R.I.P. David Carradine

December 8, 1936 - June 3, 2009

Pete Docter and Bob Peterson's Up (2009)

Pixar strikes again. I'll take the suspense out of it -- Up is the best movie of 2009 thus far. Pete Docter and Bob Peterson have crafted a funny, moving, and poignant film filled with genuine excitement and characters that you will absolutely fall in love with. This is a very unconventional story that never once wobbles under the weight of such a bizarre and wondrous premise. Indeed, Up is a wonderful example of classic storytelling fused with the new and exciting.

The film begins with a breathtaking sequence detailing how two young children with a shared love for adventure meet. We see them fall in love and get married. We see them experience all that comes with a shared life together, both the good and the bad. We see them grow old together and as this bravura sequence comes to a close, we see one of them succumb to old age. It is a beautiful and heartbreaking way to start the film and guarantees that the audience Will be totally emotionally invested in what's to come. When the time comes for Carl Fredricksen, wonderfully brought to life by Ed Asner, to set sail in his balloon-powered home it is all too easy to empathize with the seemingly crotchety old man. This is emotional storytelling at it's best. The fact that such emotion can be so perfectly conveyed by computer animation is not surprising, given Pixar's other recent films, but it should still be celebrated.

I viewed Up in 3D and the effect was astounding. The depth of field, vibrant colors, and lush jungle setting all help to contribute to the film's stunning visual look. That said, if you don't get the chance to see Up in 3D, don't fret, as it will still look fantastic. It's quite refreshing to see an animated movie with elderly folks as both protagonist and antagonist. This is still a film aimed partly at children and Carl does share the screen with Russell, an excitable young boy scout. However, in a nice change of pace, young Russell isn't smarter than his geriatric counterparts, and nor should he be. The three human characters also share the screen with the oddly-named Kevin, the elusive giant bird which the deranged Charles Muntz has chased for so many years. Muntz employs a host of talking dogs in his hunt for the exotic bird. One dog stands above the rest, although not literally, and his name is Dug. Dug is an amazing creation which you will instantly fall in love with and it doesn't hurt that he's the source of many of Up's funniest moments.

Last year brought us Wall-E, which tackled such weighty issues as environmentalism and the human race's increasingly selfish and sloven behaviour, and Up handles a different set of equally adult themes. Up covers such themes as growing old, lost love, and accepting death, with an uncommon amount of grace and candor while still remaining very kid-friendly. Up is nothing less than a classic film which may stand the test of time better than any Pixar film, Wall-E included. Those who look at Up and dismiss it as just another animated kids movie are missing one of the most heartfelt, touching, humorous, and exciting films of the past several years. 5 out of 5 stars.

Guy Ritchie's Revolver (2005)

Revolver was released in the U.K. in 2005, but wasn't released in the U.S. until 2007. This is never a good sign. After a career spent directing comedic mobster tales, Guy Ritchie decided to take a chance and alter his tried and true formula. With a nice cast of actors and an admittedly intriguing premise, Revolver had a chance to be a decent film, which is too bad, as the result is a complete mess.

Jason Statham stars as Jake Green, a gambler and con man who has knowledge of a formula which guarantees success if executed properly. Statham is fine in the role, but his work doesn't quite match that in Snatch or Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels. I must say that it is refreshing to see Statham putting his thespian skills to use after the past five years spent delivering roundhouse kicks to faceless thugs. Mark Strong turns in a memorable performance as a nervous assassin, but the rest of the performances range from forgettable to downright awful. Andre Benjamin aka Outkast's Andre 3000 and Vincent Pastore manage to bring absolutely nothing to the table as a pair of mysterious loan-sharks. It is a mystery to me why Benjamin continues to receive roles in mainstream film. The man has zero screen presence and can be counted on to deliver a one-note performance consistently. More problematic still, is Ray Liotta as a corrupt casino owner. Liotta has proven to be a great actor in the past, which is why it's so frustrating when he turns in such an abysmal performance. He spends the majority of the film stomping around in thong underwear while barking commands at weary underlings. It is literally a carbon copy of any number of awful performances Liotta has given in the past five years. Apparently, monstrous over-acting is par for the course at this stage of Liotta's career.

As hard as it may seem to believe, the script and direction fare far worse than the acting in Revolver. I applaud Guy Ritchie for leaving his comfort zone, I really do. Suffice to say, he probably should have stayed there. Revolver is Ritchie's attempt at a serious film and nearly all of the trademark elements of his films are missing. No black comedy, no razor sharp wit, no likable yet bumbling criminals just trying to survive the gangster underworld. These are the elements that made his films a success and when removed, we are left with an incoherent mess full of supposed psychological twists and turns which are impossible to decipher and ever more impossible to enjoy. Indeed, Ritchie piles on so many different twists and cons and themes that it is impossible for the viewer not to be completely lost by the time the film ends. He attempts to craft a tricky and intelligent thriller about the human ego and the shifty world of con men but instead creates a pretentious maze of a film with zero intellectual impact. It doesn't help that several characters often repeat completely inane rules of the supposed con as if nothing smarter has ever been uttered. "You can only get smarter by playing a smarter opponent," and "The more sophisticated the game, the more sophisticated the opponent," are two of my favorites. Does this really pass for intellect?


Revolver is peppered with several gaping plot holes, which when explored, negate the premise of the entire film. Obviously, this is never a good thing. Ritchie often indulges in pure stylistic excess such as an abrupt switch to cel-shaded animation in the middle of an action scene or foreign-speaking characters eventually speaking only with subtitles as the dialogue track is eventually replaced by blaring music. These scenes, and others like them, convey a lack of focus which is prevalent throughout the film, even though one must be absolutely focused to the screen if they are to understand Ritchie's intent. This is not a good combination. There is also a third-act twist which is completely obvious twenty minutes into the film yet is delivered as though Ritchie is confident that his audience is completely in the dark. I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that there are a few good scenes scattered haphazardly throughout the film, but sadly these are few and far between and just serve to remind us that Guy Ritchie is capable of much, much more. When the credits mercifully roll, Guy Ritchie has managed to both underestimate and overestimate his audience and the result is a complete mess of a movie filled to the brim with mediocre acting, extremely confusing plotting, and average directing. This is not a good film. 1 out of 5 stars.