REVIEW: Batman- The Killing Joke

There was a time a few years ago when Mark Hamill decided to permanently retire from voicing the Joker, claiming that the role put too much stress on his throat after all these years. The only exception he would return for, he said, would be an animated adaptation of Alan Moore's The Killing Joke. An understandable caveat; an actor considered by many to be the definitive Joker, playing the part in an animated adaptation of what many consider to be the definitive Joker story. Years passed, and not only has Mark Hamill returned to voicing the Joker on a regular basis, but his dream of seeing this classic story adapted into an animated feature has come to pass. The question remains, does Batman: The Killing Joke do its source material justice?

The plot is the first thing that will concern comic fans. The original story is not particularly long (before writing this piece, I revisited the comic and finished it in about ten minutes). There's essentially enough material to make for a 30 to 45 minute runtime at best, but then that's hardly feature-length. Warner Bros Animation would be hard-pressed justifying a full-price home release for something so short, let alone a limited theatrical run, so naturally some additions have been made. The original plot of The Killing Joke concerns the Joker once again escaping Arkham Asylum to wreak havoc on the city of Gotham. After crippling Barbara Gordon (Tara Strong), the clown prince of crime kidnaps her father, Commissioner Jim Gordon (Ray Wise) and attempts to drive the old man insane in order to prove that even the most upstanding individual is "one bad day" away from descending into total madness. While the Batman (Kevin Conroy) tries to track the Joker down and put a stop to his scheme, we see flashbacks that shed some light on the Joker's mysterious origins. The source material is an exemplary display of the dynamic between Batman and the Joker; these two are without a doubt, the stars of the show. Which is why it's so confusing to me that the entire first act of this movie is a totally unrelated story about Batgirl.

I'll admit, I can see where writer Brian Azzarello was going with this. The graphic novel on which the film is based was released on comic stands; if someone was reading The Killing Joke, chances are they knew who Barbara Gordon was and understood why she was important. Her incidental role in the original story could be forgiven, considering that the book was part of the greater ongoing Batman canon that comic fans of the time would clearly be familiar with. However, film is much less of a niche medium than comics; whereas an issue of a comic series can act as a smaller chapter in a greater overarching storyline, a movie usually has to end up being more or less self-contained. It follows that, in a story in which a major plot point finds a character getting shot in the spine and crippled for life, it would make sense to endear any uninitiated audience members to that character before delivering such a powerful emotional beat.

While I can understand the logic behind adding in additional scenes of Batgirl in action, it still doesn't change the fact that The Killing Joke was never about Barbara Gordon; it was about Batman and the Joker (with extra emphasis on the latter). A prologue to further characterize Batgirl would have worked just fine, so long as it tied in with the actual meat of the story. Instead, we're given a one-off storyline involving a narcissistic would-be crime lord named Paris Franz (Maury Sterling ) and his creepy obsession with Batgirl. In terms of tone and content, this story and The Killing Joke couldn't possibly be more different. Whereas the parts of the film that are adapted straight from the book are full of somber imagery and the iconic prose of Alan Moore, the primary conflict of the Batgirl prologue involves Barbara feeling jilted after an uncomfortable one-night stand with Batman. The second half of this movie delves into the Joker's tragic backstory and is full of spine-chilling imagery and dialog, while the first half has Babs pouring her heart out to her camp gay best friend, wishing that the dark knight would call her back. Despite Batgirl not being the primary focus of the original story, it would have been very possible to write a prologue that not only characterizes her for a new audience, but also ties into the primary plotline in terms of content and theme. Instead we get this boring, baffling diversion that feels like it would almost make for a good one-off story if it wasn't taking attention away from everything that we all obviously came to see.

I must also call attention to the animation, art style, and general look of the movie. While some shots do an admirable job of mimicking Brian Bolland's iconic artwork, the entire thing just appears too simplified. When I see Bruce Timm's name in the credits of anything, even just as a producer, I immediately hold it to the same high standard of animation seen in Justice League Unlimited and Batman: Mask of the Phantasm. Unfortunately, the film doesn't come close to reaching that standard; I spotted numerous animation errors, as well as shots that simply came off as purely lazy (keep an eye on Gordon's silhouette as he makes his way through the Joker's funhouse). The art of the graphic novel had a true sense of grit to it; the heavy shadows and meticulous details fit the tone perfectly. This is a Batman story that is grimier and dirtier than those you're used to reading. While the designs of the comic are used here, liberties had to be taken in order to keep things easy to animate. The shadows are less complex, the range of motion is for the most part stiff, and minor details have been smoothed out in favor of something cleaner. "Cleaner" is not a style that compliments the content of this story. There's also some genuinely garish CGI at times that stands out like a sore-thumb; while I understand that a carousel must be one of the absolute worst things to animate, the one featured in this film made me physically cringe. I can only dream of what this would have looked like had it been made in the mid-late 90's, when Paul Dini and Bruce Timm's Batman The Animated Series was taking the world by storm. While the art design here is acceptable in terms of a TV/direct-to-video release, it's definitely a poor adaptation of Bolland's original artwork.

For all the issues I had with this movie, there was one facet that justified the entire thing for me; the voice acting. As a movie, it's heavily flawed, but it's a damn good audiobook. Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamill return once again as Batman and the Joker, in my opinion the best interpretations of the characters ever committed to screen. While I rolled my eyes at just about everything in the first act, I got genuine chills hearing Hamill recite iconic lines from the comic. It's only dawned on me just now that this is the most true-to-form Joker to ever be shown on the big screen. He's legitimately terrifying, unpredictable, and despicable, but at the same time relatable and sympathetic. In an era when I was suffering from Joker-fatigue, this movie came along and reminded me why the character has stood the test of time. Every moment from the graphic novel, from Batman's plea for compromise to the ambiguous ending are all adapted flawlessly. I simply cannot praise the main cast of Conroy, Hamill, Strong, and Wise enough; had this movie used a different cast, this all would have been utterly pointless. The vocal performances on display here are what made the movie worthwhile for me. While I obviously can't say this works as a replacement or stand-in for the original comic, I can say that, once the actual plot begins, it's an overall excellent adaptation of one of the greatest Batman stories ever told. If you're a fan of Batman or the Joker or both, I highly recommend you check this out at least once; it's entirely worth it just to hear those iconic lines being read by those iconic voices.

And now I sit back and pray WB Animation does a better job with the inevitable animated adaptation of Neil Gaiman's Whatever Happened to the Caped Crusader?

REVIEW: The Iron Giant

Brad Bird's The Iron Giant is a perfect example of the importance of proper advertising. Here we have a near-perfect film which ended up definitively dead on arrival at the box office, barely making half of its budget back. Thanks to the poor planning of the Warner Bros marketing department, the film was left with little to no media tie-ins; one would expect an animated film about a boy and his giant robot to spawn a myriad of toys and books and fast food collectibles, but no such sponsorship was to be found. Because of the lack of promotion, the film failed (despite receiving universal critical acclaim and enjoying cult status to this day), thus furthering the unfortunate notion that intelligent, traditionally-animated children's films simply don't sell.

The story is a love-letter to 50's B-Movie sci-fi, taking place in smalltown America in the wake of Sputnik and the heat of the Cold War. A massive robot (Vin Diesel) careens down from the stars, landing in the idyllic suburb of Rockwell, Maine. After the amnesiac giant is discovered by a kid named Hogarth Hughes (Eli Marienthal), the two form a bond that some terrible hacks might describe as "stronger than steel". Naturally, the presence of a gigantic, mechanical colossus attracts the attention of the United States government, dispatching agent Kent Mansley (Christopher McDonald) to get to the bottom of the odd rumors and unexplained phenomena that have sprung up in the Giant's wake. The tone of the movie is as comfortable and consistent as they come; there are times when you almost forget you're watching an animated film. The Giant is by far the most fantastical thing here; everyone else acts and thinks just like real human beings. This is a movie that could very easily have been made in live-action (for an exponentially larger amount of money, of course), but the fact that it's animated allows for many subtle aesthetic touches that just help to cement the feel of the movie. The autumn leaves are just a bit more vibrant than in real life, the stars a bit brighter and more plentiful; the town of Rockwell is, funnily enough, positively Rockwellian in its cozy depiction of classic Americana.

The animation here is stunning, seamlessly blending CGI and traditional methods to create something truly timeless. This is one of those movies where the visuals age like fine wine; The Iron Giant will always look spectacular, simply because of the amount of care and ingenuity on display. The animators behind the titular giant (a character done entirely using computer animation) even factored in human errors concerning details such as line weight when animating the character, helping him blend in seamlessly with his 2-D costars. It's that kind of meticulous attention to detail that makes Brad Bird one of the finest animation directors in the industry; he knows how to manages his staff properly and inspire his team to produce the best end result imaginable.

Aside from the beautiful visuals, this is also one of the smartest "children's films" I've ever seen, to the point that I hesitate to refer to it as a children's film. It's really more of an animated movie that happens to be appropriate for all ages. The sleepy little town of Rockwell is a perfect metaphor for the time period in which the film takes place; while we may look back at the 50's with quaint nostalgia for all the diners and Radio Flyers and everything else that came with this "simpler time", underneath the surface lay a bubbling crock-pot of fear and paranoia. The Red Scare was in full swing at this point, and those fears are perfectly embodied by Kent Mansley, the film's antagonist. He's a clean-cut fast-talker who justifies his fear and hatred of the unknown as doing what's necessary for Uncle Sam. No one is certain of where the Giant came from, which means that there's a good chance it's a Russian superweapon sent to destroy truth, justice, and the American way. While the Giant DOES pose certain risks and dangers, the movie makes a strong point that, when faced with something new and different, unchecked aggression is usually a poor choice of immediate response.

Really, it's a film about outsiders. The Giant is packing some serious heat, and a deleted scene implies that he is one of many, all made for the purpose of conquest. Despite all this, thanks to a case of crash-sustained robo-amnesia, he finds himself in a very strange place with little purpose. It's a similar situation with Hogarth, living with his widowed mother (Jennifer Aniston) at home and studying a grade-level up in school (leading him to be ostracized and bullied by his peers). He's a boy who doesn't inspire much out of anyone but those close to him, a party that is essentially entirely comprised of his mother and Dean McCoppin (Harry Connick Jr), a scrapyard foreman and aspiring artist. His beatnik ways clash with the simplistic ideals of American suburbia in the 1950's; it's no wonder why he, Hogarth, and the Giant all come together as a team over the course of the film. In the end, it's the would-be weirdos, crazies, and monsters who save the day.

The movie also touches on themes of predetermined roles within society. If the movie has a takeaway line, it is likely "we are who we choose to be". The Giant has the potential, as do we all, to dismantle and destroy. Whether it be in small, subtle ways (such as fear-mongering and bigotry) or in larger, more on-the-nose ways (like taking an innocent life or ordering a nuclear strike on a small suburban town on impulse), there are times when it can be very easy to be a monster. There are some, like Mansley, who fall directly into this philosophical trap. Blocked in by the barriers we ourselves have established, we may do the wrong thing because "we have no choice". Even during the action-packed climax, the military themselves eventually stand down when they realize they aren't pursuing the correct course of action. The Giant, the military, Mansley; we all do things we may regret out of fear, but it is when we let that fear control us and taint us that we go too far. Though we may fall by the wayside and feel confined to the roles that seem almost predetermined for us, there is always a time to change. We are who we choose to be; anyone can be a monster, anyone can be a gun, but anyone can also be Superman.

The Iron Giant is close to being a perfect movie. Everything about it is gorgeous and heartfelt and just masterfully crafted. The only gripe I have with the entire film is the ending, which was clearly added in via studio mandate. If the movie was thirty seconds to a minute shorter, the film would be truly flawless, but there does exist this one irritating nitpick of mine that keeps it from "official" perfection. That said, "unofficial" perfection will simply have to do. Brad Bird is an amazing director and this movie is one of his absolute best. If you haven't seen it, do so immediately; this is required viewing for anyone who considers themselves an animation buff, cinephile, or connoisseur of cult classics in any regard.

REVIEW: Ghostbusters- The Video Game

With the new Sony reboot of Ghostbusters releasing this week, it's safe to say that the franchise has been on my mind as of late. With all the hubbub surrounding the new film, it's easy to forget that we did in fact get a third entry into the original Ghostbusters series. This story came not in the way of a feature film or a television cartoon or even through the superb comics from IDW, but rather in the form of a video game released for essentially every platform available back in 2009. Reuniting the main cast (with the exception of Sigourney Weaver and Rick Moranis) for a story penned by Dan Aykroyd and the late Harold Ramis, Ghostbusters: The Video Game is essentially the second sequel we've always wanted. While it's a little unorthodox for me to be reviewing a video game, I'd like to make it clear that I'm only going to look at this in terms of the story and characters; I've played through it multiple times, so I clearly had my fun with it, but I feel as though its true worth lies in how it continues the story established in the first two Ghostbusters films.

Taking place in 1991, we find the classic quartet of Ray (Dan Aykroyd), Egon (Harold Ramis), Venkman (Bill Murray), and Winston (Ernie Hudson) operating under an official contract from the city of New York. Thanks to this lucrative new position, they see fit to introduce a new 'Buster into the mix; the player, in the role of a nameless, speechless Rookie. Around the same time, the team find themselves at odds once again with Gozer the Gozerian, who returns in the guise of the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man. Once the Goze is defeated with an almost surprising amount of ease, it becomes evident that this is merely a sign of things to come, as the Ghostbusters begin investigating into the history and background of one Ivo Shandor, known Gozer worshiper and architect of Dana Barrett's apartment building from the first movie. The story sees the player joining the boys in beige as they travel from the Sedgewick Hotel to the New York Public Library to the far side of the astral plane in a quest to stop Shandor and save the city (and indeed, the world).

It's almost astounding how well the game developers understood what made the original film work so well. Sure, it would be fun to play as the Ghostbusters, but it was a pure stroke of genius to realize that the true value lied in playing alongside the Ghostbusters. You, yes YOU, are along for the ride on this one; not only does it make my inner child giddy with excitement to help Bill Murray re-capture an escaped Slimer in the iconic Alhambra Ballroom, but it also allows the four main characters to bounce dry witticisms off one another with the same natural flow as in the movies. You're both a participant and an audience member here, and as the Ghostbusters' new experimental equipment technician, it means you get to play with all of Ray and Egon's fancy new gadgets; it's a nearly perfect example of adapting an existing property into an interactive medium.

The plot also does exactly what a sequel should do; build off of the world that was already established. It would have been very easy for this game to simply be an adaptation of iconic scenes from the first two movies, and while there are more than a few levels that pay homage to the established iconography (you capture Slimer at the Sedgewick, stop a rampaging Stay-Puft in Times Square, and finally close the lid on that freaky library ghost once and for all), all of it is tied directly into the plot in a way that doesn't really feel shoehorned in the slightest. Defeating Gozer, the big bad of the first movie, in the second level puts things in perspective; the Ghostbusters have continued to grow and learn since we last saw them (there's no Ghostbusters 2 "everything reset to the status quo in the meantime" shenanigans at play here), and now they're faced with a new kind of threat. Minor details from the first film like Shandor and the cult of Gozer and even the giant slor are all brought back here and expanded upon; this is a sequel that builds directly off of the foundation of the entries which came before it, which is exactly what good sequels do.

That said, the game isn't without its faults. While everything about the look and feel of it is spot-on, from the sound effects to the minutiae scattered about the firehouse, the score becomes more than a little grating after a while. Rather than orchestrate something original, the game simply reuses the music from the first movie, meaning that you'll have had your fill of Ray Parker Jr and then some by the time the credits are rolling. The Ghostbusters score was made for a two-hour movie, not an eight-hour game (even though I only watched gameplay assembled into a three-hour "film" for the purposes of this Review, the repetition of music still became a bother by the end). There's also a romantic subplot between Pete Venkman and a new character, Dr. Ilyssa Selwyn (Alyssa Milano). The two have very little in terms of chemistry and the whole subplot feels like a tacked-on attempt to recreate the dynamic between Murray and Sigourney Weaver from the original movie. It also doesn't help that Milano and Murray are easily the weakest performances in the game (while they're not necessarily bad, "passable" just doesn't hold up well compared to the sheer electricity and enthusiasm of Ramis, Aykroyd, and Hudson). These are relatively minor complaints, but complaints I had all the same. They by no means outweigh the game's positive attributes, but they do indicate that there are some things I would have liked to have seen done differently.

Ghostbusters: The Video Game is a better Ghostbusters sequel than Ghostbusters 2. While it occasionally toes the line of rehashing iconic scenarios and imagery for nostalgia's sake, it still rings true that, even though it's not a film, it's the true third entry in the original Ghostbusters saga. The story is compelling, the performances are (for the most part) perfect, the attention to detail is nothing short of stunning, and the technobabble/joke ratio makes it feel like this was actually written in the early 90's, intended to be released in theaters. Aykroyd and Ramis didn't miss a single beat. After the tragic passing of the late, great Harold Ramis, we're never going to get another anything (be it film, video game, cartoon, or otherwise) starring all four original Ghostbusters, all portrayed by their original actors. Even though the (truly excellent) comics are continuing the story to this day, even though the developers didn't know it at the time, this video game is the swan song for the original generation of Ghostbusters. Looking objectively at what we've got, I'd say we'd be hard pressed to do better than this.

If you'd like to read more about the how miraculous it was that this game turned out as well as it did, check out this article by Matt Paprocki, it's some fascinating stuff!

REVIEW: Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates

I was originally not going to even bother with a formal review of this movie. Seeing as how I'm a tremendous fan of the main cast, it seemed like a natural move to check it out, even though I really didn't know what to expect quality-wise as I bought my ticket. What followed was a pure and simple screwball comedy; subtle and nuanced it was most certainly not, but damned if I wasn't laughing like an idiot for most of the runtime.

The premise is just the kind of Hollywood absurd to perfectly compliment the personalities of our main characters. Twenty-something bros Mike and Dave Stangle (Adam Devine and Zac Efron) have a history of ruining family gatherings with their fratboy antics. In a desperate plea to keep them in line, their parents demand that they each bring a date to their sister's upcoming wedding in Hawaii (the logic here being that some nice, well-spoken ladies should keep the terrible twosome preoccupied so the event can go off without a hitch, rather than devolve into liquor-fueled debauchery). The brothers decide to create an ad on Craigslist, which attracts the attention of similarly immature gal pals Alice and Tatiana (Anna Kendrick and Aubrey Plaza); recently unemployed and looking for something fun to do, they decide to take on the guise of "good girls" in hopes of accompanying these two naive dopes on an all expenses paid trip to a tropical paradise. Naturally, they end up being chosen and hilarity ensues.

Really, the main reason I'd decided to write this review was because of an article in the New York Times by critic Manohla Dargis. Far be it from me, a humble blogger who makes minimum wage, to think that I have the expertise or experience to question the New York Times, but I found myself disagreeing pretty strongly with Ms. Dargis' review. It criticizes the plot (which is fair; it's as predictable as they come), but also cites the humor as being a series of "thuddingly leaden, patchily strung together bits in service to the underlying theme: Mike and Dave’s fear of sexualized women." The article goes on to state that the film is sexist in its depiction of women, though it doesn't really go into much detail how it does so. While there are a number of gags based around the immature bros' reactions to women embracing their sexuality (such as Mike's fairly justified horror at witnessing his little sister receive a particularly blissful massage from Kumail Nanjiani), I feel as though this is ignoring the greater themes of the movie; namely themes of insecurity and immaturity, and how these traits go hand-in-hand, regardless of one's gender.

Mike and Dave are not positive characters. Neither are Alice and Tatiana. They're impulsive, manipulative, excessively bohemian twenty-somethings with no real direction in their lives. Mike is subconsciously holding Dave back, insisting that he go into the liquor business with him under the guise of "bros sticking together" and Dave complies out of a sense of duty and gratitude towards his older sibling (despite his true passions lying in the realm of drawing and illustration). It's a similar situation with Kendrick and Plaza; Alice was left at the altar and Tatiana has assumed the role of her "you need to get your mind off him and have some fun" gal pal. Alice stays with Tatiana because living it up with her best friend keeps her mind off of the comically-painful ghosts of her past; meanwhile Tatiana subconsciously feeds off of Alice's vulnerability out of a desire to feel needed. The film shows two common examples of well-intentioned but toxic cycles that can emerge from the "bro/gal pal" dichotomy; in order to grow as people, it is sometimes necessary to break free from our comfort zones and take a long, hard look at ourselves. 

As horrible and selfish as these characters appear, this is of course a redemption arc (much like Scott Pilgrim); our protagonists start out wholly misguided, justifying their actions through a series of mental gymnastics, shifting the blame on everyone and everything but themselves. As immature as the humor is, the underlying theme shows that literally anyone can be a manipulative jerk, no matter how innocent or pure their intentions may be. Despite how transparently selfish their actions are, the main quartet all share the same flaw; at their core, they're wholly insecure and choose to cover up these insecurities with a litany of bombastic antics meant to enchant and delight those around them. In reality, these antics have exactly the opposite effect, but admitting that would mean coming to terms with ones own faults and flaws, which is something that these four simply cannot bring themselves to do. Truthfully, I feel as though the message of this movie is actually quite progressive, considering all the raunchy bro-humor found within; this is a movie that says that anyone can feel insecure and act immature as a result, regardless of gender. Toxic behaviors are not exclusive to guys OR gals; everyone has the potential to be a misguided jerk. It even ducks the Hollywood cliché of having our formerly fun-loving simpletons become bland, responsible adults in the end; by the time the credits roll, all four of our protagonists are still the goofball party animals we've come to know thus far, just with a much stronger sense of empathy and understanding for both themselves and those around them. It adopts an almost Cat in the Hat-esque message of "it's alright to have fun, so long as you aren't hurting anyone". The plot is predictable and pedestrian, but the message behind it is anything but.

I know I've said very little about the comedy in this comedy movie, but that's because there's honestly not much to say. Laughs came hard and consistently and I had a fantastic time with it. It feels as though at least half of the dialog was improvised to some degree (to the point that I could probably point out which scenes were scripted and which ones weren't), so if you're a fan of anyone in the main cast, you'll likely enjoy yourself. Comedy is a very hit-or-miss genre, depending on the viewer, but I found everyone here to have superb chemistry, bouncing an infinite number of quotable lines off one another at a rapid-fire pace. While the quartet of Devine, Efron, Kendrick, and Plaza definitely made this movie for me, I must also compliment Sugar Lyn Beard and Alice Wetterlund (who played Mike and Dave's sister Jeanie and cousin Terry, respectively); I'd never seen these actresses in anything before, but their hilarious performances definitely captured my attention here. Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates is hardly groundbreaking or original, but at the end of the day, the default goal of a comedy is to illicit laughter from an audience. I can only speak for myself, but I found that it completely and utterly accomplished that goal. It's ribald and silly and I had a smile on my face the whole time, check it out.

EDITORIAL: Is The Boxtrolls Secretly About Hashtag Activism?

With this blog well into its second year of existence, I saw fit to mix things up a little. Often times there will be specific facets of the various films I watch that are too superfluous to discuss within the confines of a Review (or perhaps they simply occur to me after the fact, as with this one). Operating under the presumption that anyone cares what I have to say about movies to begin with, I thought it might be fun to encapsulate these proverbial shower thoughts in brief editorial pieces, to be released whenever the mood strikes me. Think of them as short little bonus featurettes; miniature essays in which I can ramble on about something that may or may not have belonged in a proper Review, but which still holds enough of my interest that I see fit to formally discuss it.

Now I'm aware that that headline is a bit of a doozy, representing an almost comical leap of logic at first glance. But just stick with me here and I promise it'll all (hopefully) make sense by the end. After I'd finished reviewing The Boxtrolls, a curious thought occurred to me in regards to Archibald Snatcher, the seedy antagonist of the film (incidentally, spoiler alert from this point onward). As much as I enjoyed the look and mannerisms of the character, I felt as though the filmmakers could have done much more with him in terms of characterization and backstory. I wanted to learn more about who he was, but it was only a good while after I'd finished the film that I realized it may have told us more about Mr. Snatcher than I'd previously thought. There's a comical reveal in the latter half of the film in which the sultry songstress "Madame Frou Frou" turns out to actually have been Snatcher in disguise all along. The reveal is brushed under the rug as a simple gag (considering the town's higher-ups are all very much smitten with Frou Frou's beauty), but I began to wonder if there was more to this reveal than meets the eye.

We know that Snatcher hates and resents the "White Hats", the town's wealthy elite. Despite his anger towards them, he truly wishes he could replace his lowly red hat with a proper white one and join them at their lavish cheese-tastings (even though he himself is severely lactose intolerant). Alternatively, we have Eggs, the young boy raised by Boxtrolls. Like Snatcher, he feels as though he doesn't fit in as a human (Red Hat) and identifies himself more as a Boxtroll (White Hat). Theses are two characters, a protagonist and an antagonist, who feel uncomfortable in their own skin and feel as though they belong as someone/something else. During the climax, Snatcher yells at Eggs how society will "never accept" people like them. Factoring in Snatcher's cross-dressing, it's not difficult to make the connection between the plight of these two characters and the real-world discussion of gender identity. Which brings us to the very different ways these characters react to their respective situations.

On one side, we have Eggs. He identifies as a Boxtroll, making him, by default, a second-class citizen in a society that harbors gross misconceptions about Boxtroll culture and how they operate. He of course knows that Boxtrolls aren't malicious beasts who prey on children, and wishes that society would simply smarten up and embrace unity, rather than the lies and misgivings that are so prevalent in the dominant culture. On the other side, we have Snatcher. He too belongs to a downtrodden minority group (the Red Hats) and wishes he could be a respected member of society. However, rather than desiring unity, as Eggs does, Snatcher is consumed with spite. His is a desire, not for equality, but for revenge. Whereas Eggs simply wants equality for everyone, Snatcher wishes to see the roles reversed; the same unbalanced situation, only he is the one subjugating those he feels has personally wronged him. It dawned on me that this could definitely be commentary on the modern discussion of civil rights, and the various forms of activism displayed in response to political turmoil.

When faced with prejudice and societal inequity, Eggs leads by example, proving the bias and misinformation regarding Boxtrolls wrong through his noble, levelheaded deeds. Conversely, when faced with the same issue, Snatcher builds a massive steampunk robot and attempts to murder everyone. If this story took place in modern day, it's not a stretch to imagine Archibald Snatcher tweeting "#KILLALLWHITEHATS" before instigating violence at a once-peaceful protest. Maybe I'm looking too far into it (as people are wont to do), but the message that inequality of a different shade doesn't cancel out inequality of the past (or more simply, "two wrongs don't make a right") is as relevant today as it ever was. Laika has a knack for taking real social issues and converting it into a format which allows viewers of all ages to digest the meaning, even if they may or may not be familiar with the overall issue itself. I personally can't wait to see what they show us with Kubo and the Two Strings later this summer; like classic Pixar, I implicitly trust them to make something good.

REVIEW: Moonwalkers

There are some films that capture the attention of the audience the moment one hears of the premise. I am not immune to such charms; there are some films where, when I hear what they're about, I'm sold. Hook, line, and sinker, I am in. Moonwalkers is definitely that sort of movie. 

Starring Ron Perlman and Rupert Grint (this being the only non-Harry Potter film I've ever seen him in), the movie takes place in the late 60's; Vietnam has ended and the space race is in full swing. The United States are hellbent on beating the Russians to the moon, willing to do just about anything to bolster the spirits of the American people. Enter Perlman as agent Kidman, a CIA operative and Vietnam veteran. His job is to travel to England and secure the services of one Stanley Kubrick to film a fake moon landing (in the event that the Apollo 11 mission ends in a less than heroic fashion, so there will still be something uplifting to broadcast before the entire world). Things become complicated when a sketchy talent manager by the name of Johnny (Grint) enters the mix. After tricking Kidman into handing over the sizable payment (meant for Mr. Kubrick), Johnny becomes embroiled in this lunar conspiracy. One thing leads to another, and it's up to Kidman and Johnny to film a fake moon landing before Apollo 11 is left without a proverbial safety net.

Is that or is that not just a delightful setup? Hellboy and Ron Weasley need to fake the moon landing because Kubrick was unavailable. It's so absurd and original and utterly rife with possibilities, I simply couldn't pass it up. While I found the plot intriguing, I must sadly report that it doesn't really go anywhere. Things meander about and they don't even really begin filming the moon landing until more than 3/4 of the way through the running time. The plot progression almost feels like something in the style of the Cohen Brothers; a general air of aimlessness scattered with bits of absurd comedy and deadpan deliveries reminiscent of The Big Lebowski. While there were a number of moments that I enjoyed (in particular any interaction between Johnny and his junkie roommate, Leon (Robert Sheehan), who acts as a swell foil), this is a movie where the comedy is not only dry, but sparse. That isn't necessarily a winning combo.

There's also a fair number of plot points that simply don't mesh with the rest of the film. For example, it's revealed literally in the opening scene that Perlman's character suffers from hallucinations as a result of his PTSD from his time in Vietnam. One might think this could contribute to the plot in some way, but it only serves to add a bit of visual flair every so often. True, it helps humanize Perlman considerably (since aside from his PTSD, he's basically just an unstoppable killing machine), but one would expect it to play a larger role, given how much emphasis is placed upon it whenever it's brought up. Despite the movie's unorthodox and laid-back tone, the climax boils down to nothing more than a supremely flaccid firefight in a single hallway. There's also an entire subplot about the band that Johnny is managing that disappears for basically the entire second act and feels like a chore whenever it returns. There are parts of this movie that really, truly work, but it really feels as if there were several notable moments and aspects where the filmmakers really missed the mark.

Odd patches aside, the performances here are all quite solid. While you've got the occasional wooden extra who was clearly only chosen because they fit the physical description of what the scene required (giant beefy henchmen, I'm looking at you), everyone who actually matters does a pretty superb job. Perlman is playing his usual "tough gruff asskicker" type, but damned if he's not good at it by now. Grint is supremely entertaining, flitting from nervous straight-man to irresponsible scumbag in the blink of an eye. He may be doomed to be forever known as Ronald Weasley, but I still look forward to seeing him in more. The two have surprisingly strong chemistry together and really make the movie. Without these two at the top of the cast, this film would be nothing more than a neato premise with little else to offer.

As much as I feel bad about knocking a movie that tries to think outside of the box, I have to admit that Moonwalkers is pretty mediocre. It's certainly not bad, but it's nothing particularly special. The plot meanders around, there's no particularly strong characterization at play, and there's no impressively funny moments to think of. It's quite well-shot and well-acted, but I can't help but think that everything else about this movie could have and should have been better. I can't exactly say I'm disappointed, considering I had no idea what to expect, but I'm certainly not really impressed either. It's a middling kind of flavor of film that I almost enjoy less than something that's spectacularly awful. I'd say it's worth checking out, but you could surely do better.