American Psycho (2000)

On the one hand it's a whip-smart condemnation of the shallow mindset of late 80s yuppie culture. On the other, it features a banker who's only path to catharsis seems to be gruesome murder. The film is the crossroads between Wall Street and A Clockwork Orange, featuring a chillingly logical extension of Gordon Gecko's “Greed is good” mantra, amped up by too much caffeine and a homicidal inferiority complex. The result is an eerily fascinating ride with a man utterly devoid of humanity. It's not without its flaws: the early parts of the film are easily the strongest, illustrating the outrageously jealous nature of the anti-hero with a blazing, almost groundbreaking level of focus. The film falters, however, in a slower second act that seems to drag to an almost repetitive mosey in parts, and an utter failure to properly explain things at the very end. It's kind of a shame too. While the film is extremely watchable regardless, the flaws are a blinding blight on an otherwise mirror shined, razor sharp ax of a film.

8 out of 10.

The Cat Returns (2002)

Also known as Neko no ongaeshi.
Finding an intelligent, thoughtful, and entertaining children's film can be quite a chore. There's a sense of whimsy in The Cat Returns, a childish sort of unimportance that's hard not to smile at. Essentially it's a kind of less trippy take on Alice In Wonderland, featuring anthropomorphic cats. Along the way there are acts of rousing heroism, some fun bits of occasionally dark humor, and a moral about believing in yourself to tie it all together. In other words: perfect fodder for the younglings in the house. The adults may or may not get a kick out of too, depending on how in touch they are with their inner child; unlike most American kid's films, this one lacks that additional layer of humor targeted at the grown-ups. Regardless, the animation is crisp and fluid, with some wonderful nuance added to the leads, and the English-language voice track is superbly translated and expertly performed by a cast of knowns. This isn't an exceptional film by any stretch, it's merely a good one to sit the kids in front of and, if the mood strikes, perhaps pop in for the kid in you. It's simply a slice of innocent fun.

7 out of 10.

Akira (1988)

The thing is, no matter what I say here this is still an anime classic. That much is absolutely indisputable. So when I say that it's starting to show its age, you can also interpret my meaning to say it's “maturing.” Back when it was first minted, this was to anime what 2001: A Space Odyssey was to sci-fi. They've even got similar plots, ultimately. Here we deal with a pair of punks from a biker gang who get wrapped up in a corrupt government's experiments to study superhumans, all within a future-Tokyo full-to-bursting with civil unrest. When it came out, the plot concept was quite new and fresh. That it's considered 'overused' these days ought to tell you something of this film's influence. The problem with the story though, is that it's taken from a long-running series of manga (Japanese graphic novels) and whittled down into two hours, so you wind up saturated with difficult concepts that don't have time to register, yet have severe consequences within the film. It's nearly incomprehensible unless you're in it for the long haul and watch the film several times. However, the rest of the film is rock solid stuff. The movie is an absolute miracle of cell animation—it is distinctive, colorful, detailed, gloriously fluid, and dazzlingly thorough in creating a gritty, violent future and the now-iconic characters that inhabit it. The action and pacing therein is also the stuff of legend. The opening fight between rival biker gangs remains one of the most recognizable moments in animation, and the grotesque, almost Lovecraft-ian finale is rife with unforgettable images. Akira's place in the pantheon of genre classics is deserved and, by now, solidified. But if you're a pair of fresh eyes coming to the party you'll have to understand that though there's still plenty to love here, the story's answers simply aren't available to first-timers.

9 out of 10.

'Neuromancer' by William Gibson (Book - 1984)

Some say that technology is guided by the plot devices of science fiction. If that's true, then Neuromancer would most be like a prominent book in the Bible. For a book published in 1984, the level of predictive concepts and their implementation are such that even today, almost 25 years removed from its master's pen, it still feels ahead of its time. But from a practical level, this is a tough book to read. It is so caught up in its slang and interpretive concepts of advanced computing and future society that the reader's mind has to dig pretty deep to find the plot buried under the ideas. In simplest terms, it's the story of a drug addict hacker being hired by a mysterious benefactor to snoop around some shady systems. The tale is told with enough depth and heft that it remains interesting, but this is really a book about the world the characters inhabit. So many of the ideas in this book have come to pass, so many will soon, and some are far enough out that there's no telling, but all seem plausible (or at least feel plausible). The level of influence this book has had on science and science fiction is nearly limitless, and if the story weren't so densely concealed behind giant conceptual tomes, this might be an easier book to recommend. If you're up to the challenge, go right ahead. It's a rewarding read for the worthy. For many though, this may be a book better appreciated than read.

8 out of 10.

Heroes: Season One (TV series - 2006 to 2007)

Those steeped in comic book lore will find a lot of familiar ground being tread here. For the fellow geeks in the house, all you really need to know is that Season 1 is basically X-Men's central conceit (with particular elements of the “Days of Future Past” and "God Loves, Man Kills" storylines) with the focus similar to Alan Moore's Watchmen. Across 23 episodes, the show is essentially the story of a significant segment of humanity suddenly gaining superpowers. Some fly, some are psychic, some can stop time, some can recover from any injury. Many use them for good, others for varying interpretations of evil. And then there are the requisite shadow conspiracies, mere mortal helpers and antagonists, and the crazy, sometimes too-perfect machinations of any good comic soap opera. There's a lot to like here, pulpy though it may be. The focus is kept pretty narrow in spite of its “save the world” plotline, but this lets the writers really let us get to know the ridiculously huge cast, as well as keeping the drama at a strictly human level. Toward the middle and end of the series, there are some genuinely breathtaking moments that stand out head and shoulders above most of what's on TV. The downside of the focus, however, is that there is rarely a point where the full gravity of what is going on is explored. There are none of X-Men's civil rights metaphors, or really any message to the story at all. Instead it's more of a Dickens-ian confluence of intertwining threads, some of which are utterly fascinating (the Cheerleader and Hiro narratives), some just okay (the Petrelli Family tale), and one in particular that just never clicks (the Single Mother story). Similarly, the early going in the series is rough—the story doesn't really begin until about the fourth episode. Despite its flaws, the series features a decent pile compelling characters, some clever plotting, and moments of great drama. Better TV shows have come and gone, sure, but Heroes manages to stand on its own.

7 out of 10.

'The Road' by Cormac McCarthy (Book - 2006)

Uplifting, desperate, hopeful, and honest, The Road is a triumph of intimacy and loneliness at the end of the world. In following a father and sun as they pick their way through the desolate wasteland of a nuclear winter, Cormac McCarthy's stream-of-conscious writing style plays a philosopher's narrative on the death rattle of humanity. There's little that's typical about this sort of story. There are no grand, Mad Max-esque battles for resources or trips through the piss-stained hovels of depraved, starving refugees. Instead, it is a book entirely consumed in the father-son relationship, their nomadic journey through a dying wilderness, and the pair's absolute trust and dependency on each other; the post-society setting merely provides a narrative context for absolute desperation. The tale is quiet and thoughtful, slow and uneventful, methodical and dangerous. And like the best of genre fiction, it rings true.

10 out of 10.

Sin City (2005)

Hyper-violent with a wicked sense of humor that could charitably be described as “gallows,” Robert Rodriguez's trip into the dark underbelly of graphic novel legend Frank Miller's imagination is an grisly, brutal triumph of artistic courage and a remarkable purity of vision. Adaptations simply don't come any closer to their sources than this—almost every shot in the entire film is ripped straight from pages it was born on. It even goes so far as to recreate the color scheme of inky blacks and dingy whites, interspersed with the occasional flash of vibrant color. It's an avant-garde feast for the eyes. But the story is all testosterone, blood, and guts as it depicts the dredges of Basin City rising up against the fascist, perverted powers of the city in their own gruesome way. This is truly a movie about bad people taking on worse people. If you crave a bucket of artistic blood-letting, or have an eye for an absolutely unique presentation, then this steroid-infused story of twisted morality is truly something to behold.

9 out of 10.

House of the Dead (2003)

Don't get me wrong, I love bad movies. Not only do they remind you why you like the good ones, but sometimes there's enough camp value in trying to obliterate good cinematic taste that the whole thing comes off as an unintentional comedy. Not so here. Uwe Boll's first attempt at sullying the already troubled landscape of videogame-to-film adaptations is an abomination of poorly shot violence, superfluous plot mechanics, and Clint Howard. On the surface, that doesn't sound any worse than the average B-movie flop, but Uwe Boll takes himself so seriously with this steaming pile that almost all camp value is lost, giving you an disappointing “horror” movie that is neither interesting nor scary. I mean really, how hard is it to fail to at least be an amusing failure? Many other, less talented directors have done it, Dr. Boll, why can't you?

None out of 10.