Ravenous (1999)

You know, "Ravenous" was a total flop -- all these years later, it's still not even come close to making its budget (maybe 1/6th of the way there). I remember it appearing, and disappearing from theaters almost immediately (I know because it was out one week and I thought "I should go catch this" and delayed and the next thing I knew, it was gone), but the concept of it appealed to me, and I watched it years ago (weird to think that 1999 is now a long time ago, really -- doesn't feel so long ago). Anyway, I think this movie will stand the test of time as a cult classic. Maybe it's not there, yet, maybe it'll languish in near-oblivion for another decade or so, or maybe folks'll see it and appreciate it.

I love this movie. The setting of it (19th century, in the California wilderness, although shot in Slovakia, it really does look COLD there, and that isolation works well), and the nice playing with the Wendigo legend, fusing it with maybe a bit of "Dracula" and notions of Manifest Destiny, and getting good performances out of a number of actors, to say nothing of the marvelous black humor that runs right through this movie -- it's really, really good, and I never get why more people haven't seen it or bothered to catch it. Director Antonia Bird doesn't necessarily shoot thrillingly (although she does convey good atmospheric shots here and there), and there are some continuity errors here and there in it, but overall, the movie doesn't just hold together; it's classic horror, with a bit of a twist here and there.

Guy Pearce plays Captain John Boyd, a reluctant (one might say cowardly -- a theme that runs throughout the movie) war hero who is sent to a distant fort in California, where he runs into the odd group of locals at Fort Spencer, in the Sierra Nevada ranges. There, they encounter Colqhoun (played wonderfully, with beady-eyed intensity, by Robert Carlyle), this stranger with a ghastly tale of cannibalism that is reminiscent of the Donner Party. And things go into freefall soon thereafter. I won't throw any spoilers into this, as the movie has some nice twists and turns. Pearce's Boyd is a fairly introverted, tortured character, and, as far as protagonists go, is fairly weak -- I imagine this turned off audience goers, who might've resonated with a stronger hero -- but Boyd does find his strength as the movie progresses, and understands what he must do to prevail over the Evil he faces. Boyd rises to the occasion (and, again, this might've bothered the audiences who saw it, who likely craved a happier ending).

The movie is well-shot and well-paced, and certain scenes will stay with you forever -- not even from outright bloodshed (certainly, blood is spilled in this movie, but never for its own sake) -- but it's the implications in the carnage here and there, the suggestion of what's going on, that carries the weight, and it makes this a superb, even smart horror movie. Not a slasher film, not an ironic, smarmy meta-horror, and not an exercise in pure terror (thinking of "The Strangers," here) -- "Ravenous" is, instead, a Grade-A horror film that takes you on a grim and haunting excursion. It's not a perfect movie, but it's far, far better than its dismal reception would leave you to believe). I've watched this movie a number of times, and it always manages to rope me in. Something about the setting, the time period, the good characterizations, the villainy of the Bad Guy -- all of it makes for an intoxicating and memorable horror film.

If you haven't seen it (and odds are you haven't, since, again, this movie was a total flop), you owe it to yourself to catch it. So much of what passes for horror these days is basically torture porn, or is an exercise in brutality -- "Ravenous" is, instead, a smart horror movie that has some nice, nasty reversals throughout it, and some curious implications woven within it.

Hero Factory

I have generally avoided themed Lego products -- I favor the more generic sets, but on a whim, I got one of the Hero Factory figures, and, in short order, got several of them. The good guys are all alternately Iron Man types -- like people in exo-suits, or else cyborgs. They all have amusingly prissy names like "Preston" and so on, versus their badass call names, like "Surge" and what-not.



Anyway, what sold me on these is how articulated they are -- the ball-and-socket joints make them truly fully poseable in a way I haven't seen since the old Micronauts toys of the 70s. And they're sturdily built, easy-to-assemble, and are modular, offering any number of iterations and permutations. The Heroes have a group of villains to take on, like Meltdown, the Corroder, etc. My boys love'em, and we get a lot of play out of them. Again, the highly articulated frames make them wonderful to move around and pose. Fun to assemble (and, by and large, easy to assemble, not too many pieces), and fun to play with, too. Pleasant surprise.

Nerf Clear Series

Is it un-PC to love toy guns? I dunno. I got my boys a couple of Nerf Clear Series dart pistols (a Maverick and an EX-3). They're very cool. A great look to them, seeing the inner workings, and they are surprisingly powerful and accurate, well-designed. They shoot either suction cup-tipped Nerf foam darts, or Velcro-tipped Nerf foam darts. The suction cups are my favorites, because they stick in a perpendicular fashion on the target, if it allows for suction cups to adhere to them. The action of the Maverick (which is a six-shooter, looking like a clear version of something Robocop or Agent Smith would use, or possibly one of the Men In Black), anyway, it's very smooth, with the slide cocking it, allowing for rapid fire if you "fan" it like you would a single-action revolver, cowboy-style. The only fault I saw with it is if you don't load the cylinder perfectly (which itself is easy to do, generally), you can get a jam. But if it's loaded properly, it'll fire very rapidly, and accurately.

The EX-3 resembles a machine pistol, and fires a single shot (you draw back the bolt and fire), and it had room for two additional darts in storage in the front. What's more, it has an LED light on the front acting as a laser gunsight, which is powered by 2 AA batteries that load in the handle. The EX-3 is smaller than the mighty Maverick, but is no less powerful or accurate (and, despite it being a single shot, you can load it more quickly than the Maverick, which can be a consideration for kids playing Nerf Wars or whatever). One drawback of the EX-3 that I found is that the contact that triggers the LED is very delicate, and can be jarred loose with rough play (and it's next to impossible to fix, just because the piece is so tiny). But given the low price of the gun, it is otherwise very well-made and feels right, has the right amount of heft.

There are larger Clear Series rifles and what-not, but I haven't played with those (yet). The pistols, however, are a real blast.

These are, I gather, limited edition Nerf toy guns, so get'em while you can, I guess. They are very cool, fun to play with, and have a great feel to them and a futuristic style. They handle nicely and are durable, and the range is impressive.

But definitely watch out about shooting in the face, because despite the easy action of these toy guns, they are surprisingly powerful, and you can fire them accurately clear across a room and hit what you're aiming at.

Backyard Safari Mega Magnifier

I got my boys a $9.95 Backyard Safari magnifying glass from Summit (cheaper than the $14.97 shown here on Amazon). The thing is HUGE! It's a fresnel lens, is plastic, not glass -- you know, like those lenses made of concentric circles like they use in lighthouses? It is a cute toy, and it is BIG -- like 15" across, and a foot wide. When I bought it from the bookstore, the clerks were transfixed by it (hadn't realized it was on sale there) and kept playing with it. My boys love it, and it's fun to use, with some slight distortion in the lens because it's such light plastic.



However, I would warn you that fresnel lenses are very effective magnifying glasses, and that means if you have a kid who has any procilivity for starting fires, this is an excellent means of doing so -- so be careful of that. Not that the product is dangerous per se, but definitely don't leave it on a windowsill or in the hands of a kid who knows that magnifying glasses = fire and likes starting fires.

By way of testing it, I was able to light up a piece of cardboard in 15 seconds (indoors, mind you) with this sucker, once I found the sweet spot. It burned a hole in a piece of cardboard in that amount of time. 15 seconds to smoking ruin!

This is a fun toy and, as a novelty, it can't be beat -- it is the biggest magnifying glass I've personally seen, but just be careful with it (and you'll want a welder's mask or some other means to protect your eyes if you're focusing that beam, because it's bright). Fun to play with, however. I found myself wanting to get several to extend the power.

Despicable Me (2010)

I saw this one with my boys yesterday, and I'm glad I did. It's funny and well-written. Plenty of laughs for the grown-ups and the kids alike. The story follows Gru, this apparent supervillain who has been outclassed by an up-and-coming villain named Vector (Vector is the Apple to Gru's PC -- you can definitely see that in everything Vector does). Gru wants to reclaim his position as top supervillain by stealing the Moon, and, as part of that scheme, he adopts three orphaned little girls (sisters -- the cerebral oldest sis, the quasi-tomboy middle, and the cutsie pie youngest). Gru's villainous heart is, of course, softened by the introduction of these three kids in his world. It's kind of a nod to good parenting, I think -- that kids bring fun and love to your life in ways that a job never will.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_rUbqbhUEQ

Anyway, the animation is crisp, the characters are amusing -- Gru's a stitch, and the girls are dangerously cute, and the story is light and entertaining. Universal is in Pixar's shadow, but this is a great addition to their portfolio. I can't wait to get it on DVD.

Despicable Me (2010)

I'll review this one tomorrow. A lot of fun, well-written, good times!

**** (out of five)

Inception (2010)

So, I caught "Inception" tonight, deciding to spend my valuable entertainment dollar on this Christopher Nolan-directed blockbuster. First off, it's going to do very well -- the theater was packed, the most-packed I've seen any theater in recent memory. I honestly can't recall a more-packed theater, so people are into this movie.

Unfortunately, I'm not one of them. I really, really wanted to like this movie, but IT WAS BORING. I was fucking bored. Where to begin (without throwing any spoilers into the mix?) Hmph. It's a lukewarm action movie -- I mean, I have a problem with the whole "It's all a dream" kind of narrative conceit to begin with. I like my fiction to be REAL, ironically enough. Don't wrap a fictional tale in a fucking dream, pretty please? But I went anyway, because I thought it might be compelling enough to sit through, anyway.

The build-up was deadly-dull, dishing out the exposition, a few very light brushstrokes on characterization, Leo DiCaprio gamely trying to act -- you know the look, the furrowed brow, the careworn look. The other actors, doing their thing, basically being his foils and sounding boards for Leo's character to react to.

This movie is actually two movies -- a caper movie (but Oooh, it's a DREAM caper), and a kind of ghost story involving another character (a subplot that runs through the thing and is stitched into the larger narrative as part of Leo's back story). And I found myself thinking that the subplot would've made a much better movie, although it wouldn't have been a blockbuster action movie -- the dream caper aspect was just interminable, went on and on, various effects tossed into the mix, as we follow the characters from A to B to C to D levels of worlds-within-worlds. Talk about living in a dreamworld!

But this layer cake plotting is thinly-drawn, since the action isn't TOO over-the-top, and the characterization is nearly nonexistent, so it's hard to care too much about what's going on. It's that bane of lukewarm filmmaking that afflicts some movies.

Oh, sure, Christopher Nolan spackles in the gravitas in his ponderous manner -- the almost-ceaseless soundtrack (which always bugs me, wears down my ear -- the nonstop wash of mood music that tells us Something Important Is Happening Here -- it was used a lot in "The Dark Knight" as well). And he runs the jumpycam action sequences to show that Something Important Is Happening Here. But it's all too telegraphed -- too much and too little.

The subplot around the character "Mal" (!!!) is ultimately the most interesting part of the movie, a kind of dream ghost rattling around in Leo's character's head, but she's given short shrift relative to the exigencies of the broader dream caper, which grinds on to its inexorable and tepid conclusion. But a movie written around Mal would've been far different than the "Inception" that was made -- it would've been better, too, but they clearly wanted to go for the sugar fix of the action movie with super special fx.

And the dream special effects are certainly dazzling on some level, but again, it's too much doing too little. Fucking boring. It was boring. I was bored. And it was too long. I'm being deliberately vague (again, avoiding spoilers, here), but there is a thick vein of "Who Gives a Fuck?" running right through the heart of this movie -- the catalyst for this caper is shadowy, the motivations of Leo's character are murky (I mean, we're TOLD why he's doing it, but it hardly fucking matters), the other characters are pasteboard, and even the dreams themselves are big piles of bullshit.

This is a mediocre movie that didn't move me, and yet it'll likely succeed admirably because people love dreamy special effects. Although "The Cell" was roundly panned, I think it did a much better job communicating the weirdness inside somebody's head than the rather linear portrayals of reality in these dreaming characters. Hell, watch the "Nightmare on Elm Street" movies, too, while you're at it. They're more satisfying and meaningful movies than this one, which was heavy on dross, but with little in the way of actual dramatic or narrative paydirt. And while the ending had the audience crying out, it felt more like another ruse and I again thought "Who Cares?"

I wanted to like this movie, but it was just boring. You'll see what I mean if you watch it.

** (out of five)