Dispatches from the Man-Cave

Falling into the sci-fi time paradox mindf-ck mode is Timecrimes, a low-budget time travel flick that doesn’t need DeLoreans (though I maintain that DeLoreans are awesome), cool phone booths, or other eye candy and special effects to keep us hooked.

A guy is sitting in his back yard when he sees a woman undressing in the woods just past his yard. He goes out to see what’s going on (and who wouldn’t do that right?) and finds the woman’s body lying naked. Then a dude with a bandaged face stabs him and chases him through the forest. He winds up in a science facility where the man operating a machine tells him to get in so he can hide from bandage-face dude. He gets out of the machine seconds later and the man operating the machine doesn’t recognize him. The guy walks out of the facility and sees himself sitting in his back yard with a pair of binoculars looking out into the woods. And that’s the set up.

As is par for the course in time paradox flicks, the plot is more of a spiral than a linear movement, and we encounter maddening revelations as the movie progresses.

Without any great effects, this movie operates on the power of story and acting, and it’s a testament to how good sci-fi can be created with great ideas and without massive budgets (yes I’m looking at you James Cameron). This movie has more than its fair share of action and hold-your-breath exciting moments, as well as those aforementioned mind-blowing revelations.

Yet another film that is brilliant but failed to hit Philippine cinemas, Timecrimes is a must watch for the sci-fi fan and a great brain teaser for anyone up for a good hour and a half of moviegoing.

I imagine that if there were fanboys who were as rabid about loyalty to source material about Sherlock Holmes as there are about LOTR of Harry Potter, then they would be up in arms screaming sacrilege and decrying how this movie would make Sir Arthur Conan Doyle turn in his grave. But as it stands, there is no such group, and trickster Guy Ritchie has pulled a heist of his own by fashioning the classic character for a Guy Ritchie movie. And Holmes is perfect for this kind of treatment.

Ritchie’s always worked best when portraying the London underworld, and the Victorian setting only enhances this. Downey’s Holmes is a man tortured by his own mind and the need to solve puzzles. And oh are they set up in abundance here. Ritchie’s take on Holmes is a series of twists and turns, leading and revealing. Those familiar with the director’s gimmicks will note that it is here that they become most effective. One of my own favorite things about the film is the way that Holmes plans out his attacks and explains each of the blows before executing them.

At its heart, Sherlock Holmes is more about big action set-pieces than actual detective work. The detective work is definitely there, and through Ritchie’s stylistics and the great acting even exposition becomes exciting. But this movie is fast-paced, moving towards action and explosions, the revelations merely occasions for more action. This is by no means a complaint. This is a Sherlock Holmes engineered for a contemporary audience. We want it fast, big, spectacular.

Where the film succeeds, and where so many others fail, is despite its concessions to Hollywood and the demand of the popcorn audience, it still delivers a well-written, engaging story that doesn’t pander to its audience. Like the best of Doyle’s work, it asks us to keep guessing and to marvel at the mad detective’s methods. Downey, as usual, is captivating, and Jude Law plays Watson not just as a sidekick but as more of a foil, the thing that balances Holmes out. McAdams is her typically desirable self, and each shot makes us wish that the camera would linger a little longer on her. There aren’t many scenes for characterization, but the interactions bring out enough, in between the big action sequences.

The movie runs two hours, but you hardly feel it, and more importantly it feels like so much happens, and so much of it memorable. What better thing can I say about a movie than I look forward to watching it again.

My friend was telling me that he was in the office and he and his officemates had just watched the Iron Man 2 trailer. Seeing War Machine’s arsenal he exclaimed, “That’s friggin’ awesome dude! They have War Machine in it.”

To which his officemates replied, “Huh? Anong War Machine? Si Iron Man 2 yan!”

For a film of talking heads, about a program featuring talking heads, Frost/Nixon is powerful and propulsive. Needless to say that this would involve powerful performances from actors, a strong script, and a deft directorial hand.

Director Ron Howard manages the feat, taking a stage play, bringing it to the screen, and giving it a documentary feel. Though it’s a period piece, we feel as if we are in the her and the now, and that each of the moves, decisions, and critical moments, are of utmost importance. From big moments, such as the interviews, to phone calls, to even the sad sight of Micheal Sheen’s Frost sitting at a weed killer office, we feel the importance throughout. Despite it being a talk program with a goofy British host, we feel the sense of history being created.

I can’t laud the performances enough, from the strong supporting turns by Sam Rockwell, Oliver Platt, and Kevin Bacon, to the leads who engage in an amazing psychological duel. Frank Langella plays Nixon perfectly, not mere caricature, but rather he shows Nixon as a man of depth and tragedy. And Sheen’s Frost is something to behold, especially in the early bouts with Nixon.

Frost/Nixon captures a powerful moment on many levels, and its play on the power of media is just as enlightening as its portrayals of the main players. It may just be a lot of talk, but there’s power and perversion beneath it. Nixon’s calling it a duel couldn’t be more right, and watching the parry and thrust throughout is exhilarating.

This year I resolve to be 100% awesome. 2009 was a mixed bag, with some of the greatest highs mixed with the lowest lows. But the goal for 2010 is to be so awesome that they will have to invent a new word to describe how awesome I am.

I was texting with a new friend recently, asking about musical tastes. I told her that you could tell a lot about a person by hitting the shuffle button on their iPod and looking at the first ten artists. Since I just reformatted the netbook, I was putting songs onto it and I decided to see what songs would come out. So here’s the pre-2010 first ten tracks:

1. Who Loves the Sun- Velvet Underground

2. Silly Love Songs- Red House Painters

3. Sunshine of Your Love- Cream

4. Little Bribes- Death Cab for Cutie

5. Gigantic- The Pixies

6. Zooropa- U2

7. The Golden Age- Beck

8. Like a Rolling Stone- Bob Dylan

9. Sad But True- Metallica

10. Empire State of Mind- Jay-Z ft. Alicia Keys