My thoughts on Disney's purchase of Star Wars.

I'm sure by now you've heard the news of Disney's $4 billion purchase of LucasFilm and their plans on making several new Star Wars films.  Once this news was announced, I received a blitz of texts and messages about it.  I guess when you're internet persona has "Vader" in the name, or if you've ever seen the inside of my place, it's not difficult to assume I would be heavily invested in the Star Wars Universe.

From strictly a fanboy perspective, I'm all for more Star Wars films.  I'm glad the franchise isn't going fade away, and will be allowed to continue on past George Lucas. Hopefully the universe will continue similar to the way Star Trek's did even after Gene Roddenberry's passing. Maybe we'll get Star Wars: The Next Generation.

I posted this on Twitter yesterday, but for those of you that think that Disney is somehow going to ruin Star Wars, you do realize that Lucas already did that over a decade ago, right?  Unless you're one of the people out there that actually think the prequels were good films and are even in the same league as the original trilogy.  If you are one of those people, then you're either under the age of 15, or are...how should I put this...dumb.  Either way you need to be educated.  Please start with the fantastic Plinkett/RedLetterMedia reviews of the prequel films.  Yeah, they're a little long, but if you want a detailed explanation of why the prequels are flawed (and that's putting it mildly), you're not going to find anything better.

http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-wars/

It looks like some of the videos aren't working, so you can try to view them on Youtube.

Episode I:



Episode II:



They don't seem to have a Episode III playlist on their YouTube page, but if you do a search for 'redlettermedia revenge of the sith', you'll find them.

There's a part of me that wishes they could take this opportunity to remake the prequel trilogy, but that might be too much of a slap in the face to Lucas.  Maybe this also might get that us that un-altered version of the original trilogy on Blu-Ray us purists have been asking for.  I imagine there are certain things as part of the deal that Disney may not be allow to touch or contradict, so who knows what we'll see down the line.

Oh, and another point about Disney.  A lot of people had the same complaint about Disney purchasing Marvel and ruining them, too, but then we got this little film called The Avengers.  Maybe you heard of it?  Disney's involvement with Marvel has shown that as long as you get passionate and knowledgeable people involved, you're going to be okay.

All kidding aside, I love George Lucas.  He gave us Star Wars and the universe I've enjoyed for over 30 years.  However, as a filmmaker, he has his limitations, particularly when it comes to screenwriting and directing.  The strongest films in the series are the ones where he didn't have full control, and more people were involved.  I hope that now under the Disney umbrella this opens up involvement with some of their related studios.  Could you imagine a joint Pixar/LucasFilm collaboration?  Or, someone like Brad Bird directing a Star Wars film?  Maybe this even opens up the universe to letting someone like Kevin Smith take a crack at it.

Plus, you have a very rich Expanded Universe to draw from.  Not everything in the Star Wars universe has to be about the Skywalkers or the Solos.  There are hundreds of books, comics and characters to draw from.  Rogue Squadron anyone?  A group of elite X-Wing pilots doing the dirty work?  How about some movies set in the Knights of the Old Republic timeframe?  If you've played the first Knights of the Old Republic (KOTOR) game, you know what a fun story that was.  Check out these scenes from The Old Republic MMO.





After watching those videos, do you really not think that this is a universe just waiting to be expanded on the big screen, or there aren't new characters that people will care about?  If you must have some link to the original trilogy, you could fast forward and deal with the descendants of Luke, Leia and Han.  There are dozens of books about their children.  You could even have some cameos from the original cast, like Mark Hamill appearing as the elder statesman - the new Yoda - of the new Jedi Order.

There's been talk for years about a Star Wars TV show, and this seems like something that's much more of a possibility now, especially with Disney owning ABC.  How about the adventures of a young Han Solo, told Firefly-style detailing his early years in the Imperial Navy, meeting Chewbacca and then transitioning to the smuggler we all know and love.  You can interweave this showing the rise of Boba Fett as the galaxy's top bounty hunter, his competition with other bounty hunters, and run-ins with Han Solo over the years.  With an ongoing series this also allows for one-shot episodes catching us up with Obi-Wan hiding out on Tatooine, showing the Emperor tightening his grip on the galaxy, or even having an occasional episode featuring Darth Vader hunting down a Jedi in hiding.  The possibilities are endless.

I'm sure many of you are thinking, "What about Timothy Zahn's 'Thrawn Trilogy'?"  While I love those stories, and I highly recommend reading them if you haven't yet, they'd be difficult to pull off given the age of the current cast.  I don't want to see a 70+ Harrison Ford as Han Solo still trying to continue his adventures.  I wouldn't be opposed to casting age-appropriate actors to take over the roles, but I can see how that might be hard to take for some fans.  As a matter of fact, this opens up the possibility of allowing me to play Han Solo, or any other new character they want to introduce.  I'm kidding, but not really.

The Thrawn Trilogy also introduced us to Mara Jade, a character Star Wars fans have loved and been hoping to see in some form outside of games or books.  If you're looking for a strong female character, look no further.  A former assassin known as "The Emperor's Hand", who then becomes a smuggler, and eventually a Jedi Master.

So much like the title of the very first Star Wars film, I feel like we get a chance to start over; a new hope, if you will.  This is a chance to redeem the franchise, and infuse some new thoughts and energy that it desperately needs.  It was killing me that that last time Star Wars was on the big screen was a converted 3D version of The Phantom Menace.  I'm very excited about this!  I think if you're a fan, you should be, too.

Oh, and since I'm in shameless plug mode, if you need to buy something on Amazon, please click through one of the links on my page here.  It takes you to Amazon like normal, and then I get a kickback if you purchase anything.  There's also a Donate button on the right if you'd just like to support me directly.

Cloud Atlas (2012) - Movie Review

As the poster says, "Everything is Connected."  Well, the good news is that at least this isn't connected to the Matrix sequels.

Cloud Atlas is based on a book by David Mitchell.  It features six interlinked and complex stories, ranging from the 19th century, to a post-apocalyptic future.  It's been said by many that this was an unfilmable book, and I can see why.  It's incredibly ambitious and I give the writing/directing team of Tom Tykwer, Andy and Lana Wachowski credit for taking a shot at something this huge.

If you can't tell already I wasn't in love with Cloud Atlas.  I'm not going to recap all six stores (you can see a brief outline here or here), but many of them will make you think of other films.  I was reminded of stuff like Blade Runner, Amistad or One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.  In the film, these six stories are told in a very choppy manner.  This kind of story telling is usually problematic for me.  Just when you'd get into one story, they'd switch to another.  The problem for me was that the stories had varying levels of interest.  There were some I wished the whole movie would have been about, and others I could have done without entirely.

When you're dealing with a marathon of a movie like this, you really have to keep the audience's attention.  The good part is that I was never really bored, and it managed to keep my interest.  I wanted to see how it all played out.  That doesn't mean I didn't start to squirm in my seat a bit as we approached the end though.  I checked my watch at one point thinking we were at least two hours into the film only to find that we were just barely at the halfway point.  Plus, with all the jumping around, there's never a good moment to take a pee break.  Based on that alone, this is a tough movie for me to recommend seeing in the theater.  It's better suited for watching at home.  I saw this on IMAX, and despite the impressive visuals, I didn't feel like there was anything I would have missed by seeing this at home.  Plus, it may even take multiple viewings before you really form a final opinion about it.  I feel like I need to see this again just to be sure, but I'm certainly not going to do that in the theater.

I have a general rule about movies based off books: if the movie is done well, it should make you want to go back and read it.  I didn't feel that here.  Even a bad movie like Alex Cross made me think there was something to get out of the novels based on the character.  The point I'm making here is that after Cloud Atlas, I felt kind of empty.  I didn't get anything out of it emotionally.

The overall look of the film is fantastic.  The older parts of the story felt authentic, and the futuristic ones were stunning at times.  There were a few parts where it felt there was a little too much CG, but overall it was well done.  The one issue I had with the look of the film was the makeup used for the actors.  While some of it was great and made some of the actors unrecognizable, at times it was absolutely terrible and took me out of the film with how bad it was.  It's that distracting.  Also, you may have heard the complaints regarding the use of non-Asian actors playing Asians, using makeup and CG to make them look Asian.  While I understand the complaint, I also understand the need to do things the way they did.  When moving between all of these stories, you're trying to show how these people are linked, or are even the souls of previous characters.  It's really hard to visually convey that using different actors.  Plus, if you think about it, in the future I would expect to see more people of mixed-ethnicity, and the line would be really blurred as far as that goes.  Having said that, it looked laughably bad at times.

One of the strengths of the film is the cast.  You need actors with range to be able to play all the various roles.  However, some of the actors are playing the opposite sex at times, and again, some of it was either jarring or just plain silly.  The one time I thought it was effective was when Hugo Weaving played a nurse in the only story set in present time.  I also thought it was funny that Weaving played an evil character in every story.  That guy is just doomed to be a villain.  I'm fully expecting him to pull out a sword in The Hobbit and chase after Bilbo at some point.

There were a few times where you can't help but look at him and go, "Oh that's Tom Hanks in bad makeup", but many of the roles allowed him to stretch all over the place, and I thought it was a great overall performance on his part(s).  I was also really impressed with Halle Berry, who needed a movie like this to remind us why she was an Oscar winner.  I was also surprised with Jim Sturgess, who is an actor I haven't thought too much of based on his prior films.  He has a role in one of the future stories that might have been my favorite of the whole film.  Jim Broadbent was great, as he always is, but I love seeing him played those crazy-eyed, crazy-haired characters he does so well with.  I also enjoyed when Keith David or Hugh Grant would show up, but both suffered from some of the bad makeup mentioned previously.

Once again I have to give credit to Tykwer and the Wachowskis for taking a shot. The fact that it's not a complete disaster is an accomplishment.  Even if Cloud Atlas had been a huge mess, we need people to keep taking chances and make films like this.  Otherwise, we doomed to a future of endless Paranormal Activity and Adam Sandler movies.

I think for most, Cloud Atlas is one of those films that people are going to either think is genius or not get it at all.  I come somewhere in the middle of that.  It's an ambitious, but flawed film.  There are impressive visuals, and some interesting stories, but it's a mixed bag.  It's length and disjointed storytelling might put off casual viewers, but I do think there's a lot here to enjoy.

3 (out of 5) Death Stars

Alex Cross (2012) - Movie Review

I have to confess some ignorance up front.  Even though I saw both Kiss the Girls and Along Came a Spider, I didn't realize that Morgan Freeman was playing Alex Cross in both movies.  You can imagine my surprise when I heard that Alex Cross is a reboot of the series that's based on a popular book series (20 frigging books!).  The current film is loosely based off the novel "Cross", the 12th in the series.

What I did know was that a lot of people were in a bit of an uproar when it was announced that Tyler Perry would be playing Alex Cross.  Even though this is a reboot, how do you replace someone of the caliber of Morgan Freeman with Tyler Perry?  Plus, I think it stings the fans even more when you hear that Idris Elba was originally attached to the role.  He would have been perfect.  Go watch Luther on Netflix/DVD if you haven't yet, by the way.  In all fairness to the man, Perry is only like the tenth worse thing about the film.  I'm not sure Elba, or anyone else, would have been able to save it.

Anyway, for those unfamiliar, Alex Cross (Perry) is a detective and psychologist.  Think of him as like a Sherlock Holmes type that can pick up on minutia instantly and profile the suspect.  He lives in Detroit with his family, and is considering a move to D.C. to take a job as an FBI profiler.  He's also learned that he's expecting his third child.  It sets up like many other detective movies.  At least he's not gearing up for retirement and announcing that he's getting too old for this shit.

Juxtaposed with this is an assassin that goes by "Picasso" (Matthew Fox).  Picasso is a bit of an enigma, brutally beating a man in an MMA fight at the beginning of the film, leaving charcoal sketches at the scene of his crimes, but then he's the kind of guy that takes pleasure in the torture and killing of his victims.  After killing a businesswoman, Cross and his team are brought in to investigate. They figure out who Picasso's next target is going to be, and after a close call, Picasso decides to makes things personal.

This is where the movie could have become really tense, but it instead it seems to take on a somber note and fizzles out. Picasso does something that should motivate both Cross and his partner Tommy Kane (Edward Burns), and while Cross initially seems to be going down that revenge path, Kane is almost completely forgotten in the mix.  Neither seem all that angry and are just kind of going through the motions.  There's very little in Alex Cross that gets you invested emotionally.

This is one of the main things that bugged me about Alex Cross.  It's simply not a well written story.  Nobody's developed all that well, and there's some really clunky exposition and dialog throughout.  It's always bugged me when a film goes out of it's way to explain relationships between characters, when it should be implied.  Here, you have relationships defined multiple times by the dialog.  This is all a shame, because when I read the synoposis of "Cross", even that reads more interesting than anything that happens in the movie.  Maybe the screenwriters should have stuck closer to the novel.

Picasso's character was all over the place: over-the-top psychotic in some scenes, but in others acting like a cheap Hannibal Lecter knock-off.  You have a paid assassin that seems more interested in screwing around with Cross, rather than the work he's contracted for.  It was really inconsistent.  I want to blame the performance of Matthew Fox, but I can't.  Fox has been fine in many other films and TV, so I can only blame his direction and the script.  I feel bad for him too, because it looks like he got in ridiculous shape for the role and tried his hardest.  I liked seeing him playing a bad guy; I just wish it was in a better film.

I feel that way about the whole cast really.  While I do think Tyler Perry was miscast, I didn't think he did that bad of a job, and it's one of the few times he came across as likable to me.  Edward Burns seemed to hit the right notes, even though this isn't anything new for him, but his character was underwritten.  Same with Rachel Nichols, who just can't seem to catch a break landing a larger role in a good film.  Giancarlo Esposito shows up for a scene and shines, which just made me wonder why he wasn't considered for Alex Cross, or why they didn't make him the villian instead.  John C. McGinley is wasted here as well as the Police Captain.  Why hasn't McGinley gotten better roles after being awesome on Scrubs for so many years?  Cicely Tyson was probably the strongest performance as Cross' mother, but again, she isn't given much screen time or much to do.  Jean Reno also has a small role, but the conclusion of his story, and the movie, is really ham-fisted.

I haven't been the biggest fan of Rob Cohen's other films (xXx, The Fast and the Furious, Steath), but as far as action goes, he's a capabale director.  Alex Cross desperately needed something to bring some excitement into the film, but it's just devoid of life.  It's bizarre that even the few action scenes aren't shot well.  You'd think this would be the strength.  When we get to the ultimate showdown, it's set up by a totally convenient collision that forces the confrontation, and then we have one of the worst shaky-cam fight scenes in cinema to date.  Shaky-cam scenes are usually a cover for bad fight choreography or actors that can't fight, but how do you have a scene like this in the film, when you open it showing us that Picasso is an MMA badass?  Now he gets beaten up by older man not known for his physicality?  Just once I'd like to see a fight in a movie go down realistically.

Alex Cross isn't a good way to reboot a franchise.  It's totally lazy, uninspired and lacks anything to make you care about the characters or invested in what's going on.  There's nothing here that's new, and even TV shows pack more punch and originality.  It's not insultingly bad, but there's nothing about it to recommend.  Remember how I said to watch Idris Elba in Luthor?  That's my recommendation.  Don't watch Alex Cross, watch Luther instead.

1.5 (out of 5) Death Stars

Silent Hill: Revelation 3D (2012) - Movie Review

Welcome to another round of Video Game: Random Noun - The Movie.

You have to love when a movie contains 3D in the title.  It helps you understand what the marketing focus of the film is.  Unfortunately, the highlight of the 3D takes place in the opening credits, and then it's all downhill from there. It's safe to say you can skip the 3D version of Silent Hill: Revelation.

I don't actually have much to say about Silent Hill: Revelation.  It's largely a mess of a film, and there just wasn't much to care about.  Apparently this was based off the game Silent Hill 3, which I haven't played, or any game of the series, so I can't comment on how faithful it is.  I have a feeling that playing the game with the lights off would be a scarier experience than watching Silent Hill: Revelation was.  This movie is scare-free. At least the first Silent Hill had some creepy atmosphere and some imagery that stuck with you.

Anyway, we catch up with Heather (Adelaide Clemens) and Harry (Sean Bean), and find they've been moving around a lot and changing their identities.  Heather has dreams about Silent HillI, despite not having any memory of the place, and Harry warns her to never go there.  Note that even the characters in the movie warn to not go to Silent Hill.  Heather also starts her first day at a new school, where she's immediately made fun of by a fellow student when asked to introduce herself (an example of some of the terrible dialog throughout).  Way to welcome the new girl, bitch. But then Heather one-ups her by basically telling the entire class, "I don't want to know you, and I don't care about any of you."  Nice girl, huh?  Really gets you behind her character.  In an amazing coincidence, another new student starts the same day (Kit Harrington), and takes an unusual interest in Heather despite her "piss off" speech.  His interest in her, and that fact that he's clearly in his mid 20's, should factor into the plot later.

Harry disappears and Heather knows she must go to Silent Hill to find him.  I'm a little confused about the rules of Silent Hill.  We're reminded that Rose (Radha Mitchell) from the first film is still trapped in Silent Hill and cannot get out.  Yet throughout the film nobody else seems to any difficulty with this.  Early in the film, a creature from Silent Hill attacks Heather and a private investigator (Martin Donovan) that warns her about a cult that's after her.  When Heather arrives later, she finds a few captured women that I guess randomly wandered into town.  If creatures and people can get in and out at will, what's so special about Silent Hill then?    

There's lots of exposition and long stretches where nothing happens.  It's actually quite boring and felt like a much longer movie.  You're just waiting for the next creature effect or Pyramid Head to show up again.  While there are some interesting visuals, I never felt any impact with what I saw. It's the same problem I have with the Star Wars prequels.  With nothing but greenscreen to act against, the actors don't convey any sense of threat or urgency.  When there's the big showdown at the end, you're basically watching two creatures from a Hellraiser film that you know nothing about duke it out.  I didn't care who won.

Despite bringing back a lot of the actors from the first film, and it's actually a pretty strong cast overall, much of Silent Hill: Revelation felt very amateurish.  Carrie-Anne Moss shows up looking like one of those albino twins from The Matrix, and then you've got Malcolm McDowell playing yet another role that seems beneath him.  I really can't blame the actors though, as the dialog they are forced to say is just awful.  Plus, the direction is all over the place.  For example, at one point Sean Bean loses his accent for a few lines, and they didn't bother to do another take?  Fix it in post?  Did anyone even notice or care?  Writer/director Michael J. Bassett seemed to miss a lot of what worked about the first film.  Not that first film was a masterpiece, but at least I got more out of it.

Oh, and spoiler alert - no Sean Beans died in the making of the film.

Silent Hill: Revelation 3D is a bad movie.  It's a decent looking film, but devoid of any substance or fun. The story is a mess, the dialog is terrible, and a waste of actors capable of better.  Stay away from this one.

1 (out of 5) Death Stars

Paranormal Activity 4 (2012) - Movie Review

I think the real title for this movie should have been Paranormal Product Placement.  Then you could shorten it to PPP or P3.  When watching Paranormal Activity 4, I couldn't help but feel like I was watching an extended commercial for Microsoft Kinect.  Corona and Metro bottled water also make appearances.

The movie's prologue recalls the events at the end of PA2.  You see Katie (Katie Featherston) attacking her sister and stealing their son, Hunter.  It helps a little if you've seen the previous PA films, but ultimately it doesn't matter, as the movie makes less and less sense as it goes on.

We fast forward a few years, and are introduced to a new family.  The surprising thing is that you actually like this family, in particular Alex (Kathryn Newton) and her boyfriend Ben (Matt Shively).  They actually have some pretty funny banter between them, and it the first time I've actually cared anything for the characters in a PA movie.  That's actually the highlight of the film, and I was surprised at the humor in it.

Anyway, an unknown woman and weird child live across the street.  The woman is revealed later, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out who it's going to be.  The weird child, Robbie (Brady Allen), likes to randomly wander into their yard.  One night, the mystery woman is rushed off to the hospital, and the family agrees to watch Robbie while she's away.  While strange, Robbie initially is still kind of endearing.  As you'd expect though, weird things begin to happen.  To track this, Ben helps Alex setup laptops all around the house to record everything.  This is basically the film's excuse to have multiple cameras, but it also felt like a huge plot hole to me.  First, these cameras seemed to be recording 24 x 7, and didn't seem to be triggered by any kind of motion detection.  Do these computers have infinite hard drive space to be recording as much as they are?  Then I wondered why nobody else in the house, like the parents, ever noticed an unused computer and bothered to turn it off or shut the screen?  How many laptops does a family need anyway?  The producers of the film would like to thank Apple for all of the free laptops and iPhones used in the making of Paranormal Activity 4.

Early on, they would go back and look at the footage and notice some of the weird things happening.  However, later in the film they conveniently don't do this when even weirder things happen.  If they had, there would have been good reason to get out of the house or contact the authorities.

How come a movie with 'Activity' in the title features very little actual activity.  Once again we are treated to a seemingly endless number of shots of empty rooms or people sleeping.  Can you stand all of this activity?  It irritates me that most of the scares come out of long stretches of silence or nothing happening being broken up by a noise or something jumping around the screen. This movie uses a book, a cat, a shadow, and several other things all used as cheap jump scares. It even tries to scare you with abrupt editing.  The longer the movie goes on, the more the scares are telegraphed.  Anytime you see an extended shot of a room, you know they are only showing it to you because something is going to happen soon, so you're looking for it.  When it happens, there's no impact.  I found it all to be very lazy.

Whatever this thing is that's terrorizing them is kind of a jerk that just likes to annoy or inconvenience people.  You see things like littered toys, a basketball bouncing down the stairs, and a chair moving on it's own.  One of the few times something freaky happens to Alex, they setup the scene by telling you she took a sleeping pill, so now you know she won't wake up for what's about to happen.  If she doesn't wake up, she has nothing to fear or freak out about, and also has no reason to watch the footage the next day.  It's pointlessly messing with someone.

The conclusion of the film, which is basically a recall to PA3, is very abrupt.  It's just a few minutes of more cheap scares taken in night vision.  Based on what was setup in the last film, they could have explored that more here, but didn't take the opportunity.  There's a point in the plot where something is revealed that made absolutely no sense to me.  There's just no setup to what they are doing.  It really feels like writers Chad Feehan and Christopher Landon are making this up as they go along, and then realized didn't have an ending yet, so they just said, "Screw it.  Let's just throw as much stuff as we can at them in the last few minutes."

This still has the same issue that other found footage films have.  When shit hits the fan, why are you still filming?  Wouldn't you run like a normal person or put the camera down?  If you're filming on an iPhone, why aren't you calling 911 instead?  Plus, since when does an iPhone have a night vision option?  Who puts together all this 'found footage' anyway?  The footage is pretty strong evidence against the people in it, so are the authorities looking for them?  Are they that hard to find after so many years?  Okay, here I go again looking for this stuff to make sense when it's clearly not meant to.  Silly me.

I already hear they are going to make yet another one of these movies, and I can't imagine what it would be about.  I suppose it doesn't matter though, as I'm sure they'll make it for dirt cheap and it will make a huge profit.  This is probably going to sound condescending, and I generally don't like to insult the audience that likes a particular film (except for Twilight fans), but sitting in the theater made me realize who this franchise's audience is: young teens that haven't watched a lot of horror. This stuff can only be scary to people that just don't have a lot of experience with the genre. There's nothing about the scares in this film that are creative or inventive.  It's just more of the same cheap jump scares and loud noises that have been done a million times before.  But hey, who am I tell people they can't have fun with this?  I just wish they wouldn't, so they'd stop making them.

The directors of Paranormal Activity 3 (Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman) are back to direct this, and I still can't figure out what they are directing.  It's the same shots repeated in a loop featuring mostly bad acting.  Plus, I can't believe boring this film got the longer it went on.  It's paced terribly, and I'm shocked to find this is only 95 minutes.  I thought it was at least two hours long.  I couldn't stop yawning.

Paranormal Activity 4 is another weak entry in the series featuring the same lame jump scares, lack of activity and nonsensical plot.  The only redeeming thing is that you actually like some of the characters this time around.  Overall, it's just boring and stupid.  I advise you to skip it.  Go see Sinister if you haven't seen it yet.  That deserves your money more than Paranormal Activity 4 does.

1 (out of 5) Death Stars

The Sessions (2012) - Movie Review

And you thought the 40-Year-Old Virgin had trouble getting laid...

Mark O'Brien (John Hawkes) is a writer and poet living in Berkeley, CA back in the late 1980's.  Mark was stricken with polio back when he was six, and is paralyzed from the neck down, needing use of an iron lung for most of the day.  After writing an article about sex with the disabled, Mark decides at the age of 38 that it's time to lose his virginity.  As a deeply religious man, he first seeks the blessing of a Catholic priest (William H. Macy).  He's a little put off by the request at first, but says to Mark, "I know in my heart that God will give you a free pass on this one."

Mark still has sensation and his equipment works, so it's just a matter of finding someone.  He contacts a sex surrogate, Cheryl (Helen Hunt), to help him explore his sexulalty.  I've never been able to quite wrap my head around the concept of a sex surrogate, and The Sessions didn't really do anything to help me understand it any better.    You do see a little bit of Cheryl's home life and that she's married, but her husband doesn't seem to have any issue with it either.  Cheryl takes a very clinical approach, rather than a sexual one, so she clearly has the ability to detach herself from the feelings that many have about sex.  Cheryl does say that to prevent attachment, they can only have a maximum of sex...um, I mean six sessions.  This gives you an idea of where things are going to go, but it doesn't turn out quite like you'd expect.

You might think with that kind of premise The Sessions would be very heavy-handed.  While there's some uncomfortably frank discussion of sex, and a surprising amount of nudity from Helen Hunt, the overall tone of the movie is very lighthearted.  This is primarily due to the wicked wit and charm of Mark; it's like his superpower.  He always seems to be able to say the right thing at uncomfortable moments to get everyone laughing.  You see this with nearly everyone he interacts with, from his newest caretaker (Moon Bloodgood) that initially seems very standoffish, to Father Brendan (Macy), who becomes so invested in Mark's adventures that he begins to visit him outside of the church just to get updates.  You get invested in Mark's story, too.  It's impossible not to like him.

The Sessions is an extremely funny movie.  Some of this is born out of all of the uncomfortable situations, but mainly because how funny Mark is and watching his interactions with everyone. John Hawkes is almost unrecognizable as Mark. I can't really call it a physical transformation, like Christian Bale's in The Mechanic, as he's always been a skinny, veiny bastard, but it was an impressive bit of physical acting.  He could only move his head small amounts, and had to use a pencil to do things like dial a phone and flip the pages of a book.  Hawkes has always been one of the best actors that most people haven't heard of, and this is an extremely sincere and sympathetic performance.  Your heart just breaks for the guy.  You get so much out of his performance, despite it all being from the neck up.  I know I'm going to be saying this a lot over the next few months, but it's another Oscar worthy performance from Hawkes.

William H. Macy is also great. He's primarily the straight man to Mark, but he mines a lot of humor out of his performance, and his interaction with Hawkes as their friendship builds are some of the more enjoyable parts of the film.  Helen Hunt's performance is also very brave.  With all of of the nudity the role required, you'd think maybe she would have shied away from the camera.  Hunt goes for it and very much seems like a therapist that is completely comfortable with her body. She really puts herself out there emotionally as well.

Writer/director Ben Lewin, who's also a polio survivor, based this off the real life experiences of Mark O'Brien after reading an article he wrote about seeing a sex surrogate.  He then worked closely with a few people in O'Brien's life.  I think he did a great job balancing all of the elements of the story, and treating the subject matter with respect and perspective.  It's funny without being silly, and emotional without being melodramatic.  This feels like a tribute to the man.

The Sessions wasn't what I was expecting and that's a good thing.  Despite the uncomfortable nature of the subject matter, it's a sweet and funny tale of a brave man exploring his sexuality and trying to find love.  It's an emotional film but worth the ride.  I strongly recommend checking it out.

4.5 (out of 5) Death Stars

Argo (2012) - Movie Review

Argo is one of those stories that sounds so unbelievable that I guess it had to be true, and features a plan so crazy that it had to work.

Set during the Iranian Revolution in 1979, the U.S. Embassy is overrun and most of it's staff are taken hostage.  A small group escapes and hides in the home of the Canadian ambassador.  Due all the chaos and shredding of the records, it's not noticed that six people are unaccounted for.  However, time is running out and if they are found in the ambassador's home, it will be bad for Canada's status in Iran and likely death for the Americans.  One thing that was nice about the opening of the film is that it gives you a quick history lesson about the events leading up to this revolution.  This is a nice touch for those of you not up on your history, or too young to recall the events as they happened.

CIA specialist Tony Mendez (Ben Affleck) is brought in to evaluate the existing plans to extract them.  The flaws in all plans are quickly pointed out by Mendez, but can't think of a better plan himself.  He's later inspired when watching a sci-fi movie on TV with his son.  He'll go into Iran posing as a Canadian film crew scouting locations, meet up with Americans, train them, and then fly them all out together.

The plan is only as good as the details, so Mendez contacts a Hollywood make-up specialist John Chambers (John Goodman) to help with the cover story.  Chambers brings in successful producer Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin), who says that nobody will buy the cover unless there's a script and Hollywood actually believes the movie is being made.  You need to generate buzz.  They find a script for a sci-fi called Argo, a Star Wars ripoff.

You'd think they could gloss over this part, but this is practically a movie all to itself.  Storyboards are created, actors are hired, awful costumes are made, Hollywood parties are thrown and script readings are done.  Ads for Argo show up in Variety, and a fake movie is born.  This is also where a lot of the humor and surprising amount of fun comes from.  Alan Arkin and John Goodman are both great in their roles and are clearly having a lot of fun with it.  I finished watching Argo wanting to know more about these two and wishing they could come up with a way to give them a spin-off movie of their own.

The cast is stacked and everyone is so good that it's really hard to say that anyone stands out.  It reminded me of recent Steven Soderbergh films where you have guys that could be the leads in other films (like Bryan Cranston or Kyle Chandler) playing small roles as part of this large ensemble.  Ben Affleck seems to have that same ability to work with actors that Soderbergh has.  There aren't any throwaway characters or performances, and you manage to care about everyone despite not spending very much time with them.

Speaking of Ben Affleck, how does a guy go from being someone that most everyone barely took seriously not even ten years ago, to one of the best directors out there?  He's managed to do this in just three films, with each better than the last.  Argo is his best effort yet.  There's so much attention to detail, and you'll notice this from the outfits, the makeup, and even the overall look of the film.  It looks like something actually made back in the 70's.  Even the old Warner Brothers logo is used as the movie begins.  As the credits roll, you see side-by-side pictures of the real-life person and the actor playing them, and the resemblance between all of them is uncanny. Ironically, the one person that really didn't look at all like his real-life counterpart was Ben Affleck. It's kind of a surprise when he gets the details right in so many other areas that he didn't consider a different actor.  There's nothing wrong with the performance though, and I think he helps having a bigger name in the lead role.  Besides, Affleck was the bomb in Phantoms, yo!

Another impressive thing about the movie is how much tension there is in the film, despite knowing the outcome before the movie even starts.  I was on the edge of my seat as we reached the conclusion and there's a satisfying emotional payoff.  Members of the audience applauded even before the movie ended.

I know it's early in the Oscar season, and I'm sure I'm going to say this a few more times this year, but Argo really is an Oscar worthy film and Affleck should be nominated for his direction as well.

Argo is a truly great film that's nail-biting, exciting and is a blast to watch.  It proves the old saying that truth is stranger than fiction.  Ben Affleck also solidifies himself as one of the best directors working today.  This is one of the best movies of the year and one you shouldn't miss.

5 (out of 5) Death Stars