DANGEROUS DAYS

Predator 2

Now with more Jamaicans!

---

With the country's first African-American president taking office last week, it's easy for most Americans to start getting the idea that racism is dead in this country.

But though our nation is finally ready to let a black man run the country, America still has a hard time with the idea of ethnic heroes being portrayed in our movies, comics, magazines and television shows.

My friends and I have a game, it's called "The Name 10 Black Actors Game." It's fairly simple. There are no rules. You just ask a friend, a co-worker, a random person in a bar, etc. to name 10 working black actors off the top of their head.

I guarantee the first answer will be Denzel Washington, the second answer will be Will Smith and the third answer will maybe be Samuel L. Jackson if they've really got their thinking cap on. The fourth answer may take awhile ... it may not ever come, depending on who you're talking to.

There just aren't that many prominent black actors out there, sure, but more importantly, there aren't that many mainstream movies that want to acknowledge that black people are anything more than sidekicks.

That's why, whenever I get the chance, I pull out my trusty old copy of "Predator 2" and slip it in the DVD player. It's one of the only movies I can think of where the hero of the story, the real hero, is a normal guy that just happens to be black. He doesn't have a snappy retort to everything, he doesn't talk jive, he isn't a caricature of what white people think black men are like - he's just a dude with a shit job in a really fucked up city with some seriously messed up stuff going on around him.

It's refreshing to see in a world where black characters in movies have to basically walk around with a shirt that says "Hey, I'm the Black Guy!" in huge day-glo letters, or where roles have to be re-written for Will Smith by his own private writing team because he couldn't just play any old character - he has to be sassy-talking and street-wise or the world just wouldn't know what to think of him.

Danny Glover got a lot of attention for doing the Lethal Weapon movies because, well, Mel Gibson was standing right there next to him the whole time and people were bound to notice him sooner or later. But that audience didn't follow him over to "Predator 2," which really is a shame because he's great in it. Glover's role obviously wasn't written for a black guy. The filmmakers could have just as easily cast James Caan - his character's name is Mike Harrigan for chrissake - but that's part of what makes this movie such a one of a kind achievement.

The role was written for a white guy, it could have easily been played by a white guy, the movie it was a sequel of starred a white guy and it still went to Danny Glover! Against all odds. When the hell does that happen? Almost never, folks. Almost never. Hollywood Rule No. 5: Never cast a black actor unless absolutely necessary.

But our cultural stereotypes don't stop with race - a lot of people will ignorantly argue that sequels are never as good as the original movies that spawned them. But you know what? A lot of people think Britney Spears is a good singer. A lot of people think George W. Bush was a good president. A lot of people say a lot of shit, but it doesn't make it true.

The reason most sequels fail is because the people involved are just trying to recreate the magic that succeeded for them the first time around. It's an easy pitfall.

Unfortunately, what the filmmakers fail to realize more often than not is that it was probably the uniqueness of the original that was appealing to the fans in the first place. This is just another area where "Predator 2" defies all odds.

"Predator 2" is nothing like "Predator." Sure, the alien is the same, and sure, they're basically both about lone badasses outclassing said alien with nothing but their own bootstraps, but that's pretty much where the similarities die.

First difference: "Predator 2" abandons the jungle for a dystopic future Los Angeles. Second difference: it's basically a sci-fi noir flick, which as a film geek, I love. Third difference: the original "Predator" contains absolutely no Jamaicans, while the sequel - chock full of those rudeboys.

The point is, it would have been super easy to just hire another five or six roided-out beefhead b-list actors, give them some big guns, fly them to the part of L.A. that looks most like a jungle and had a "Predator" sequel knocked out in like ... two weeks, max. But they didn't do that, and I, for one, commend them for not taking the easy route. Instead, they created a whole new setting, a whole new backstory and a whole new set of characters.

They didn't have to, but they did. They broke Hollywood Rule No. 4: Never do more work than is absolutely necessary.

That's not to say this movie is completely, painstakingly original - it does follow a lot of the action movie formulas and lone cop cliches, but I don't have a problem with that. Point me to a movie that isn't cliche in some way and I'll gladly illuminate you as to something you overlooked. But what matters most to me when watching a movie is not whether I've heard someone express a similar sentiment in another movie, but that I can buy what's taking place on screen as being organic to the story being presented.

In this case, yeah, I totally buy it. If I was Lt. Mike Harrigan and this was happening to me, I can't say I'd react any differently than Danny Glover does. I'd be cussing my boss out, going off on my own and trying to get to the bottom of it.

Call me cliche, but that just seems like the logical thing to do. And, you know what? It worked! He caught the bad guy, solved the mystery and put an end to the problem. Can't argue with results.

"Predator 2" will always hold a special place in my heart because even with its cliches, even though it's a sequel, it's still more original than 99 percent of movies being churned out today. It reminds me that you don't always have to go the obvious route to make a great movie. You don't always have to cast the obvious guy that you think audiences will want to see, you don't always have to put forth the bare minimum of effort and you don't always have to beat a dead horse.

The film industry has a lot of crazy, self-imposed notions of what will bring them success. They don't like taking risks, they don't like standing on shaky ground when their money is on the line.

I can certainly understand where they're coming from in that approach, but the problem with that mentality is that it leads us to situations like what we're experiencing today where the same five stars appear in variations of the same five movies over and over again, year after year.

Nobody is creating anything, they're just trying to appropriate something that's already proven successful. Nothing changes.

But look around you. Things are changing in the real world and it's time that our media reflects those changes.

So now that Barack Obama is in the Oval Office, can we please get some color up there on the silver screen? Can we see somebody at least attempt not to follow the beaten path? Please?

i, robot

wasted opportunity, but not as huge of a mess as you'd expect
___________________________________________________


i like this movie because it's safe and it's easy. is it anywhere near the level it could have been? absolutely not. does anyone but the geekiest of us care? not so much. listen, i'm a weird guy...on one hand i love sci-fi...real sci-fi, the stuff that critiques the world in that special way that only good sci-fi can, the stuff that transports you to a different time and place with it's sheer creativity and uniqueness, but at the same time, i can appreciate a good old fashion story, even if it does insult my intelligence a little. movies are first and foremost about entertainment and something doesn't necessarily have to be a masterpiece to be entertaining. this is the league i, robot is playing in. it's not amazing by any means, but you could do much worse with your 2 hours.

if you're a fan of isaac asimov's i, robot stories, chances are you hate this movie. i can't say i blame you, it steals the name and the general concept of asimov's stories and reworks them into a fairly straight forward, mystery-driven conspiracy movie format. i'm not going to go as far as saying it pisses on asimov's grave (like i've heard some claim) because it doesn't. actually, when you break it down it is really very similar to something he might have written. it's got the elijah bailey-esque biased detective spooner (will smith) who investigates a robot related crime and ends up becoming friends with a r. daneel olivaw-esque robot named "sunny" despite his machine-hating nature. there's also the lovable young street urchin (played in typically annoying fashion by shia labeouf), who could be seen to resemble raych from the foundation prequels.

it doesn't break any new ground or present any concepts the most remedial of sci-fi fans aren't overly familiar with already, but that's not the be-all, end-all of making a good movie. the story itself is well constructed and flows nicely, creating an all around neat package. director alex proyas does an almost complete 180 from his dark city, crow aesthetic, which is at once interesting and slightly disappointing. the style he brings to this film is very polished and clean, presenting a future where humanity is sort of at the brink of deteriorating, but still has the glossy sheen that allows people to keep up the illusion that everything is a-ok. you get the sense that in 10 years time this metropolis could look like a very different place. however, the film lacks a certain amount of artistic flare, something that caught me a little off guard considering proyas' style-heavy previous outings.

the main problem that holds this film back is, unfortunately, will smith. not because he's a bad actor - he brings a certain amount of charm and charisma to all his characters, but because he simply isn't right for the role. i could see the part working much better in the hands of a less charming actor, someone who could bring that gruffness to the character that i think smith was missing. his supporting cast doesn't do much to help him out either. bridget moynahan is pretty much wasted space, bringing almost nothing to the role of dr. susan calvin, one of the only characters taken directly from the asimov stories. she's stiff, uninteresting and doesn't show any of the complexity of the character as asimov wrote it. shia labeaof shows up for a few minutes here and there in an utterly useless role and does nothing as an actor to make the cameo worth the time it took to watch it. however, chi mcbride, james cromwell and alan tudyk (the voice of "sunny") all deliver with their performances.

in the end, i, robot is a movie that you walk away from thinking "hmm, that wasn't too bad". it's a good movie to watch if you're bored, but i can't see it going on anyones top 10 lists. there's nothing outright that sends it barreling into sucksville, but there also isn't anything elevating it above the level of mediocrity. with a few minor tweaks it could have been great, but as it is, it's merely good.

sunshine

the gods have gone away

___________________________________________________

i have to admit the first time i saw 'sunshine' i didn't look too kindly upon it. if you've seen it, i'm sure you know exactly what i'm talking about, but if you haven't i'll try to explain without ruining anything for you (but honestly, if you're worried about reading spoilers you're surfin' the wrong site, so if i inadvertently go into great detail about the events in the film...uh, my bad, i guess). it was going along just fine and even starting to become really good, but at a certain point it kind of...derails, shall we say? all of a sudden it's like you're watching a completely different movie and it sorta cheapened the experience for me. i walked out feeling a little cheated...seemed like a cop-out. i couldn't logically understand why someone would tack on an ending that seemed to be a complete 180 from the rest of the film.

a few weeks later, however, i was drawn back to it mysteriously. i watched it again, noticed a bit more of the set up and the way danny boyle preps the audience for what's to come and once the crazy derailment point arrived it wasn't as bad as i remembered. this time i knew what was coming and that fact allowed me to accept it without being defensive because my movie-going experience had been interrupted. what i had originally tossed aside as a poorly thought-out, tacked on ending made a lot more sense to me. i mean, i got it the first time around - dude went crazy because he wanted to be the last man alive, alone with god, blah blah. but honestly, i thought it was just hooey - a crappy excuse to turn a hard sci-fi epic into a mainstream slasher picture. i'll admit, i was a little wrong. sunshine has more to say than that.

the film is not without it's faults. yes, it bares more than a passing resemblance to event horizon and perhaps owes a few credits to 2010 and alien as well, but it isn't fair to label 'sunshine' a rip-off or imitation. for one, it presents interesting enough concepts that it can hold its own against any of the aforementioned movies (and in certain cases surpass them). 'sunshine' is first and foremost about the allure, excitement and fear of the unknown and the human desire to elevate themselves to god-like status - two concepts that are often closely entangled. it encompasses this theme in a few different ways, most obviously the main story concept of humans using their grasp of science to restart a dying star. for humans, death and what (if anything) exists after it is perhaps the ultimate unknown. it is the one thing we are all racing towards and we're universally united by our obsession with it. some fear death, some accept it as an inevitability and some welcome it, but none can say they understand it's mysteries. there's something in our nature that turns a puzzle into an obsession when it cannot easily be mastered, something about our make-up drives us to conquer what is believed impossible...but what? everyone strives to be better than the person they're comparing themselves to for no other apparent reason than self-validation. in short, we each strive to be god-like in our own minds, whether it's by asserting our intelligence, strength, virility, wealth, dominance, courage or ambivalence over another person, place or thing.

dr. searle (cliff curtis) spends hours in the observation room, drawn to an image of the sun spinning slowly in the distance, growing ever larger and brighter as they draw closer. he's entranced by its beauty, power and danger. he wants desperately to understand it, to experience it as no one else has ever done before. capa (cillian murphy) is haunted by dreams of the sun's surface, but must master it in order to save everything he holds dear. the unknown for him is not death, as he seems to be at peace with the idea of "returning to the universe". for him, the unknown is the uncertainty of his own beliefs. as a physicist, he fears that his science, being purely theoretical, could in the end prove false. his actions are guided by this fear as he makes the call to reroute the mission to improve their odds of success.

the most interesting aspect of 'sunshine' is (strangely) the very thing that initially turned me off - the character of captain pinbacker. at first glance he appears to be nothing more than a blurry version of jason voorhees in space, but the more i watched the movie and the more i thought about it, the more the character evolved in my own mind. he's much more than a slasher. he is the embodiment of what 'sunshine' strives to illuminate about humanity and their quest to become gods in their own minds. like the others, pinbacker was obsessed with the unknown. for him, the unknown is the relationship between god and man. there are many ways to read into that, of course, it doesn't have to be god in the religious or spiritual sense - it can simply represent the powers of the universe from which we were all conceived. in his mind, in the presence of god he becomes one himself - the only man ever to exist alone in the universe with his creator. while fear of the unknown kept capa, searle and the others aboard the icarus 2's obsessions in check, pinbacker's experiences seemed to elevate him above the emotion. perhaps his survival itself left him feeling he had already mastered the unknown and as such he no longer feared it.

the aspect in which 'sunshine' falls flat and what ultimately holds it back from becoming a true masterpiece is the supporting cast. the problem is not with the actors, who all give strong work in their roles, but in the script. there simply isn't much for most of the cast to do but die and as such, we never really get to know them and are fairly unaffected when they do eventually get picked off. we're thrust into the action immediately and get to know very little about any of the crew members. we get tiny bits of background on some of the major characters like capa, but not much. by the time problems start arising and lives are placed in peril, we still don't really know who any of these people are or if they're even worth worrying about. you feel bad because people are dying or getting hurt, but you don't really care about them as individuals because they really aren't anything more than glorified red-shirts. strange because it seems like a film that tackles the kinds of topics 'sunshine' attempts would have benefited greatly from some more character progression.

'sunshine' is a film that comments on the implications of the human quest for knowledge and the consequences of taking that quest too far. it's a beautiful, but flawed film that takes multiple viewings to really appreciate fully, in my opinion. if you've seen it once, give it another chance, if you've never seen it, do so, but proceed cautiously...you might not be too impressed the first time around.

i am legend

i am a brainless movie-goer

___________________________________________________

just a comparison i'd like to throw out there - i've heard a lot of people who praised the transformers movie going around town saying i am legend is awful. you people need to learn the difference between awful and mediocre.

'i am legend' isn't awful, it just suffers from the same fate that most modern movies do - nobody cared enough to make it a masterpiece. maybe its because they felt like they didn't have to and people would see it anyway, maybe they honestly thought they had created a masterpiece or maybe they were operating under the impression that the world wasn't ready for anything heavier, but most movies these days don't have enough put into them. there are several movies i use as a compass to judge all others by, they range from serious art house fare like 2046 to mainstream action romps like the terminator or die hard. some were considered great in their time, some were loathed, some were considered frivolous and mindless, some were simply forgotten, but regardless, in my mind there is a thread that unites all great films - care. i feel it's fairly evident when watching a movie whether or not the people making it actually gave a shit about what they were creating. as an artist and a lover of art i can tell the difference between someone's obsession and someone's paycheck. it's what differentiates blade runner from impostor. i know when the details of a movie have been labored over, even if the labor isn't apparent and that is one of the things i love discovering about movies.

'i am legend' doesn't lack detail, per say, but it definitely skimps a bit. was it as good as 'blade runner'? oh god, no. but was it as bad as 'impostor'? nah, that's a little harsh. visually it was alright, thematically it was alright (though a bit muddy in places), but it fell far short of its potential because hollywood is simply terrified of taking big risks and failing. the movie was "deep" there was substance to it, but it was very subtle and it seems like a lot of people looked right passed it because they came in half-expecting it to be meaningless hollywood garbage anyway. i mean, let's be honest, there are a lot of people in this world that wouldn't get the theme of a movie if it was right in front of them yanking their ball hairs out, but a lot of the negativity i've read regarding 'i am legend' being "terrible" seems to stem from viewers having only a superficial/completely literal understanding of what's transpiring. it appears to me that most people were too distracted by the questionable cgi choices and the ending to really give the film the amount of attention it deserved.

although i wasn't the biggest fan of 'i am legend' personally and don't feel any sort of obligation to defend it, this kind of thing really troubles me. the majority of movie viewers (even those that consider themselves discerning critics) are only able to see themes, symbolism, deeper meanings, etc. in a movie if they're made overly aware of the fact that its there by heavy-handed techniques or blabby philosophical dialogue. i suppose that's why i despise movies that rely on such methods to hold your hand through every emotion, thought and concept presented. it's my personal feeling that a movie should be entertaining first and foremost, but it should have more to it than a simple chain of events if you should choose to go looking for it. the meat is there in 'i am legend', but there isn't enough to really make it a great film.

one thing i've notice people complaining about was the ending. many compare it to the twist toward the end of signs. they say "out of nowhere this chick and kid show up for no reason and all of a sudden he discovers the cure, gets a crazy message from god, sacrifices himself and saves humanity". well...that's certainly one way to look at it, yea, but is that really what the film was trying to get across? as usual, i see things a bit differently.

robert neville (will smith) lived for 3 years on his own. he learned to survive on his own. in this case surviving involves more than just hunting food and finding shelter, he also had to learn how to exist in complete isolation and cope with the psychological impact of not only being the last human alive, but also of being partly responsible for what happened to his fellow humans. 3 years is a long time and the result of being isolated for so long is that he's become completely self sufficient. though he desires it, he no longer requires human contact and has developed ways to supplement it on his own. he has become so accustomed to existing without that when human relationships are reintroduced to him he can no longer maintain them. when anna and ethan show up, by all indicators, he should be happy, he should have a new found purpose and a skip in his step...it should have brought him hope. instead, he can only focus on how their arrival has impacted the routine he's established for himself ("i was saving that bacon"). the characters of anna and ethan are obviously meant to echo neville's wife and child and where most movies would have hammered that point home, director francis lawrence chooses a different approach. instead, neville hardly seems to be moved by their presence at all and aside from a brief caress, makes very little personal contact with either of them. the story isn't about them, after all, it is about robert neville, the legend, the allegory. it is about how his desire to survive and fulfill his duty led him on a journey away from his own humanity. with this in mind, i view the "signs" at the end of the movie less as messages from god than neville finally realizing that in his quest to survive he had turned his back on the very thing he was supposed to be protecting. in an instant he finally understood that anna and ethan weren't simple annoyances getting in the way of his work and ruining his set-up, they were human like his wife and child, they were what he was struggling to save.

i'm not trying to convince anyone that 'i am legend' was brilliant because it wasn't. it had its moments and i think in a decade or so when the cultural associations are not as fresh and we've got maybe an extended director's cut it will be looked at more positively. what i'm trying to say is, its not awful and if you have an open mind and a willingness to look past the surface of the movie there are some interesting moments, some great scenes and some introspective themes about isolation, survival and obsession, but if you go in expecting mindless drivel, you'll get just that out of it.

ps. i'm purposefully avoiding any discussion about how well the movie adapts the book because, quite frankly, this is not really a strict adaptation of the book. it's more an update of the omega man, a laughably bad, equally off the mark adaptation of 'i am legend' starring charlton heston and his machine gun. even though 'the omega man' was slightly more faithful to the source material, it completely missed the mark of what the true core of the story was, which i think 'i am legend' comes a bit closer to (even though the way they get there is much different). for the sake of this blog, i'm keeping movies removed from their source material unless the connections absolutely must be drawn.

sometimes i feel like i'm one of those pretentious douchebags that rant on and on about "outsider art" and how brilliant the crazed scribbling of some brain dead psycho drawn on a toilet seat are and all the insightful things it says about our society. sometimes i feel like that, except substitute brain dead psychos with coked-out movie industry hacks. some of you may remember my dissertation on michael bay's masterpiece "bad boys II", some of you may not. anyway, consider this part of an ongoing investigation into the enigma that is hollywood filmmaking.

don't ask me why i do it to myself, but i've given every resident evil movie to come out so far a fair chance. partly because of the potential, but also because at the very least i can be secure in the knowledge that mila will be lookin' fine and possibly gettin' naked. that said, i've never actually been able to make it through an entire film in the series. they're just so bad i have to turn them off within 30-45 mins.

recently i legally obtained a copy of the latest, resident evil: extinction. based on the trailers, this installment looked like a fairly big departure for the franchise, so i thought "hmm...maybe this time they'll finally get it right". well, having sat down and watched it (yes, the whole thing!) i can say that yes, they finally have gotten it right. the fact that i didn't shut it off 30 mins in is probably the biggest indicator that the film is light years ahead of its predecessors, but on top of that, i was actually pretty entertained by the movie. believe me, i'm just as surprised as you are.

i'm not saying its a great movie because its pretty mediocre, but for all its hackiness, it also does a lot of things well. most noticeably, the directing in this one is pretty strong. i've never heard of russel mulcahy, looking at his imdb it seems that he's done mostly TV and music videos, but the guy is pretty smart. i say this for a few reasons. first, the film is very video gamey, but its all pretty subtle and doesn't get in the way of it being a movie. little flourishes that evoke the video game experience are sprinkled throughout, so that if you've played any kind of action/adventure game before you'll notice them and smirk, but if you haven't it would just blend seamlessly into the film. second, we're all aware of the fact that mila jovovich, for all her beauty, is a pitiful actress - same goes with the rest of the cast (which includes academy award winners ashanti, ali larter and mike epps), but the thing is, whoever this dude is, russel mulcahy, is obviously aware of this as well and fully compensates for it. nobody is given the opportunity to suck. it really is astounding to watch. they either die or get distracted or the camera cuts away from them before they get a chance to unleash a lethal dose of their own individual brands of suckitude. if you'd walked up to me on the street 3 weeks ago and told me i would not only sit through, but also be vaguely entertained by a movie starring mila jovovich, ashanti, ali larter and mike epps, i probably would have said something pretty humorous about how stupid your face was (or something along those lines...its hard to say for sure). i guess it just goes to show how strange and wonderful this world can be at times.

but wait, before you get all amped up and franticly download this movie with hopes high, let me make a disclaimer. the story itself (which was penned by paul w.s. anderson, the genius behind the first resident evil and other classics like AvP) is a total hack job. its basically 'day of the dead' verbatim, except its post apocalyptic and slightly more sci-fi. think george romero meets stephen king and you've pretty much got it. nothing original at all going on here. nothing at all. BUT, i'm not a snob, i don't think everything has to be ground breaking, its more important that it does what its trying to do right than doing it first. this film does it right...ish. there haven't been a whole lot of post-apocalyptic movies made in recent years, so we haven't really had the chance to see all those sprawling desolate landscapes in high definition with all the bells and whistles that new technology affords. first thing you notice about RE:E is that its pretty to look at. the camera work and aesthetics of the film do a good job at immersing you in the environment. the costumes are spot on. total anime ripoffs, but spot on, nonetheless.

sometimes you want to sit down and watch a really mindblowing movie that wows you and reinvigorates your love for the medium. this isn't that film. but other times you just want to sit down and meditate on something familiar, yet strangely beautiful in its mediocrity. well, maybe you don't, but i certainly do. i'm one of the few people out there in the world that understands that the movie industry is not about producing art, its about producing product that will produce money. at every step of the process, filmmakers are told "nope, you can't do that", "can't show that", "can't say that", "gotta simplify that", etc. i'm not delusional, i know that every movie i see is the product of 100 or so muddling hands, each of which has stripped away a little more of the movies original incarnation. its a sad reality, but it IS the reality. there just isn't much of a market for masterpieces these days. but to my weird, crazy, pretentious artfag brain, sometimes this debilitating meddling, censoring and restricting comes together to create something worth stepping back and admiring for what it is. and that, folks, is why i dub resident evil: extinction the best mediocre movie of the year. see it for yourselves. open your mind and don't be a stuck up cunt. you might just be slightly entertained like i was.