The Muppets (2011)

       Years have passed, but the good ol' Muppet gang is back for a big screen show like never before. Probably what makes this Muppet movie so different is its self-aware attitude, and I must say, it's the best self-aware movie I've ever seen. As for the movie overall, if it isn't excellent, it sure as hell is fantastic. With great and hilarious performances from Jason Segel (who co-wrote the film), Amy Adams, Chris Cooper, and of course, the Muppets, The Muppets succeeds in making us believe in magic and optimism all over again and putting a huge smile on our faces.

       The story concerns Walter, the brother of Gary (Jason Segel); Walter is technically a Muppet, but the movie doesn't directly state this. He's been a fan of the Muppets nearly all his life, so when his brother tells him they're going to Los Angeles, Walter is ecstatic to see the old Muppet Studios. Once there, they realize it's pretty much run down and is to be taken over by a rich oil tycoon by the name of Richman (Chris Cooper). Walter decides to reach out to Kermit the Frog and the other Muppets to raise the appropriate funds to save the studio. All the characters in this film are great: Peter Linz voices Walter, an energetic character and a great addition to the Muppet cast; Segel is terrific as Gary, who's heart is always in the right place; Amy Adams plays Gary's girlfriend (of ten years) Mary, who is absolutely cool and adorable at the same time; Chris Cooper couldn't be funnier and more awesome as Richman; and all of the Muppets (Miss Piggy, Fozzie, Gonzo, etc. etc.) are at the top of their game (for the most part, anyway). What's great is that every character gets their time to shine, which is something I really appreciated - plus, there are a ton of awesome cameos. My favorite characters, of course, are Statler and Waldorf, the two old Muppets who are always cracking jokes; each of their scenes is gold.

       Something that's note worthy are the effects. The Muppets look excellent and are as believable as they can be in a movie about Muppets. There are also musical numbers, which should be expected from a Muppets movie, but anywho: each of these musical numbers turns out being wonderful in some way or the other. And of course, this movie would be nothing without its jokes, but don't expect me to tell you what they are - there are too many to count anyway. Just be alert that this film's full of them and there's a high chance you'll laugh at each one (hopefully).

       Regardless of what you may think before or after the show's over, whether you grew up with these characters or don't even know who they are, The Muppets is guaranteed to put a smile on your face and keep you happy and optimistic the whole way through. It features great performances from all involved and leaves you with a wonderful attitude. In a world where cynicism and negativity reign, it's extremely nice for a movie like this to come along and show us that sometimes all we need to do is believe in ourselves and keep smiling. Movies like The Muppets need to come out more often.

Batman (1989)

 

       Before the late '80s, the image most associated with Batman was the one portrayed in the Batman television series from the late 1960s. This was a campy and spoof like version of Batman that actually didn't stay true to what Batman really was or represented. Never the less, the television show was popular (even among Bat fans) and helped the Caped Crusader gain a wider audience. During the '80s, graphic novels such as Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns and Alan Moor's The Killing Joke helped bring back the dark image and themes that were associated with Batman. By the late '80s, Warner Bros. released a film that brought Batman back to his dark roots, with the help of macabre director Tim Burton.

       The result was Batman, a dark and atmospheric film that, for the first time on screen, showed us who the Dark Knight really was. The film was a huge commercial success and garnered, for the most part, positive reviews from critics and fans who applauded the return to a darker Batman while also criticizing a few things here and there. The film stars Michael Keaton as Bruce Wayne/Batman, but it's Jack Nicholson who gets top billing (literally) as Jack Napier/The Joker. Other characters and actors include Kim Basinger as Vicki Vale, Robert Wuhl as Alexander Knox (the most '80s character in the whole movie), Pat Hingle as Commissiner Gordon, Billy Dee Williams as Harvey Dent, and of course, Michael Gough as Alfred. The whole cast does a great job, with the ultimate highlight and praise going towards Nicholson and Keaton, respectfully.

       The story is fairly simple: Joker vs. Batman. That's really all that needs to be said. I mean, there's more to it then that, but not only is the story not a strong focus (a negative or positive depending on how you see it) but possible plot points can be revealed if too much of the story is discussed.

       One of the most interesting things about Batman is that, right at the start, Bruce Wayne is already Batman. I've never seen another superhero movie (that isn't a sequel) have the main character already be the superhero right when it starts (Daredevil and the X-Men films don't count). What this does is establish that in Gotham City, some "bat" or guy in a bat outfit is going around and getting bad guys. Not a bad way to start the movie at all, and it feels a lot more comic book-ish, since most first issue comic books of a superhero already have the protagonist going around being the superhero while establishing an origin story later on. Whether the movie firmly establishes how Bruce becomes Batman might be up to you to decide, but again, I won't go into that. On the other hand, we are shown how Jack Napier becomes the Joker. Nicholson is terrific as the wild and crazy villain who is absolutely unpredictable with a dark sense of humor. I used to think this movie just had Nicholson playing himself, but when I saw the film (and saw it again) I saw that it really was Nicholson playing an insane character while still staying within the confines of reality (to some degree). Some of the my favorite scenes involving him are when he doesn't look like the Joker (but still has his "smile"), like the board meeting with him and some gangsters. One my favorite scenes in the whole movie is when Napier is at a surgeon's place and he sees his reflection in a mirror, breaks the mirror, gets up, and walks out of the place (up stairs), all the while laughing manically. The place where the surgery is done, and the surgeon's character, mixed with the subtle music, the minimal lighting, and Napier's reaction, make it a one of a kind scene in my book.

       Arguably, one could say there's more emphasis on the Joker then on Batman, and to that I say it's the writer's faults. By already establishing Batman as Batman, and showing us who the Joker is before he becomes the Joker, it seems the script is set up to show us more of a character we know very little of as opposed to a character we should already be familiar with. But is any of this a bad thing? No, not really, especially since Nicholson is always a delight when he's on screen.

       Now, about Bruce Wayne/Batman: Keaton does an excellent job as Batman; he's simply awesome in the role as well as convincing. I at first didn't like his Bruce Wayne but came to like it more with repeated viewings. When he's Wayne, he's completely unassuming to the point where I could never believe this guy is Batman. And then he puts on the suit and kicks ass. It's nothing short of phenomenal that he pulls off the role of Batman while still being utterly convincing as some playboy millionaire called Bruce Wayne. Michael Gough as Alfred is pretty good; there isn't too much to say, but he plays his part and plays it well. One interesting thing to note is that not too much is said as to what happened to Wayne earlier in his life, but as usual, I'm not go into that. One of my other favorite scenes is when Wayne confronts the Joker in Vale's apartment and he utters one my favorite lines in the whole movie. (And in case you're curious as to what line that is, it's during the part where he "gets nuts.")

       The cinematography and art direction is beautiful, in a dark kind of way of course. Many of the costumes and buildings look inspired by film noir and art deco architecture, helping to make the film look modern and old fashioned all at once. The only thing that sticks out in this regard are some of the vehicles; they look too modern (or at least, too '80s modern) in this type of environment. Exceptions would include the Batmobile (which is awesome) and anything driven by the Joker and his henchmen.

       The film has two soundtracks: a score by Danny Elfman and original songs by Prince. Some of the Prince songs show up in the movie (notably during the museum scene and the parade), but Elfman's score dominates this picture. This film has what is probably my favorite (if not the greatest) score for a superhero film ever (Superman would be the close contender); the main titles theme still gives me chills. The main titles itself is one of the greatest main title sequences I've ever seen in any film; it establishes the mood and atmosphere while moving around a landscape that eventually shows it self to be the Batman symbol.

       Overall, when all is said and analyzed, Batman is a great piece of superhero action and a great example of a superhero movie. It started off the Batman movie series and helped establish the dark mood of Batman that we see today, as well as help make the Batman animated series possible. Tim Burton knew what he was doing with Batman, and Keaton and Nicholson are at the top of their game as the heroes and villains of this Gotham City tale. However you like your Batman, and whatever your stance on superhero movies in general is, this is one you shouldn't miss; it still holds up today as a fine adaption of a well known and beloved icon.

Assault on Precinct 13 (1976)

       John Carpenter's Assault on Precinct 13 was released in 1976 and was the director's second full-length feature film. The movie tells the story of a few people trapped in an almost abandoned police station that is under siege by a gang of street killers. If that sounds like the plot to an exploitation feature, that's because it is. Assault on Precinct 13 was made on a low budget but never lets that get in the way of the action, suspense, atmosphere, or even the score (though, it might get in the way of some of the acting). While it isn't always action packed, it surprisingly keeps the attention of the viewer and is never exactly boring, thanks to the aforementioned suspense and characters.

       Shot in glorious Panavision, Carpenter makes very good use of the anamorphic widescreen format. For a film that doesn't always have a lot going on and takes place in the dark half the time, the format never seems to be put to waste. Nearly every shot takes advantage of the space that the format provides it with. The score (composed by Carpenter himself) is excellent and is only composed of synthesizers that not only sound creepy but really help establish the paranoid atmosphere of the film. Right from the opening titles (red letters on a black background), the score lets you know you're in for something serious.

       Serious seems to be the word in this film. Majority of the characters (which include a cop, two secretaries, and a couple of convicts) take everything as serious as can be. The convicts are mainly the ones in charge of the comic relief; they have a sense of humor, but are not merely there for comic relief alone and get serious when the time calls for it. The film also has a few moments that impressed me (one in particular shocked and impressed me) but that doesn't mean the film as a whole isn't good; just some moments are more eventful than others. On that note, I'd like to say this: Exploitation films typically have filler (people just talking, that sort of thing) but this movie, while not always full of action, never seems to have a moment of filler. Every scene seems to be there for a reason, and for a film where the siege doesn't occur until the half way point, that's pretty impressive.

       Assault on Precinct 13 isn't the best action movie I've ever seen, it could've been better, but for a second feature and for a low budget movie, it's actually really good. It just happens to suffer from the ol' it-could-have-been-better problem. But even with that in mind, it managed to keep my interest, managed to have plenty of suspense, and had really good action scenes. The acting is okay, but the characters themselves (especially the convicts) can be entertaining (in a low budget kind of way, I guess). Overall, it's a really good movie that is worth checking out, especially for Carpenter fans. When it comes to low budget exploitation action, or just action in general, this one delivers.

Equinox (1970)

For a film like this, a review really wouldn't be necessary, but I just couldn't pass on the chance to spread the word.

       Equinox was originally a short film by Dennis Muren (future Oscar-winning visual-effects artist) entitled The Equinox...A Journey into the Supernatural that was picked up for distribution by Jack H. Harris. Harris and Jack Woods shot additional footage to bring the movie to full feature length. The end result is easily the crappiest movie I've ever seen that actually isn't crappy. The movie was made with only $6500; a shoestring budget, entirely. Even with that budget, the film still has good (enough) acting and very good special effects (for a film with barely a budget). As far as low budget horror films go, this one is surprisingly good.

       The story concerns a group of friends (or are they college students? I honestly don't know) who go into the woods to meet up with a professor (who is a friend of one of the characters). They try to find him, but only find his destroyed cabin, a creepy old man living in a cave, an old book, and a strange park ranger by the name of Asmodeus. Throughout the film (which, as you might guess, isn't very long) strange things happen, which include the discovery of another dimension and fights with monsters. The film is not a gore fest and crazy odd things aren't always happening, but, for whatever reason, I was never really bored; I was actually entertained when the characters were merely interacting.

       As aforementioned, the special effects in this film are quite impressive -- and sometimes hilarious. As you might expect, the film uses stop motion animation to make (most) of these monsters come alive, but the film also uses neat camera tricks to achieve its goals. It may be low budget, but it still manages to look as professional as it possibly can. Since the film is old and easily a midnight movie, the print of the film is not perfect, but it sure is a great restoration (thanks to the boys and girls at Criterion Collection who released the film on DVD). It should be mentioned that the original short film is on the same DVD that houses the theatrical version.

       Equinox is a surprisingly good and entertaining movie that has great special effects, odd moments, surreal scenes, good (enough) acting, interesting enough characters, awesome monsters, and an overall midnight low budget cult B-movie atmosphere and feel. Whether you're into these types of movies or not, I'd still suggest you give Equinox a watch.

Citizen Kane (1941)

       If nothing else, Orson Welles's Citizen Kane is a special film. It has the distinction of being called the "greatest film of all time" as well as being Welles's first film. It also had a lot of controversy behind it, since the titular Kane was based off of William Randolph Hearst, a popular newspaper mogul as the time. But I'm not going to talk about historical information and references; I'm only looking at Citizen Kane as what it is: a movie. And as far as movies go, this one is unlike any other.

       For a film from 1941, it sure as hell doesn't seem like one. If I didn't know better, this film was made in the later half of the 20th century -- except it wasn't. Orson Welles truly was ahead of his time with this motion picture, and he crafted some of the best scenes and dialogue I've ever seen in any film. For the time, this movie must have blown people away. While it may not blow people away today, it can still have a powerful effect. When the film started and the title came up, I told myself this movie would be really cool (and it would also be fitting) if there were no opening credits after the title -- and there weren't. For 1941, that would be almost unheard of. Hell, until the end of the 20th century that was uncommon. The long takes, the different angles, the long zooms: all the things that make Citizen Kane an innovative and unique picture on a technical level.

       The story of Citizen Kane concerns the life of Charles Foster Kane (Orson Welles), which is shown in a series of flashbacks. At the beginning of the film, we see a news serial that pretty much summarizes his life; it's interesting to see the rest of the film show the details that the serial misses out on. When not showing flashbacks, a reporter (William Alland) tries to find the meaning behind Kane's last word: Rosebud. Throughout the film, the reporter reads entries by Kane's guardian (George Coulouris), speaks to his best friend (Joesph Cotten), his loyal associate (Everett Sloane), his second wife (Dorothy Comingore), and his butler (Paul Stewart). These characters are very interesting in their own ways and are quite like-able. It's Orson Welles as Kane, however, who steals the show. Welles pulled off something so subtle yet so clever I'm fooled at how he did it: his character at the beginning has no mustache, but once he dons one, I'm almost certain that this isn't Welles. In fact, when I'd seen pictures of the movie before watching it, and even during the news reel scene in the film, I didn't believe that Welles played Kane. He's nearly unrecognizable in the role; that's an accomplishment almost no actor can do. Almost half the time, I expected him to shout "I'm Charles Foster Kane!" as an excuse for whatever actions he may do; that's proof to how enjoyable it is to watch Welles be Kane.

       Welles's direction is simply phenomenal (like his starring role); he directs this movie like it's nobody's business. No matter what people say about this movie, there's no denying that Welles knew how to keep people's attention on the screen and to admire all that was going on. One thing that, oddly enough, enhances the film is its aspect ratio. Unlike most films these days, Citizen Kane was released in a time where widescreen didn't really exist; all films were shot with the Academy Ratio (1.37:1), the equivalent of a 4X3 television screen size. I usually don't like watching films in this ratio (it can make a movie feel less cinematic in my opinion), but I do respect films enough to see them in their intended and original ratio. Welles made this ratio work amazingly in Citizen Kane, to the point where I couldn't imagine seeing this film in any other ratio. The "full screen" feel of the film makes it seem as though it demands your attention and that it really is something grand.

       The themes of power and greed are ever present in Citizen Kane. Kane is born into a poor family that, without knowing, lives underneath a gold mine. He is (legally) taken by a guardian to be educated and inherits his fortune at age 25. Kane starts off wanting to run The Inquirer and give people the real news. He wanted to do it for the working men and women of the United States and didn't want them reading things he thought were false. Over time, we see him turn more into a power hungry individual who believes that the people will believe anything he says. This egotism reaches its peak when he decides to run for governor of New York (one of the best moments in the film), but due to scandal, doesn't become elected, despite having plenty of supporters (as well as detractors). Over time, we see Kane go from lonely but happy to lonely and distraught. By the film's end, it seems as though Kane never really wanted all the fame and fortune that came to him. As he himself says at one point "...if I hadn't been very rich, I might have been a really great man."

       When it comes to movies and film making and acting and story telling and technical innovation, I'm not sure if one can do much better than Citizen Kane. Its influence is massive, and its social status has only kept growing in stature. It's topped nearly all the major film polls and its impact can be felt to this day. It was ahead of its time and feels ever so modern in today's film making world. It has rightfully gained praise and status as a masterpiece and classic film. It's a film that will always be enjoyable to watch and will forever stand the test of time

But is it the greatest film of all time? You be the judge.