to galvanize the armed forces of the world to take on an impending invasion from Skynet from the future because they figured out how to send more than just one naked body at a time. And you effectively have our answer to Independence Day. And I think that movie could be absolutely phenomenal.

And along the way he’s got to find Marcus Wright who’s midway through this transition and the chip in the back of his head is going to be the key to taking down the Skynet invasion. I think that could be phenomenal.

With the other three movies and now this fourth one, was it difficult keeping up with the storyline and maintaining the timeline continuity from the first three?

It was difficult but it ultimately, you know, by virtue of our film taking place during the dark period, we know that the T800 came from 2029 back in time to chase around Sarah Connor in the first picture. And we also know that Judgment Day happened approximately between 2003 and effectively right now. So our film takes place in 2018. You see Skynet ramping up their technical proficiency building a great many machines, hydrobots that patrol the water, (moto-terminators) who patrol the roads. Hunter killers in the sky transports to take people back to Skynet. And of course the harvester that collects everybody on the landscape. It’s fun seeing them use all of those different machines all in the spirit of getting to the ultimate killing machine which is indeed the T800 as embodied by Arnold Schwarzenegger. So that was one of the joys of making the film.

Just going back to what you were saying about how you originally approached this film with the PG-13 rating in mind. Does this mean that the theatrical version is the final version that we’ll be expecting to come out on DVD? Or is there a director’s cut in the works?

There will be a director’s cut on DVD. There’s going to be about 30 minutes of extra material. There’s a topless scene with Moon Bloodgood that was always a lightening rod because I thought it was a very delicate scene that was designed to echo that scene in Witness where Kelly McGillis is taking a shower and she turns and she sees Harrison Ford there. And it’s effectively her saying I’m not ashamed, I don’t care what my upbringing was. I’m here to share myself with you. And they never even touch and they’re 30 feet apart but it’s very elegant.

And we did a scene that was very similar to that. And I ultimately decided to cut it because I didn’t want to let the audience off the hook and say there’s the gratuitous boob shot in a movie of this genre. I wanted to keep people focused and on point with the story. But to this day I’m not certain if I made the right decision. So I look forward to delivering that in the DVD. And then doing a lot of talking to the fans to see if we did the right thing or the wrong thing.

Plus there’s a little bit more violence in the manner in which Marcus kicks ass in that Deliverance hillbilly fight. And there’s a few more things along the way. So be prepared for an interesting director’s cut and some commentary that goes with it. It should be good.

The Only Thing That Will Be Terminated Are Brain Cells

There are action movies and then there's Terminator. This franchise has, in three short movies, carved a nice spot out for itself at the peak of the action movie mountain, firmly planting itself in the lives of film fans the world over. Sporting three noteworthy movies (yes, even the third one) and one that many consider the greatest action movie of all time (Terminator 2: Judgment Day), it seemed like this franchise could do no wrong. Well, it did. Terminator Salvation is a mess, a stain on the previously unsoiled franchise that is made so poorly that it makes Timecop look like a sci-fi masterpiece in comparison.

It's been quite a number of years since I've seen any of the Terminator films and I'm not exactly privy to its mythology, so forgive me if I'm brief in my plot description. The year is 2018 and the battle between Skynet and the Resistance rages on. Skynet, an artificial intelligence network, has taken control of itself and started a war with the human race and the only person who foresaw these events was John Connor (Christian Bale). He thinks there might be a way to end the war and soon meets up with Marcus (Sam Worthington). They team up in an attempt to inflitrate Skynet and end the battle.

Or something like that. Honestly, I glanced at Wikipedia. Sue me. The simple truth is that unless you're keen on the lore behind the Terminator franchise, you won't ever be fully onboard. Even having seen the previous three movies didn't stop my befuddlement, a detriment to Salvation's quality. This is a movie aimed solely at fans of the franchise and doesn't attempt to pull in anybody new. The most likely scenario, however, is that the fans won't appreciate it any more than the rest of us.

What this movie lacks is depth. It's a hodgepodge of a film with no focus. In the other films, there was one main enemy always in pursuit, which created a focal point for the action to drift towards. In Salvation, the enemies are numerous, never allowing for a clear threat to be established. It isn't personalized like the other films. It never gives you a chance to care about these characters and understand the motivation behind the enemies. As far as this movie is concerned, it's just a war. What else is needed?

At the very least, you'd hope Salvation would deliver some great action scenes. Well, the opening of the movie is quite thrilling leaving expectations high, but it's all downhill from there. The cardinal rule in action movies is to not overdo it. Two things can ruin a promising action picture. One, an overabundance of action and two, unnecessary fancy camerawork that distracts more than excites. Unfortunately, the latter ruins this movie and the perpetrator is McG, the director of the painful Charlie's Angels movies, and his self fulfilling camerawork.

Nearly every action scene screamed, "Look at me!" Early in the film, John Connor is in a helicopter that is spiraling to the ground. The camera starts inside with him, then swings outside and around, then back inside, before eventually flipping upside down. I appreciated the effort, but the frantic camera movement was unnecessary. It wasn't pertinent to the situation and seemed like McG was just trying to show off.

Still, this could all have been overlooked had the foundation been supported by a solid script. This flick is tremendously cheesy, contradicting the desired tone and providing me with some of the worst dialogue I've heard all year. While the performances are uniformly bad, even from the usually reliable Christian Bale, I'm not quick to point the finger in their direction, as the script was so poor and the dialogue so lousy that nobody could have pulled it out from under its own mediocrity.

If there's anything positive to say about Terminator Salvation, it's that it looked very good. It felt like a post-apocalyptic world and the CGI was no slouch in helping create that illusion. But even that has its drawbacks. On one hand, this movie couldn't have been made without CGI, but on the other hand, the previous films used very little CGI and were riveting action adventures. Sometimes, the technology is too abundant and noticeable, disallowing any chance for suspension of disbelief.

The two words that make up the Terminator Salvation title contradict one another. Terminate means to get rid of. Salvation means to save. No doubt a metaphor for the way the movie will be received. You'll want to kill any thoughts of it while preserving the love you have for the originals. Maybe that was their goal, a tricky way of manipulating your brain, urging you to buy the DVD's in your lustful desire to relive those past adventures. If so, well done. Well done indeed.

Terminator Salvation receives 1.5/5

World Premiere of Night at the Museum 2

On Thursday, May 14, 2009, I was priviliged enough to attend the world premiere of Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian. Yeah, that's right, this bearded fool received a press pass to go to a world premiere event for a major motion picture. Jealous much?

I went with BDK and fellow 106.7-er Shaky Knee and was assigned to the photography pit where the celebrities stopped and posed for my sexy ass. Surprisingly, I was lucky enough to finish up my picture taking duties and head down to catch BDK interview every single major star of the movie, minus Amy Adams (which is a shame because I'm ready to confess my undying love to her).

I took literally hundreds of pictures, but we've limited them to a select few that we thought were good (considering I was using a crappy little digital camera). I met and took pictures of Ben Stiller, Robin Williams, Ricky Gervais, Hank Azaria, Amy Adams, Owen Wilson, Thomas Lennon and more. Here's a little taste, but to see the rest, head on over here. Enjoy!

Ben Stiller

The Writers: Thomas Lennon and Robert Ben Garant (of "Reno 911!" fame)

Hank Azaria

Robin Williams

Amy Adams

Ricky Gervais

Owen Wilson

Again, don't forget to head to the WJFK website to check out the rest of the photos by clicking here.

BDK and the Beard Podcast #5

Well, color me shocked and amazed. We actually made it to five weeks in a row doing these podcasts. I'm so proud of us for not being lazy. It's nothing short of a miracle.

Yes, BDK and the Beard are back for another podcast breaking down the week's new film releases. Unfortunately, this week only had one major new release that we were able to check out: Angels and Demons (read my review here).

Therefore, it's one of our shorter podcasts, although we do talk a bit about our experience at the world premiere of Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian, where we met people like Ben Stiller, Robin Williams, Amy Adams and many more. I was in the photography pit taking pictures of the celebrities as they walked the red carpet (or blue carpet in this instance) and I plan on posting them here shortly so look for those soon.

For now, enjoy the podcast and check back next week for our reviews of the aforementioned Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian and Terminator: Salvation.

As always, check out BDK's Movie Show every Friday night from 7-10pm on 106.7 WJFK or listen live at wjfk.com. And don't forget to read BDK's movie reviews here.

BDK and the Beard discuss May 15th new film release: Angels and Demons.

Note: I'm running out of pictures of me and BDK, so in the meantime, enjoy the picture of Katherine Heigl. You're welcome.

Angels and Demons a Boring Adventure

What do you do after your movie is nominated for Best Picture at the Academy Awards? If you're Ron Howard, you follow it up with a sequel to one of your most critically unsuccessful movies you've ever made. Outside of his 1977 film, Grand Theft Auto, The Da Vinci Code is Ron Howard's lowest ranking film as a director on Rotten Tomatoes. But hey, at least there's plenty to improve on, right? You'd think so. Unfortunately, Angels and Demons fares no better. While not a flat out failure, it's a paltry exercise in cinematic overkill, sporting miscast actors and an unconvincing storyline.

After pissing off the Catholic church in The Da Vinci Code, Professor Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) is summoned to Vatican City by the Vatican police official. Makes sense. As it turns out, a scientific team has found a means to create antimatter, an antiparticle harnessing the power to obliterate large areas, which has been stolen by a member of the Illuminati, a secret society at odds with the Vatican. The perpetrator has placed the highly explosive antimatter somewhere in Vatican City and it's up to Langdon to decipher the clues and save the city before it's too late.

From what I understand, the book this movie is based on is fairly long and detailed, so naturally, the filmmakers were forced to condense the material down into an acceptable runtime for a feature length film. The problem is that this approach makes the film feel rushed, evidenced by the fact that it rarely stops moving. Of course, just because it's moving doesn't mean anything is really happening. As if they knew it was uninteresting, frantic music plays continuously over the soundtrack, even when things seem to be calm, although calmness is a rarity in this picture.

Falling into the same pratfall as the previous movie, Langdon figures things out way too quickly. The brightest minds in the world couldn't pull off in a week what he does in a few short hours. At one point in the movie, Langdon is stumped, seemingly hitting a dead end. As luck would have it, he looks down at his watch (a Mickey Mouse watch I might add), sees something underneath his hand and immediately puts it all together, in a matter of seconds. Right. How fortunate that he was standing at that precise spot when he decided to become aware of time management. The film moved at the convenience of time rather than at the necessary tempo for an engaging story.

As the successor to The Da Vinci Code, Angels and Demons is oddly standalone, rarely referencing its elder, but the problem is that it's indisputably similar. In The Da Vinci Code, Langdon runs inside some churches, finds some clues and moves to the next destination. In Angels and Demons, he runs inside some churches, finds some clues, hops in a car and moves to the next destination. Totally different. For a standalone movie, it sure is reminiscent of the previous entry, a bad diagnosis for a film trying to differentiate itself.

Still, it isn't all bad. A terrific scene about two-thirds of the way through shows a priest suspended in a church above a fiery pit, burning to death while Langdon and the police try to save him, which ends up culminating into a bloody gun battle, ending with a mesmerizing shot of the bad guy standing in front of the now dead priest, fire ablaze behind him. It was hauntingly beautiful.

Too bad the bulk of the movie is still lousy. Angels & Demons began with an interesting idea and looked like it was going to delve into a thoughtful discussion on science and religion and the ongoing battle between scientific progress and Catholicism, but instead becomes merely another routine mystery movie that results in a predictable conclusion easily foreshadowed by the not so subtle camera tricks and lighting cast on the true villain.

With unnecessary CGI, a miscast (albeit still competent) Tom Hanks as an unconvincing symbology expert and many missed opportunities, Angels and Demons suffers from a lack of polish, a trait necessary for any mystery movie to work. This flick is purely an escapist adventure that many will enjoy, but it didn't all work for me. It's like that mediocre chick you hook up with across the street rather than the beautiful blonde across town. It's good enough for the time being, but you can't help but long for something more.

Angels and Demons receives 2/5

BDK and The Beard Podcast #4

Hello all and happy summertime. As you should know by now, every entry in this blog streams to connect2mason.com via RSS feed, and since nobody gives a crap about content during the summer, I'd bet my pork and beans that this blog is almost irrelevant until the end of August when school kicks back in. But you know what? I'm so dedicated that I am going to keep this baby going all through the summer, so for the two of you who still bravely venture to this very spot, you can look forward to many more entries, including this podcast plug!

Surprisingly consistent, BDK and myself have once again done a weekly podcast breaking down the new movies. We've been strangely complimenting each other in our opinions recently, so for the lack of cut throat arguments, I apologize.

Anyway, this week we review three new movies: Tyson, Next Day Air and one of the biggest releases of the summer, Star Trek, all of which you can read reviews for by searching this here blog.

And as always, don't forget to listen to BDK's Movie Show every Friday night from 7-10pm on 106.7 WJFK (although the recent Washington Capitals games have pushed it back), or listen live at wjfk.com. Read BDK's movie reviews here.

BDK and the Beard discuss May 8th new film releases: Tyson, Next Day Air and Star Trek.

Star Trek a Must See

The summer movie season started out with a crawl last week thanks to the disappointing X-Men Origins: Wolverine (read my thoughts on that here), and here we are again with another origin story, but this week's new release picks up the summer slack that Wolverine began with its unflinching mediocrity. Courtesy of J.J. Abrams comes Star Trek, a summer movie event that bridges the gap between die hard fans and casual movie goers, creating a thrilling action movie guaranteed to please even the non-trekkies, excuse me, trekkers out there.

Using the characters from the original series, Star Trek traces the paths of James Kirk (Chris Pine) and Spock (Zachary Quinto), as they attempt to stop the evil Romulan, Nero (Eric Bana), from destroying Earth.

The only problem with the film, and it's a minor one at that, is that the non-initiated likely won't care about the epic Romulan/Starfleet conflict depicted onscreen. While the story certainly isn't bad, many will shrug it off as uninteresting sci-fi nonsense that many similar movies have. Thus, if you aren't a "Star Trek" fan, there will be moments you will have to fight your way through. At times, I could sense the film wandering away from me because of my non-fan status, but it always found its way back, never reaching far enough to lose my attention.

What we want to see here is action, and action we will get, some of the most intense and thrilling we've seen all year. Star Trek is impressively heart stopping with scenes guaranteed to raise your blood pressure, including a battle atop a giant drill high in the sky, which culminates in a plummet to the ground that had me on the edge of my seat.

Still, this is a character driven movie, due in large part to the terrific performances by everyone in the cast. Eric Bana is deliciously evil as Nero the Romulan and Chris Pine took the Kirk character and put his own spin on him rather than merely mimic William Shatner, which worked wonders. He was charming, seductive, funny, and seemed perfectly able to handle the situations he was faced with. But Zachary Quinto steals the show as Spock, a Vulcan whose species carry no emotions. While he claims to feel nothing (despite his half Vulcan, half human blood), there are brief moments where you can sense the sadness and despair coming through his character due to almost inconspicuous facial expressions Quinto so subtly sneaks in. It was quite impressive, indeed.

All the same, credit must be given to the filmmakers for not allowing their movie to be ruined by forced quotes and cameos. In such a legendary franchise loved by millions, it would be easy to include actors from the original series and famous lines spoken by them, but Star Trek intelligently avoids this pratfall and only includes them when relevant to the situation. The movie has some great one liners that carry a sense of humor, including some classic lines like, "I'm giving her all she's got cap'n," and they don't feel forced, but rather fit into the flow of the dialogue. Leonard Nimoy, the actor who played Spock in the original series even pops up, but his character plays a major role in the story that makes sense in the franchise canon. Never do you feel like your suspension of disbelief is being compromised for fan courtesy.

Star Trek is a great movie, strangely beautiful, yet delivering pulse pounding excitement that never goes over the top and sets the bar for the summer action pictures yet to come. The stunning sets and exquisite outer space shots only add to the awe you are guaranteed to experience. Star Trek is a damn near perfect summer blockbuster. It isn't merely fanboy service. It's something much more and is the first must see movie of the year.

Star Trek receives 5/5

Next Day Air - One of the Worst Movies of the Year

Next Day Air is like walking behind a fat chick in a thong. It's unpleasant, disgusting, offensive, and you can't wait until it's out of your sight. Such a miserable production should be relegated to the direct to DVD market, but unfortunately, it has somehow managed to invade theaters, much to the disdain of movie goers everywhere. Watching this film is like taking a can of mace and spraying it into your face, only it's not as pleasant.

Leo (Donald Faison of "Scrubs" fame) is a delivery boy for Next Day Air, a shipping company responsible for getting packages to their destinations. One day, while high from marijuana, he accidentally drops a package off at the wrong address, to Brody (Mike Epps) and Guch (Wood Harris). They soon discover that the package contains 10 kilos of cocaine. Poor and down on their luck, they decide to sell it, but little do they know, the owners of the product are on their way to pay them a visit.

That's the story and it goes nowhere. By the time the credits roll around, you'll likely be staring at the screen wondering, what was the point? Next Day Air is abysmally bad, a painfully unfunny exercise in poor filmmaking with no redeeming qualities throughout its painfully long runtime (about an hour and 20 minutes).

This movie isn't just stupid. It's brain deadening. It's a movie that tries to find humor in violence and drug smuggling, but the problem is that neither of those are funny. One scene shows two men dousing another in gasoline and threatening to light him on fire while the drenched man panics for his life. Har har.

Still, at this point in the movie, it isn't truly violent. It's merely using the possibility of violence for jokes, none of which are amusing. But then the climax of the film erupts into a shootout over the cocaine, resulting in a multitude of dead bodies strewn across the floor, with one encounter ending in a knife to the throat. Two people are left standing, one taking the coke and the other taking the money. This abrupt explosion of unnecessary violence doesn't present any resolution to the film, and instead leaves you bitter and depressed by the ruthless bloodletting.

Next Day Air also plays up some offensive stereotypes of African Americans and Latinos, including one Latino female who, when angry, spouts Spanish words in between English, making an incoherent mess of a dialogue littered with the uses of "ese" and "muchacho." No character escapes stereotype, so it functioned more as an entertaining game of "Spot the Misrepresentation and Lack of Respect for Human Individuality" than a movie in and of itself.

Next Day Air is idiotic, without one redeeming quality, sans Mos Def, who in his very brief scenes exuberates the most charm, but even his talents can't save this unavoidable mess. With awful dialogue, a stupid and uninteresting story, bland direction, poor performances, and offensive stereotypes, Next Day Air is hands down one of the worst films of the year and come December, you can expect to see it on that list.

Next Day Air receives 0/5

You Don't Know Mike Tyson Yet

Before seeing this film, I thought I knew everything about Mike Tyson. I'm not a boxing fan, but you'd have to be living under a rock to be unaware of him and his many notorious actions, all of which are explored in the new documentary, Tyson, but let me tell you now, I didn't know the half of him.

The movie follows Mike Tyson through his rise and fall in the boxing world, his incarceration for an alleged rape, his marriage and divorce, and more infamous moments like the biting of Evander Holyfield's ear. What's surprising is that Tyson is a multi layered person, a man of considerable depth that we can't even being to understand.

Growing up in a bad neighborhood, where crime was prevalent and where he was frequently robbed, he took interest in fighting and turned his life around, disciplining himself with the help of his trainers before becoming the heavyweight champion of the world. Mixing archival footage with new interviews with Tyson, the film puts context to his past and helps us understand what he had to go through to be where he is today.

Tyson is shocking on many levels. It shocks you in detailing some of the problems the man has faced, but it also shocks you to see Mike Tyson, a man famous for his rage and anger, choke back tears and spill his soul, explaining the mindset behind his sometimes violent actions.

When many think of Tyson, they think of the Evander Holyfield fight, succumbing to the idea that Tyson was simply crazy and had a bloodlust when he decided to bite his ear not once, but twice. But there's more to it. With help from footage of the fight, Tyson explains that throughout it, Holyfield was head butting him, attacks that he felt were intentional, so he did it out of frustration and because of his desire to inflict as much pain on the man as possible.

And this is why the film works. We all claim to know Mike Tyson, but none of us really do. This scene, along with many others, puts a framework to his person and we end up learning a lot about him, maybe even more than we wanted to. But it helps us build a connection with him and pity him as he explains the hardships he had to go through.

Throughout the film, Tyson tries to keep his tough guy demeanor, despite detailing emotional times and attempting to hold back his tears, but near the end, he describes his children with a smile on his face, obviously proud of them. In this moment, his whole persona flips upside down and shows the loving father inside of him. It's here that we begin to truly understand Mike Tyson. A man who could walk into the ring and stare down his opponent, sensing fear and knowing he had already won the fight is now a man who stares at his children with love and admiration, hoping to keep them from making the same mistakes he did growing up. You begin to feel that Tyson has truly evolved emotionally and found a peaceful place in his life where he is happy.

With that said, Tyson runs into some pitfalls that prevent it from becoming the next great documentary. In a film about a person who is still alive, you expect most of the interviews to revolve around him. It only makes sense. But here, the filmmakers only interviewed Tyson. At one point, he talks negatively about Don King and his money grubbing ways. It would have been interesting to hear King's perspective at this point, but you never get that side of the story. Yes, it's Tyson's movie, but there must be more to his story than what he can recall.

At times, the style of the movie became a distraction, with multiple frames popping up and expanding across the screen constantly. It even sounded like the filmmakers asked Tyson to repeat what he had said so they could cut different clips together, changing his tone in the middle of his sentences. It was unnecessary and cumbersome.

Tyson is by no means a must see film, but rarely do you see such a strong man act so timid and broken. It's with this that Tyson pulls you through to the end.

Tyson receives 3.5/5

Wolverine Suffers from Lack of Suspense

If this is what we have to look forward to now that the summer movie season is officially off to a start, I think we may be in for a bumpy ride. X-Men Origins: Wolverine is every bit as bad as the trailers suggest, offering nothing new to the genre and failing to capture that same magic that made the first two X-Men movies so good.

As the title implies, this newest action hero offering traces the origins of Wolverine (Hugh Jackman), his relationship with his half-brother, Sabretooth (Liev Schreiber), and how he acquired his famed adamantium claws. The problem is that, like many origin stories, the reasoning behind the character's motivations is irrelevant. Sometimes not knowing is more effective, but if a story like this must be done, I expect something more than this trite, uninteresting superhero fodder.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine has many problems, but one in particular stands above the rest. The reason other superhero movies can be so riveting and suspenseful is because the characters are physically flawed human beings, susceptible to damage. During battle, the imminent threat of death is constant, which adds a layer of tension to the proceedings. But as this film points out, Wolverine is "indestructible," thanks to his skeletal system being reinforced by adamantium, a metal impervious to damage. One scene follows Wolverine as he flees from a helicopter that is unloading clip after clip of bullets in his direction. The dilemma is that he can't be hurt. If he gets hit by a bullet, what will it do? Nothing. He might get knocked back a tad, but he will simply get back up and keep going. This scene is supposed to be exciting, but without the threat of death, it's instead pointless and boring.

But I don't want it to sound like I don't enjoy the character. Wolverine is a multi-layered character, one of the most famous in comic book history, and Hugh Jackman plays him well, even if he overdoes it at times, gritting his teeth and trying to look tough even when doing the most trivial of things. However, the other X-Men movies had many characters, almost all of which were physically fallible, so although Wolverine couldn't get hurt, his comrades could. By focusing solely on Wolverine this time around, the movie runs into a quagmire, unable to keep the viewers on the edge of their seats because of the knowingness that he can't actually be killed looming over their heads.

All the same, the movie just isn't written well, including some truly rotten one-liners and dialogue exchanges like one between Sabretooth and Bolt where Bolt says, "I'm not afraid of dying," and Sabretooth replies, "How do you know? You've never tried it before." Please.

Being the first summer blockbuster of the season should be something to be held with aplomb, but X-Men Origins: Wolverine mucks it up. The action is underwhelming, the special effects are piss poor, and the overall finished product feels like it was rushed solely for the purpose of being first. I can't say I'm surprised by the total lack of effort put into the film, but it's still hard to not be disappointed given the potential of the franchise and the infamousness of the character. The summer's starting out bleak indeed.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine receives 1.5/5

BDK and the Beard Podcast #3

For what is now the third week in a row, BDK from BDK's Movie Show on 106.7 WJFK and yours truly have created another podcast for your listening pleasure.

This week, we discuss three new movies: Ghosts of Girlfriends Past, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, and Battle for Terra, plus we get into a brief debate on 2004's The Punisher. It's just how we roll.

Read my Battle for Terra review right here and look for my X-Men Origins: Wolverine review sometime soon. Plus, if you're on the George Mason campus, you can pick up a copy of the new issue of Broadside and read my Ghosts of Girlfriends Past review (assuming it doesn't get cut).

Also, click here to head to BDK's site and check out his reviews. And don't forget to listen to BDK's Movie Show every Friday night from 7-10pm on 106.7 WJFK, or listen live at wjfk.com.

BDK and the Beard discuss May 1st film releases: Ghosts of Girlfriends Past, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, and Battle for Terra.

Battle for Terra Surprisingly Good

Usually when you sit down to watch an animated film and the company credits include animation studios that you've never heard of, that's usually a bad sign. With companies like Snoot Toons and MeniThings (the former of which I can't even find a website for) at the helm of Battle for Terra, I was afraid a catastrophe could be brewing. Unless you're film is plastered with logos for Pixar or DreamWorks, chances are that your animated movie isn't worth jack squat. For the first 45 minutes of this hour and a half movie, that philosophy holds true, but the back half of the picture picks up steam and makes Battle for Terra one of the biggest surprises of the year thus far.

The people of the planet Terra live a peaceful life. There are no wars, no predators, no evil of any kind. Their planet is a utopia of tranquility where everyone is happy. One day, a spaceship covers the sky and they begin to worship it, believing it to be a god. But soon, this "god" starts to kidnap the Terran people, including the father of Mala (Evan Rachel Wood). Mala eventually captures one of the invaders, Jim (Luke Wilson) who turns out to be a human from Earth. The people of Earth used up all of their resources and were forced to move onto other planets in their solar system only to breed war and subsequently, destroy them. Now they have traveled to a different solar system and found Terra. They hope to spread oxygen over the planet, killing all of the Terran inhabitants and capturing it, thus making it their own. But thanks to a newly enlightened Jim and a determined Mala, things won't go so easy for the Earth people.

I apologize for the lengthy plot synopsis. Keeping it short and sweet has always been my philosophy. Besides, this is a movie review, not a novel. But the strength of Battle for Terra lies in its intelligent allegory of modern times and the story is a big part of that.

In the film, the Earth people are attacking another people who have done nothing to them. Considering that every person on the Earth ship is a Caucasian American, it's not difficult to spot similarities to certain real life encounters involving the US and Iraq. At one point in the movie, General Hemmer (Brian Cox) describes how the oxygen machines would cover the planet with air in 7 days, adding, "Very biblical, don't you think?" He uses religion to justify the unwarranted attack against this planet, which makes a comparison to President Bush claiming to be on a mission from God when invading Iraq. What started as a meandering, dull, and downright bad movie actually turned into a thought provoking film on war and peace.

The only big problem with this is that the film ends on a happy note and it doesn't quite work, although the message is still admirable. It shows that peace between two different peoples is possible, but the problem in the real world is that we don't acknowledge that. We always find a way to get around peace and bring war. It would have been better to somehow deliver this message while simultaneously showing the reality of it.

And that's about as far as my compliments go because the reality of it is that the movie is mostly garbage.

For starters, the animation was terrible. As my buddy pointed out, video games can render better character animations in real time than this movie did. I understand that not every movie can be from DreamWorks or Pixar, but the fact of the matter is that they've set the bar for computer animated visuals and this failed to even scratch the surface of what those aforementioned companies have achieved.

For an animated science fiction movie dealing with an epic battle for control of an alien planet, Battle for Terra is strangely bland and unimaginative. When you can't even tell the sex of the characters until they've spoken, you know there's a problem. The characters (which, coincidentally, look like sperm) all look very similar. It's nearly impossible to distinguish one from the other, which denies them a sense of individuality and a chance to grow.

The voice acting was also way off by certain people, most notably Luke Wilson, whose voice was obtrusive and didn't fit his character. Nearly every line was dryly delivered, reducing the dialogue to the equivalent of a monotonous elementary school teacher reading you a book that is supposed to be exciting.

Still, the battle at the climax of the film while the oxygen machines are beginning to cover the planet actually provides some rather striking imagery, showing the Terrans floating away, trying to flee from their impending doom, but failing and falling from the sky, dead from the unbreathable air.

Some people may not see the political allegory that I did in this picture, and without it, Battle for Terra is worthless; a dreadful, unwatchable waste of time. The negative traits of the movie are the most prominent, but the thoughtful insight to real life circumstances overpower those traits, even if only slightly so. This is no award winner, but it deserves accolades for its brave message, even if it's a little preachy in the end.

Battle for Terra receives 2.5/5