Miss me?

Of course you did.

Yes, I have returned from my absence. I was in Cannon Beach with my family, if you really want to know. Anyway, my Lady in the Water review is up (see below). I'm sorry it wasn't submitted sooner -- the hotel I was staying at didn't have WiFi (*GASP!*), so I was unable to do anything online. But I'm back in action.

Anyway, expect a few more entries in the next couple of days -- I wrote a few while I was gone.

I missed you guys.

Lady in the Water (Shyamalan, 2006)

**1/2
With exposure comes expectations, and with expectations comes disappointment.

I admire M. Night Shyamalan greatly as a filmmaker … but his last two movies have shown a considerable drop in quality of direction. With The Village, Shyamalan frustrated the viewer with a lack of depth and a reliance on cheap plot gimmicks.

Some will insist that the failures of The Village were a result of Shyamalan tackling a different genre – but the same could be said of Unbreakable, which was perhaps his strongest film. The Village wasn’t terrible, nor is his most recent film, Lady in the Water; but neither scored much when compared to films like The Sixth Sense, Signs or Unbreakable.

Cleveland Heap (Paul Giamatti) is the lonely super of “The Cove,” a rundown apartment complex. He spends his days maintaining the building and chatting with the various racially-stereotyped tenants. His life gets a little weird, though, when he discovers a woman named Story (Bryce Dallas Howard) living in the apartment building pool. Story – who identifies herself as a Narf – immediately sets out to confuse Cleveland and the audience with her stories of fantastical things to come.

Apparently, Cleveland has to help his wet friend get home (to a place called The Blue World) by meeting her with a writer who lives in the building (actually, the writer is played by Shyamalan in the largest “cameo” role in history) and then sending her off with a giant Eagle who comes around to pick her up under cover of night. Unfortunately, there’s a wolf-like creature – called a Skrunt – lurking out in the grass, just itching to get a bite out of poor Story.

On top of all this, there’s a bunch of evil monkey things – called the Tartutics – that are supposed to show up at some point and enact “justice” on the Skrunt.

If that synopsis sounded confusing, it’s because it is.

With Lady in the Water, Shyamalan presents us with a fairy tale – a not-so-sleight departure from his usual drama or thriller. It’s charming at first, but the wild whimsy of the plot declines into utter silliness as the movie goes on; as more crazy characters are introduced and more details of the Narf legend revealed, the film becomes more and more ludicrous until it finally explodes in a big, hectic sphere of fiery confusion.

However, Lady in the Water isn’t without its redeeming qualities. Refreshingly absent is the obligatory Shyamalan plot-twist, which almost ruined The Village. The film is a bedtime story of such dreamlike substance that you can’t help but enjoy it. The characters are all likable and quirky (my personal favorite was the pompous film critic character), and they keep the insane premise grounded for the most part. Giamatti delivers a stellar performance, and Richie Cunningham’s daughter is becoming a versatile acting force.

Despite being a bit inane, and even though I felt like Shyamalan was just making the story up as he went along, Lady in the Water wasn’t a terrible film – Shyamalan’s sense of dialogue and keen eye for cinematography are still present – it just wasn’t a great one. But I haven’t lost all faith in Shyamalan or his ability, and I hope that he pulls himself out of his rut and delivers another great movie.

Though, for his next film, instead of making a bedtime story for his daughters, he needs to make a sequel to Unbreakable for me. Get on it, M. Night.

And The Joker will be ... HUH?!

Comic junkies and film fans alike were left in shock last night when it was announced that Christopher Nolan had selected his Joker for the highly anticipated Batman Begins sequel. The topic has been one of heated debate on online forums for over a year now, and fan favorites have ranged from Crispin "McFly" Glover to Hugo "Agent Smith" Weaving and Gérard "I'm French" Depardieu to Adrien "The Nose" Brody.

But Nolan caught everyone by surprise when he chose heart-throb Heath Ledger to play Batman's greatest (and most beloved) adversary in his upcoming film.

My thoughts? Nolan knows what he's doing. Much like Cillian Murphy in the role of Scarecrow in Batman Begins, Ledger could take us all by surprise.

I'm not willing to make a judgement on this before I see Heath in white face paint, with a green wig and an enormous set of yellow choppers. I trust Nolan's casting and I trust Ledger's acting ability.

I don't have much of an opinion on the matter as of yet. I'm not one to hate or love a casting choice from the get-go. We'll see how this pans out and I'll still be eagerly anticipating the sequel to Batman Begins (speaking of which ... when are they going to title the thing? I'm thinking Batman Keeps on Keepin' On).

It's about time: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles in 2007

Greetings from Medical Lake (a tiny town of 4,000 in Eastern Washington)! I have a few minutes free on my eventful vacation here, so I thought I'd share this fantastic teaser trailer for the new Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles with the readership.

It would be in everyone's best interest to watch this teaser.

The newly titled TMNT is due out in 2007. The film will be completely CGI and will stick to the darker tone of the comics, as opposed to lighthearted earlier films. Personally, I'm psyched out of my mind about it. Feel free to leave comments about your feelings on the trailer.

Later!

Video Blog Edition: Goodbye ... For Now

Video Blog Edition: Ask Matt!

Here it is, guys. Big thanks to everyone who sent in questions. A couple of the questions got cut in the editing process due to time, but everyone who sent in got at least one question in there. Enjoy and leave comments!

Lady dead in the water ...

Most of you have already heard about M. Night Shyamalan's new film Lady in the Water. You've seen the trailers online or in the theater and the TV spots during commerical breaks. Or ... maybe you haven't, I'm assuming here. If you haven't ... here's the IMDb page.

In any case, Shyamalan began marketing his film as a modern day fairy tale -- a bedtime story, he called it. It was very intriguing, to say the least. I don't think I was the only one intrigued, either. The premise is interesting; combined with Shyamalans distinct directing style, this film could be great.

However ... the geniuses over at Fox are shooting themselves in the foot with a double-barreled shotgun with the marketing of this film. They made the mistake with Shyamalan's The Village two years ago of marketing it as a horror/thriller. Apparently, they haven't learned yet. They're doing the same exact thing now with recent trailers and TV spots for Lady in the Water.

It's ridiculous. People can cope with the fact that Shyamalan isn't directing another thriller better than they can cope with finding out that the scary movie they paid money for turned out to be a fairy tale.

I hope the inept marketing doesn't affect people's experience with the film as much as it did with The Village. Shyamalan is a great young directing talent, and I would hate for him to be a passing fad.

Video Blog Edition: Update

Eagerly awaiting my "Ask Matt" video blog? Yeah, didn't think so. This is why it hasn't happened yet, people!

Send questions to:
rocketnumber09@gmail.com

Pirates loot the box office

Rotten Tomatoes reported today in this story that "Dead Man's Chest" has completely shattered all kinds of box office records. At a whopping $132 million on its opening weekend, "Pirates" is the absolute epitome of "blockbuster."

Sour reviews and a lukewarm reception from critics wasn't enough to deter people from the theater this opening weekend. "Dead Man's Chest" is a box office behemoth.

I'm not going to say that I didn't see it coming -- "Pirates" was the surprise hit of the summer two years ago, and it's gained a following thousands strong. Still ... $132 million? That's absolutely insane.

But is "Dead Man's Chest" going to hold strong against the tide of the summer? It broke the record for opening weekend, but only time will tell if this "Pirates" flick continues to dominate the box office to take the crown of highest box office earnings.

Video Blog Edition: Episode 4

Hey guys!

Get featured in the next video blog! Send your questions, comments and topic ideas for "Ask Matt" to:
rocketnumber09@gmail.com

Priates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (Verbinski, 2006)

***1/2

Well, here it is – the review you’ve all been waiting eagerly for. I now present to you, the Mattinee faithful, with my review of “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest,” the second installment in the hit trilogy.

Johnny Depp, Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley reprise their roles as swashbuckling trio Jack, Will and Elizabeth. The film picks up shortly after the events of “The Curse of the Black Pearl,” with Will and Elizabeth prepared to be married.

But when an East India Trading Company official (yes, the same who branded Jack with his infamous “P” for pirate) arrives with arrest warrants for the couple, along with James Norrington (Jake Davenport), the wedding plans come to a screeching halt. The deal is, Will has to find Jack Sparrow and claim his “broken” compass or he, his fiancé and poor Norrington will hang.

Thing is, Jack has his own set of problems. Turns out that Davy Jones (Bill Nighy), a tentacle-bearded demon sea captain, is out to collect Jack’s soul. Now Jack, Will, Elizabeth and Norrington are all out to find the fabled “Dead Man’s Chest,” in order to stop Davy Jones and return home. And the only method of finding the chest? Jack’s “broken” compass.

The first “Pirates” flick was a charming, swashbuckling romp that took everyone by surprise, both with its quality and its prowess at the box office. This second foray into the world of pirates and magic is also looking to shatter box office records, but director Gore Verbinski has also opted out some of the charm and a lot of the substance.

Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed “Dead Man’s Chest.” Just maybe not as much as I enjoyed “The Curse of the Black Pearl.” Why? Well, it comes down to this. “Black Pearl” was a film you could watch over and over again and never get bored – it had a fantastic rewatchability (just made up a word) factor to it. I just can’t imagine myself wanting to watch this second film again and again and again.

The characters that we came to love in the first film are strangely unlikable in this movie. They fight and squabble, betraying and lying to one another through the entire course of the film. Even Jack Sparrow, possibly one of the most likable characters in recent film, is a despicable scoundrel. And yes, I know – he’s a pirate. But at some point, we need to see a bit of good in the character. We saw in the first film numerous times, but it’s coldly absent until the very climax in “Dead Man’s Chest.”

The action in the film is also absurdly over-the-top. Yes, it’s a movie about cursed pirates, giant squids and magic compasses, but at some point – possibly when Jack, Will and Norrington are all dueling atop a giant mill wheel while a crew of cursed fish-men chase after Elizabeth and two formerly-cursed pirates, who have a chest containing the still beating heart of their immortal captain, Davy Jones, who also has command over a giant squid known as the Kraken – we might want to question the direction of the film.

Scenes like the one mentioned above are crazy and entertaining at first, but the novelty soon wears off and they become daunting to watch. I’m typically one for over-the-top action sequences, but when a film starts to feel like it’s nothing but, it becomes tiresome.

The character of Davy Jones is also criminally underdeveloped. There’s a vague back story at one point that hazily explains why he might be the way he is, but I definitely felt like I enjoyed Geoffrey Rush’s Captain Barbossa a bit more.

However, on the bright side of things, the film is splendidly entertaining. There wasn’t a single boring moment, or a wasted inch of screen. “Dead Man’s Chest” is chock-full of vibrant, exuberant characters, situations and settings.

My reaction to this movie was hard to pinpoint. The film was immensely disappointing in some aspects, but completely satisfying in others. I suppose I might feel differently towards “Dead Man’s Chest” once “World’s End” is released next summer. Maybe the two films fit together snugly like a single one and complete the picture.

If nothing else, the final scene alone gives me immense amounts of hope for the third installment.

If my review was a little heavy-handed, I apologize. The film is a solid piece of work; maybe not as full and odor-free as the first, but still a quality summer action flick.

I look forward to seeing “World’s End” next summer.

Are you ... serious?

Oh. My. God.

Click this.

Yes, it's finally happened. After all these years of waiting ... it's finally happened. A third "Mortal Kombat" film is well into production and slated for a 2007 release. Now, I know what you're thinking: do we really need another "Mortal Kombat" film? I mean ... we already enjoyed the first two so much, we wouldn't want to ruin this fantastic franchise.

I cannot wait.

(End sarcasm here)

My "Pirates of the Carribbean: Dead Man's Chest" review will be up early (very early) tommorow morning.

UPDATE: Alright, so I'm too exhuasted to write a full review of "Pirates," but I promise my review will be up tommorow (friday). Sorry to keep you guys waiting (if you are even waiting ... I tend to picture you guys sitting eagerly in the glow of your monitors, waiting patiently for me to update -- I don't think I'm too far off). Anyway, check back later.

Video Blog Edition: Episode 3

Happy Fourth!

Hey, just taking a few minutes out of the day to wish my readers a happy Fourth of July. Typically, I hate the holiday -- it's basically an excuse for my neighbors to blow stuff up and be generally obnoxious until 4:00 in the morning. But it's a pretty day; I had work off and I ended up going to the beach, so I'm in a good mood.

I have the day off tommorow as well, and I'll probably have the next episode of my video blog up by tommorow night. Look for that and have a good holiday.

Get well soon, Roger

This story ran in the Chicago Sun-Times today. Apparently, Roger Ebert is currently in serious condition after his emergency surgery to repair complications with an earlier cancer operation. I've been talking about Ebert a lot recently, and I've even poked a little fun at him in my video blog and a few previous entries.

Do I feel quilty about those jokes now that the man is in serious condition after cancer surgery? No, they were all in good fun, and were never intended to be mean-spirited or hurtful.

However, I would like to reaffirm my status as a huge fan and staunch supporter of Mr. Ebert, and I sincerely hope that he gets better soon. So, from all of us here at Mattinee (that would be me and ... me), get well soon, Roger. My thoughts are with you, and I hope to see you back in the balcony seat before too long.

Pride and Prejudice (Wright, 2005)

***
I probably wouldn't have even considered watching this movie if I wasn't dating a Jane Austen-afficianado. I mean, honestly -- a romantic comedy set in the rural countryside of Victorian-era England? Are they intentionally trying to alienate every guy in the world with this movie?

All that aside, though, "Pride and Prejudice" isn't half-bad. Aside from the fact that there have nearly dozens of film and television adaptations of Austen's most famous novel, this one comes out on top as probably the most accessible.

I say accessible because I'm a heterosexual male who enjoys car chases and explosions more than I'd like to admit (I come off as an elitist snob, but I like me some stunt ramps -- KABOOM) -- but I found myself really pining for the two lovers to finally get together. Heck, I even got a little misty-eye at the end (lie)!

"Pride and Prejudice" is a fairly formulaic, unimaginative plot -- strong, indepedent young woman meets stubborn, borish guy. Guy pisses woman off with his abrasiveness, girl pisses guy off with her pigheadedness. But eventually, guy realizes he loves girl and girl realizes she loves guy. However, they won't get together until two hours later.

The girl (Elizabeth) is played in this adaptation by Keira Knightley, who, coincidentally, played a strong, idependent young woman named Elizabeth in "Pirates of the Carribbean." Nice job, Keria -- real acting stretch there for you. The mutton-chopped, misty-eyed man (Mr. Darcy. Actually, come to think of it ... I don't think they ever mention the man's first name ... how odd) is played by Matthew Macfadyen, and he does a real nice job of standing around and looking grumpy.

Now, in my desciptions of the characters, you may get the impression that I didn't like the film. Not true. I liked it well enough. It's just that I found myself, during the course of the movie, questioning yy very right to watch it. "Am I even allowed to watch this?" I thought, panicking a bit. "I mean, they're about to kiss during a rainstorm in the ruins of a church ... this is about the lamest thing I've ever seen ... MUST WATCH 'PREDATOR'!"

Despite my hesitance to enjoy the film, I admit it's a well-crafted movie. Not too heavy on the drama, but a little too light on the pacing. The film is laborously long -- almost 45 minutes too long for my taste. But the ending of the film is oddly satisfying, even for a guy like me, and it's worth watching until the end.

So, I suppose for a film that my girlfriend made me watch, "Pride and Prejudice" is a solid flick.