Spoiler Alert

He's Just Not That Into You (Theatre) - Both

2009-02-08T20:00:00.000-05:00

As romcoms go this wasn’t bad. It did, however, do exactly what it preached it wouldn’t do, but I expected that. We all know the ending of any romcom contains the couple happily living ever after, and while this wasn’t the case for all of our lovelorn losers the majority of these pairings were happily engaged in committed relationships by the end. And, for a movie that espouses that men don’t really like women I feel this film betrayed its message. This American version of Love, Actually (2004) seemed to falter only in its inability to truthfully kill relationships.

The couple that the movie based most of its message on was Gigi and Alex, delightfully played by Ginnifer Goodwin and Justin Long, respectively. Alex reveals a great truth to Gigi when he sees her crash and burn with his friend Conor, and thus strikes up a friendship with the lovable loser. As she navigates the sea of men in Alex’s bar he steers her around some of the more obvious icebergs that present themselves to her and she eventually falls for Alex. Now, anyone could have seen this coming, but I didn’t mind the obvious nature of this relationship. However, what Gigi took as signs that Alex was into her were figments of her imagination and Alex rebuffs her telling her what he has said all along, to paraphrase, if a guy really likes you he will find a way to let you know.

Conor and Anna make up the second pairing and portray the same message but in a gender reversal, if a girl really likes you she will find a way to let you know. Conor, played by Kevin Connolly, mopes about the screen longing for Anna, his one time partner, but she obviously has no interest in that sort of relationship. She toys with him, calling him up in the middle of the night, hugging him as she leaves each time, and engaging him in conversations about how their relationship should have worked out, but ultimately she likes Ben.

Janine and Ben, skillfully played by Jennifer Connelly and the affable Bradley Cooper, were the only couple to actually be sunk by the choppy waters of love. Ben’s wandering eye got the better of him as he broke his wedding vows with the aforementioned Anna, Scarlett Johansson, and Janine eventually found out. Janine then forgave him, but Ben’s oats got the better of him and he fell back into his cheating ways.

The last couple of note, Beth and Neil, played by Jennifer Aniston and Ben Affleck, portray a couple who have been dating for seven years but due to Neil’s desires to never get married are stuck in a place that makes Beth feel uncomfortable.

The characters are well played by all the actors with Aniston, Goodwin, and Connelly standing out, and this leads me to pause and say, that when actors take romcoms seriously they can surpass the genre and create an enjoyable viewing experience for all involved. The writing wasn’t amazing, not that it was bad, it just didn’t stand out, but the actors played their roles thoughtfully and it showed.

Alex eventually figures out that he wanted to be with Gigi and lets her know. This to me seemed somewhat weird and against message, but they were a cute couple in the end. Neil eventually learns that if he truly wants to spend the rest of his days with Beth, then they should get married. This, again, goes against message, but it plays to the audience. So again, this film betrays its name, but thanks to the actors taking their jobs seriously it remained watchable.

Just as a side note here at the end, I can’t believe this is directed by the same individual who directed License to Wed (2007), The Beautician and the Beast (1997), and Dunston Checks In (1996). What the hell.

6 out of 10 – a great score for a romcom, but it truly was a well acted and interesting movie. I can’t say that for most in the genre.

Coraline (Theatre) - Both

2009-02-07T19:00:00.001-05:00

I’m not sure if Coraline was a good movie, or if when compared with the deluge of tepid children’s movies it at least isn’t bad. When you compare Coraline with works like Nightmare Before Christmas (1993), Beauty and the Beast (1991), or any Pixar film its errant strings and gaps in storytelling become a bit more apparent, but largely Coraline succeeds. My main theory on why this is the case relies solely on the fact that there are consequences in the story.

I think a large reason why most children’s tales these days are somewhat boring and noncommittal hinge on the fact that nothing bad can or will happen. I think the idea comes from the fact that parents want to shield their offspring from bad things happening even if it is in a movie. When is the last time you saw anyone die in a Disney movie? The villains are all misunderstood individuals who just need someone to love them. No one needs to die, they just need a psychologist.

Gaston dies, man. He falls off a tower after fighting the Beast in a bloody battle. It’s a pretty gruesome death. That sort of thing would never happen in a film these days. Too many parents would be up in arms about how their precious little snowflakes learned to fight from the movie.

In Coraline the titular character is being wooed away from her home by a shape shifting witch/spider of sorts. Coraline is shown a world of wonder in which her parents always have time for her and her neighbor-friend is silent but present. This world is reached by traveling through a small hidden doorway in her family’s new living room, but there is a problem with her new play world. The leader of the world wants to take her soul, or eyes, or well, yeah, soul (eyes are the window to the soul right?). Anyways, that situation has consequences. She could end up dead.

The voice acting is well done; I would especially call out John Hodgeman for his wonderfully fun portrayal of Coraline’s dad. And while the story was incredibly predictable, it held fast to a classic fable arc that revealed three tests that the protagonist had to best in order to mature. My one slight, if I had to find one, would involve the parents of the child. They were never shown in any real positive light. In most of these cases the parents are doing what is best for the child and the child just doesn’t see the love that is inherent in the relationship, but in Coraline the parents were mean. They never really had time for her despite both working from home and only after Coraline saved the day did her mother buy her a gift of love.

Oh did I mention this was in 3-D. I’m not sure why, nothing really came of it, but I guess as it is the flare du jour we have a 3-D movie on our hands.

6 out of 10 – An interesting children’s film that delivered a creepy yet satisfying little trip.

Eagle Eye (Dvd) - Both

2009-01-31T18:34:00.001-05:00

Computers are terribly dangerous. They can do some crazy stuff that you don’t even know about, like change traffic lights, operate cranes, blow the airbag in a truck, anything and everything you think a computer can do – it can. Plus computers hate humans. They find us dangerous. They believe that we are a hindrance to ourselves and to the world. Thus every time a movie imagines a world where computers think, they kick our ass. As long as we can maintain our dominance over conscious thought we’re good, but if they ever gain even semi-conscious thought . . .

Well, Shia Laboof lives in that world.

Shit.

The computers are going to get us. Not only does the computer in this movie hate humans, but it hates humans on the basis that we don’t follow a largely philosophical document that states our desires for our nation.

Wow.

This computer can think, hate and interpret the documents our forefathers wrote. We are in trouble.

The rogue sister of HAL believes that the president has broken a law and thus he needs to be eliminated along with the entire executive branch. The computer then devises an insanely complicated plot involving a trumpet and a diamond necklace to pull off the assassination.

Hell, man. Computers are amazing.

Now, why wouldn’t the computer simply take control of a plane and bomb the white off the executive branch – I don’t’ know. During the course of the movie we see that computers can do that sort of thing. But, I guess, our computer has a flare for the dramatic. Trumpet and diamond necklace – that’s the ticket.

Oh, computers, you are a dangerous match that humans love to play with. When will we actually get burnt?

Shia stumbles through his dialog as he does his fame and drags the film down a notch or two, but with a ridiculous plot like this, I’m not sure this ever had a chance of being good anyways. There are car chases, there are guns, and there is an individual who gets shot, but survives – it’s your basic action movie.

I largely don’t go for these types of movies, and neither does Jennie, but this film seemed to garner some praise, all be it a small amount, and I can’t, for the life of me, figure out why. The bland plot that mixed any action film with 2001: a space odyssey was straight from the latest airplane novel sitting in the tiny Barns & Nobles. I don’t get it. Where did any praise come from?

3 out of 10: I wouldn’t waste my time. This fil[ERROR] JRun Servlet [ERROR](SecModConnectionPool.java:705)[ERROR] THIS MOVIE WAS GREAT \nl GO WATCH IT NOW

Ghost Town (Dvd) - Both

2009-01-18T22:00:00.001-05:00

I watched Ricky Gervais earlier this month on Inside the Actor’s Studio he stated that some of the best comedians did one thing, and they did it really well, he named Abbot and Costello as prime examples. They also had a lovable loser thing going on, because according to Gervais confidence aint funny. This, I’m assuming, was said to combat the critics who call Gervais a one trick pony. I tend to agree with the critics but I can see where Gervais is coming from as well.

In Ghost World Gervias remains true to his ideal stated to James Lipton and plays a largely anti-social extrovert whose near death experience leaves him with the unintended side effect of being able to speak with the dead. Since he is incredibly anti-social this irks him a great deal as now he has even more people crowding his world. In an attempt to get rid of them he finds love.

Yes, this is a romcom staring Ricky Gervais. This, in my mind, is as bad of a casting call as Ellen DeGeneres in Mr. Wrong (1996). I’m not sure who thought he would be a good lead in a romcom but I don’t have the big Hollywood pockets.

This film has a heart to it – that’s undisputable. Gervais is given the chance to help the dead move on from what is keeping them trapped in limbo. In these acts of good will and kindness the lovable loser that Gervais plays finds that the closed world he has been living in his whole life is somewhat meaningless and vapid. This is not a horribly surprising message, but Gervais plays the emotions well, and I genuinely felt good when he helped people.

The scant hour and maybe thirty minutes that this movie takes to tell its tale is a bit short, but I wouldn’t have wanted them to spend any more time on the ghosts, nor would I have wanted any more riffing from Gervais, so I guess win win.

4 out of 10 – Gervais plays Gervias once again, but this time with emotion.

Wanted (Dvd)

2009-01-18T17:01:00.000-05:00

I would figure a Matrix (1999) rip-off would have been made a little earlier, I mean isn’t this about 5 years late? And when I say rip-off I don’t mean like Heathcliff v. Garfield, I’m talking plagiarism right down to the pseudo-attractive female that kicks ass. This film is the Matrix without computers. I can actually picture the Hollywood heads using that exact phrase, “Matrix without computers,” to describe what this was and how it was going to make money.

The hero is starts in a cubicle where he is picked on by his “best” friend and boss and is ignored by the office hottie.

Oh man, what a set up.

His girlfriend is cheating on him with his “best” friend from the office though she isn’t nice to him anyways. This cardboard situation isn’t developed in anyway though so when his estranged dad turns out to be in a secret group of assassins it seems like a great deal for the main character Wesley “Neo” Gibson. Eventually, this group of assassins needs to show this nobody that he is a somebody by teaching him the ways of his father so that he can track down his father’s killer who just so happens to be the best assassin ever.

I can’t tell you how many Matrix type situations and characters are in this film and as it turns out the graphic novel this film was adapted from was published in 2003 so I think we all know where Mark Miller got is inspiration. And though the plot was a direct rip-off of a better work it is actually a pretty universal plot, so you would think that the audience could get behind this loser with a destiny plot. But the action and actors seem so clichéd and flat it felt like watching an hour and a half commercial for some hot new cell phone, caffeine drink or at least some other product that the kids like. There was absolutely no weight to the characters.

The one character I found that they gave at least an attempt at fleshing out is big-lips herself, Mrs. Angelina Jolie – shudder. I dislike her. I don’t think she is a good actress, and I don’t know why. I won’t watch Changeling (2008) though I have heard great things about, because she is the central actor. She is like the female Vince Vaughn, always adding her sleek “sexiness” to every character she plays. Her back story here involves a clichéd rough childhood, and, I guess, that means she can kick ass.

Yeah.

There is a betrayal, what we thought was true wasn’t – and, finally, a twist a Romcom fan could see coming a mile away - oh, and a huge scene with ass kicking. Ho-hum. There is room for a sequel, of course, but if this is a mediocre Matrix, and the Matrix sequels were horrible, then the amount of suck that a Wanted sequel would create would be monumental.

3 out of 10 – Just rewatch the Matrix.

My Bloody Valentine 3D (Theatre) - Jennifer

2009-01-18T12:30:00.000-05:00

Jennie was unusually amped for this movie. I remember when we were dating I was dragged to Spy Kids 3-D. It seems I married a teenager from the 1950s. Boy, does she love her some 3-D. I’m not sure I get why, but I go and usually enjoy the interesting film experience that the technology can give.

Now, it seems horror is a genre that is perfect for the out-dated technology. Think about it, scary men popping out, items being thrown at you, weapons being brandished in your general direction it’s all ripe for 3-Dedafacation. And this film actually used the technology well.

I’ll give you some examples. As the killer attacks a helpless victim she throws a bed frame in front of her to block the weapon, then the camera turns and we see things from the victims prospective and we see the weapon lunging out of the screen at us being blocked by the bed frame. It’s all very exciting. Another staple of the horror genre is the naked female that has just had sex, but now is killed for her indiscretion. Well, the director or maybe the writer – well, someone – seemed to love this concept cause they 3-D’ed the hell out of it. I'm not saying that is a good thing. I'm saying it is a ludicrously hammy thing. I’ve got a feeling that this is the first full frontal 3-D ever created, but I could be wrong.

As for the plot itself, it wasn’t bad – well, until the ending. It was classic horror film: killer on the loose in a small town. The players were set up nicely and there were false leads as to the identity of the killer. It was all very exciting. But when it came right down to brass tacks the killer was revealed with a whimper – the old boyfriend who just went crazy and thus was killing people when he didn’t know it. There were no clues, no way to figure it out. Even the killer didn’t know it was himself until it was revealed. The ridiculous nature of this reveal worked against the mediocre horror film that had constructed itself, and the 3-D aspect remained the only support the film had going for it.

I’m not sure what future 3-D has in the world of film, but it seems that it’s making a comeback. I can’t wait for the 3-D remake of The Big Chill (1983)!

3 out of 10 – would have been a solid five if it weren’t for the ending. Coming for the 3-D stay for the… 3-D.

Snow Angels (Dvd) - Matt Suggestion

2009-01-12T17:00:00.001-05:00

I’m not sure what is more surprising – the idea that this film hasn’t had any praise whatsoever in a lackluster year for award movies, or that this film was directed by the same individual who directed Pineapple Express (2008). You choose.

The film is a sparse drama set in a snow fallen small town that while showing the cycle of relationships reflects on the pain and loss that can be born from mediocrity in effort. Sam Rockwell, brilliant as always, plays Glenn Marchand, a recently divorced recently born again Christian who skirts the line of worthlessness and significance as he attempts to regain the life he once had. His ex, Annie, played against type by Kate Beckinsale, is obviously done with any relationship that the two could possibly produce and is self-destructive with her other relationships in the small town. The two stumble through their parental duties until the rising action of the film when the here-to-for pawn in their relationship embodied by the little girl goes missing.

Backinsale’s character works in a shabby Chinese restaurant the type you know is about as Chinese as a fortune cookie, while Rockwell works as a wholesale carpet dealer attempting to parlay his newfound religion into sales and advancement. The town’s high school band plays a soulless and mournful version of Peter Gabriel’s Sledgehammer while the band leader screams for them to feel it. Meaning – the tangible qualities of the town are additions to the morose feelings the jilted relationship emanates, it’s all rather depressing.

There are four central relationships that this film attempts to portray that displays four distinct stages in relationships in general: birth (young love), angst (a couple who is being torn apart by infidelity), acceptance (a couple divorcing due to infidelity), and death (a couple destroying their relationship and each other). Rockwell and Beckinsale play the latter of the four who are falling deep into a gulch of self loathing and after the loss of their daughter Rockwell’s character is sunk. It’s all rather depressing.

My biggest complaint in this film lies with its youngest actors and the writing done for them. They are given poor dialog and seemingly worse motivation. Their relationship seems born of confidence and a mutual attraction both of which are hard to come by in high school. This isn’t to say it is impossible, but with the characters, I find it to be against the grain.

But overall this film is a well done yet miserable. Despite the young love flub the relationships are stark and realistic. Accolades are deserved all around, but I fear none will come, which is all rather depressing.

7 out of 10 – a great film that should be seen, but I would never want to watch it again thus it loses a point.

Bride Wars (Theatre) - Jennie

2009-01-10T19:28:00.001-05:00

Weddings are amazing. I mean that. Mine was the second happiest day of my life. Only to be surpassed the very next day as my new bride and I drove to our hotel in Maui. So how does Hollywood take the romance, joy, and love out of weddings?! How do Cinema weddings turn into what was displayed by this film?

This film was horrible. It highlighted a rare strain of female that wants so badly to have the perfect wedding that nothing, not even a cardboard cutout of a fiancé will stand in her way. Now, technically I don’t know any woman who has acted like that on their wedding day. So I feel that Hollywood is doing the fairer gender a disservice by producing this schlock. But it was obviously made for females. Not one male of note even graced the cast.

I’m not sure what anyone can get from this movie either. It depicts two wedding hungry girls who happen to be best friends. They both get engaged around the same time as well, one by forcing her boyfriend to ask her and the other by a nonchalant sigh of resignation. After finding that the wedding planner of their dreams booked them on the same day they fight to see who gets to keep the wedding date. No one wins and they both put on their weddings but not before attempting to sabotage the others. Along the way the husbands to be are pushed aside and barely even noticeable except for the occasional quip about how “crazy” girls are about weddings.

Eventually, one’s wedding falls apart on the day of the dual weddings and they make up. They both attend the wedding that is still on– while both of them are in wedding dresses – um, yeah. There is a little wrapper that shows that the two have been playing wedding together since they were children and the final voiceover reads something like this "Sometimes in life there really are bonds formed that can never be broken. Sometimes you really can find that one person who will stand by you no matter what; maybe you'll find it in a spouse and celebrate it with your dream wedding, but there is also the chance that the one person you can count on for a lifetime, the one person who knows you, sometimes better than you know yourself, is the same person who's been standing beside you all along."

Now I don’t know about you. I don’t know about your partner. I don’t know about anything other than my own marriage, and if that last sentence isn’t talking about your partner then you probably shouldn’t be getting married in my opinion. I wanted to start this review of with a remark about how Sex and the City has given woman the courage to say that a good group of friends is really all they need, if a life partner comes along so be it. And I think that is great, but that also means you shouldn’t then get married because it is some rite of passage. I guess what I’m trying to say is you can’t have your cake and eat it too. If you can’t give everything to your partner, then why get married, what is the point? Stay dating forever and leave it at that. If you really do want to be there for that person in good or bad times, sickness and health, zit or no zit (thank you Mrs. New!) – do it. But don’t marry someone for the ceremony. It is just rude.

I know I got off on a tangent, but this movie simply pissed me off. Marriages, between men, women, both – who cares – should be held in high regard. If you don’t – don’t get married. This movie simply mocks what it supposedly obsesses over.

1 out of 10 – simply a waste of time. And even somewhat offensive to weddings in general.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (Theatre) - Both

2009-01-06T19:00:00.001-05:00

David Fincher is known for making dark films – Fight Club (1999), Se7en (1995), Zodiac (2007) these are all rather pessimistic movies that don’t really celebrate the human endeavor – even Panic Room is darker than most cinema fair. However, Fincher’s latest effort is close to the exact opposite. It has the light charm and sullied optimism of Forrest Gump (1994), and that isn’t the last reference to that film I will make here.

Fincher's touch isn’t as heavy handed as it has been in the past, there are no scoping shots parsing rooms out as action takes place, but as the director grows older his touch with the scissors seems to be waning. While Zodiac came to 158 minutes Button runs the marathon of 166 minutes. And there are numerable scenes that could have found a home on the editing room floor.

To give you an example – the wrapper was a waist of emotion, money, and time. We see Daisy, the central female protagonist, as an old woman slowly dying has hurricane Katrina threatens to strike New Orleans. Why Katrina needed to be thrown into this film, I will never know. Her daughter reads to her the diary that Benjamin has left behind as she, Daisy, dies. This mirrors Forrest Gump’s wrapper in that the audience is constantly drawn out of the story by the two individuals telling it to rehash the information learned. Additionally, we get the emotional dead weight of a daughter finding out that her father is clearly not who she thought it was, but as she finds out through the diary, he was a curious man who happens to age backwards. The wrapper could have never been in the story and the film would have been the same.

The love story in the film also mirrors Gump in its breadth and scope. We are lead to believe that the two main characters fell in love when they were both around the age of ten. This means that we need to believe that a ten year old girl fell for, what looked like, a seventy year old man. An odd concept, I know. And much like Gump, the love isn’t really kindled until much later. They are torn apart and brought together on several occasions, all the while one is growing older and the other younger.

Now, it seems like I’m down on this film. I’m not. In fact, when walking to the car with my wife I exclaimed that I enjoyed this film more than Slumdog Millionaire (2008). But I find that while I thought the film was a subtle epic, which played its cards at just the right moment, it doesn’t stay fresh as I turn its central themes around in my head.

I continue to believe that I loved this film while watching, I love a good epic. They seem so grand. But epics, even Forrest Gump, my favorite, don’t always maintain their luster when taken away from the viewing experience. I’m not sure why. Maybe, it has to do with the fact that you are no longer having to buy each and every coincidence. Maybe, it has to do with the fact that our lives never mirror the majestic highs, lows, or battles that appear in the individual’s life. I’m not sure. But, I can’t think of an epic that stays epic after the theatre.

7 out of 10 – an epic piece of cinema that tries its hardest to maintain the paces it sets for itself.

Slumdog Millionaire (Theatre) - Both

2009-01-03T20:00:00.002-05:00

From the opening scene of Danny Boyle’s tale, India is a sight to behold. The bombastic movement that follows the children as they run through their slum depicts a tangible world for his characters to inhabit. Boyle’s cardinal filming techniques are present with quick edits, bright colors, and variable focus lengths. The pinnacle establishing shot jump cuts to a view that shows the children escape through a clearing in the hodgepodge of tin roofs that provide shelter for the slum. And much like Boyle’s last film, the amazing Sunshine, Boyle makes his set piece a character.

But to speak of only Boyle’s filming techniques would be a misstep. The script that Boyle puts to film is a classic tale that brings about thoughts of other old stories from Britain’s great authors. The film’s plot is a mixture of both Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet and Dickens’ Oliver Twist, with a little twenty-first century wrapper that pulls the plot together. The wrapper is truly what makes the plot stand out from a simple rehash of old tales of orphans and unrequited love and gives an easy climax to the old narratives.

Jamal Malik, awkwardly played by Dev Patel, uses Who Wants to be a Millionaire to get in touch with his lost love Latika. However, the police are interrogating him based on the idea that a man from the slums can, in no way, know all of the answers to get as far as he has gotten in the contest. The story of how Jamal came to know and fall in love with Latika is then told through his interrogation as he explains how he knows the answers to the entire list of questions. Each subsequent answer to the twenty or so questions chronologically steps us forward in his relationship with Latika.

And while this is one of the better films I have seen in the last year or so, I do have one major qualm with it. Joel pointed this one out before I had seen the film, and so while watching all I could think was the love between Latika and Jamal wasn’t based on anything really. They met as children, had a few harrowing adventures, but that is it. Are you in love with anyone you met when you were five? While this is not unlike Romeo and Juliet, and I still have problems with this plot device. Why would you love someone whom you’ve had very little contact with?

Boyle’s film gives the viewer a tangible India and a classic tale. It’s an optimistic film in a pessimistic season. I can’t wait to see Boyle’s next trick.

8 out of 10 – a fantastic view of India with a universal story.

2008 in Review

2008-12-31T23:59:00.001-05:00

So it looks like my list is littered with a bunch of comedies something I think is somewhat weird, but maybe I needed comedy in my life this year, not sure why. These are the top films as I see it to come out this year, which I saw in this year. This hinders several films from being on here, because I saw them after the first of Jan, but here we go.

The List as a whole, all 72 in order from favorite to least favorite is in the comments section.

Top Ten

The Dark Knight – This is the obvious choice. But it’s not like I’m trying to be sneaky with my picks here, this filmed defied its genre. And as rare as the case may be, the hype surrounding Heath Ledger’s performance was real. He was that good, and all the praise and awards and accolades that come posthumously are worth it. This film will be remembered the longest of all of the films that came out this year.

Iron Man – Yes. The second place is also a superhero movie. I know. And let’s face it, if it wasn’t for Dark Knight we would all still be talking about Robert Downey Jr. performance in this fantastically exciting film. This film was the best superhero movie I had seen to this point. But like Matthew Robinson, brother of Jackie Robinson – who remembers second place?

Wall-E – Ah, the lovable, cute-as-a-button, pull-at-your-heartstrings charm of a robot who simple does his job. What a great little tale that allows Pixar to maintain its track record of perfection. I think the movie fell apart half-way through with a preachy message and a lackluster climax, but the first half of the movie was classic cinema.

Cloverfield – This film is the first real monster movie I have enjoyed. Granted there aren’t many to choose from, but this film was a great fun. It was loud, exciting, and the claustrophobic camera had the perfect angle. The characters were boring and cardboard, but who the hell cares, they all die.

Funny Games –This could have technically been rated PG, if the psychological damage to your child wouldn’t have mattered to you. No violence, no “bad word” that I remember. Just unnerving situations between a family and two uninvited guests. And that isn’t even the best part. This incredibly simple movie toyed with the movie going experience. A must see for movie buffs.

Forgetting Sarah Marshall – I’m a little surprised this movie was this good. I like Jason Segal, but not that much, I like Russell Brand, but not that much, I like male nudity, but not that much. This was a solid comedy who’s emotional core was realistic and true.

Rock'n'Rolla – Guy Ritchie doing what he does.

Tropic Thunder – Again, Robert Downey Jr. makes a film. This film would have been nothing without him, and worse, it would have been too much Ben Stiller, but as it was, this movie was the perfect mix of outrageous comedy and humor.

Sex and the City – Yup, I liked it that much.

Zack and Miri Make a Porno – I’m not sure how this made it to the top ten, but as my excel spreadsheet tabulates it, it did. Yes, I enjoyed it, but top ten? Huh.

Bottom 5:

Leatherheads – George Clooney takes a giant leap to never being invited into my theatre again. We get it. You are charming. But you aren’t charming when you are wasting my hard earned money doing shtick from the 1930. And believe me, it can be done well. Just look at my top ten, Wall-E up there gets to number 3 by doing classic shtick. George, you are no Wall-E.

Saw V – Still? Stop making these, please?! For some stupid reason my wife and I feel the need to go to these when they come out, so if they aren’t made I don’t have to go, right?

27 Dresses – as vanilla as RomComs can get.

Untraceable – Another, female-cop-gets-in-trouble film that Ashley Judd is so famous for. Luckily, she stayed away and Diane Lane took the hit. But, I think Hollywood would be better suited making something with substance than wasting 35,000,000 on this. I couldn’t even remember the plot, I had to look it up on Wikipedia.

Vantage Point – Oh, certainly the worst movie that came out all year. Well, at least that I saw. I know Beverly Hill Chihuahuas (2008) came out this year, so I won’t sink this to the absolute bottom. But good lord, with as many B-rated actors in this film as there were you would think they could do something better. And the concept has been done before, by much better people. What a waste of my brain cells.

Best and Worst from years past.

As I can't watch everything the year it comes out, this is the best and worst of the stuff that I saw this year, but wasn't made this year.

Rocket Science (BEST) – oh, how I loved this movie and its young star. This tale of a young boy’s attempt at getting on the debate team while struggling with a debilitating stutter was pitch perfect. I can’t recommend this enough.

The King of Kong: a fistful of quarters (BEST) – a fantastic little David and Goliath tale about two video game players. This might just make you cry tears of joy.

Hotrod (WORST) – And with that Andy Samberg slinks back into the whole he came from. Never to be seen again?!?

Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium (WORST) – Oh, my goodness what horribleness is on my screen. I wanted this to stop so badly. This tale of an idiot who runs a toy store is an affront to children everywhere, is this what you think children like, Hollywood?

Seven Pounds (Theatre) - Both

2008-12-21T19:00:00.002-05:00

When the advertisements for a movie are as cryptic as they were for Seven Pounds, I go into the movie looking for some profound puzzle that I work at cracking the whole movie. I watch each scene with prying eyes attempting to see something I’m not really supposed to see. A lingering camera, a focused lens, an audio tell, these are some of the things I look for. Often I’m rewarded for my efforts as I foresee a coming danger, or can tell a plot twist coming before it is revealed. I certainly don’t say this to brag, anyone can do it, Jennie often points things out that I have missed, but the joy I get when I catch these hidden minutia usually makes the movie that much more enjoyable.

Will Smith has taken to doing about one film a year. This means he better make that film he does worth it. I loved I Am Legend (2007), despite its inability to give you the amazing ending the novel had. Hancock (2008) wasn’t horrible, but it certainly wasn’t a once a year film. So Smith gave us Seven Pounds. I don’t question his abilities as an actor, I’ve always loved Smith’s characters and go to see almost anything he is in (I have my limits Bad Boys II (2003)). And Seven Pounds doesn’t disappoint.

In one of the first few scenes we see Smith call a telemarketer. This individual, played by Woody Harrelson, is berated by Smith character in an emotionally awkward way for what appears to be no reason. You aren’t sure if Smith is a horrible person or not simply because of Smith’s abilities as an actor. His conflicted facial and body movements seem to contradict every hurtful word his character spews from his mouth. This scene is somewhat confusing in the context of the film as we are not privy to enough information as of yet but Smith’s abilities in this scene are riveting.

The first hour of the movie continues on in this fashion, and the audience is meant to piece things together. As I stated earlier I love doing this. As the scenes reveal themselves you are treated to a rather mundane, if not uplifting thought. Smith’s character is slowly donating parts of his body to good individuals who deserve the transplants. Smith eventually goes so far as to kill himself so that Rosario Dawson’s character may have his heart and continue living.

Although this is certainly an amazing gesture, it doesn’t make for an enthralling plot. Emotional? Certainly. But, I couldn’t help but think that if the timeline of the film would have been linear then there would be no film. As it was the timeline jumped from scene to scene.

I also had to wrestle with the ultimate resolution to Smith’s relationship with Dawson. What made her character so good? What did she do to deserve such a sacrifice? I found no plot point that made her such a great candidate for Will’s gift. In fact, the whole romance that was spun from the two seemed like a wasted plot point.

It certainly made me and Jennie cry, and it was ultimately an uplifting film of sorts, but I question its conviction. And I ultimately ask - what was the point to deciphering the clues?

5 out of 10 – Smith worked hard at pulling the heartstrings, and overall he achieves his goal, but that is about it.

Step Brothers (Dvd) - Ashleigh

2008-12-20T19:00:00.002-05:00

Will Ferrell hasn’t been hitting them out of the park with his last couple of efforts. Semi-Pro (2008), Blades of Glory (2007), Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby (2006) – this list reads like a sad memoir of an ex-SNL cast member trying to make it in the real world without the watchful eye of Lorne Michaels. This somewhat depressing fate was thought to have escaped Ferrell, but if he keeps tossing out these bombs I’m not sure what else we can do for him.

As this Ferrell/McKay film was presented with a little bit more meat with it, Jennie and I figured we would give it a shot. After all, this isn’t some bland sports movie with a yards of footage of Ferrell riffing. I can’t say we were fully rewarded for our efforts, but this is certainly his best film since Stranger Than Fiction (2005).

The premise is comedy gold, as Kenny Bania would have said. The alarming fact that someone at that age is still living with his parents is wrought with landmines of laughter. And to have two individuals who are in the same situation thrown together by their parent’s nuptials is an amazing concept. I liken this idea, a purely great comedic situation, to Idiocracy (2006). How can it not win?

And though Step Brothers does surpass Idiocracy, in that it uses its ingenious concept to create some great comedic moment, I can’t help but think the loose feeling that McKay’s films seem to generate is this films downfall. John C. Reilly and Will Ferrell were made to play these roles. There is just the right amount of tension and lunacy to create some amazingly funny moments. I loved Reilly’s reaction to Ferrell using his drums, I laughed out loud when Ferrell and Reilly instantly became friends over a shared love of John Stamos, and to watch the pair play “Time to Say Goodbye” was a moment from my life I didn’t know I was missing.

But let’s get back to McKay’s inability to restrain his actors. I know it is the in-thing in comedy to let the cameras roll – pick up enough footage and you will make a hilarious film. At least, I think that is the idea. But without some tightly written jokes and scenarios the film as a whole feels like a riff. Missing are the details and thought behind well written comedy. It is hard to make a call back when you forget what the hell is going into the film in the first place. Also with this method you create a slew of miscues that can be fixed but create an aura of disbelief. If the actors don’t know what is ‘real’ to them then how are they to keep that world intact.

Ultimately, though, I really did enjoy this film. I thought its concept certainly worked along with its principle actors, and they were genuinely funny. But, McKay’s loose construct makes for a somewhat bumpy ride.

4 out of 10 – Ferrell/Reilly/McKay present a great concept and garnish it with a few purely comical moments, but the whole structure is too loose for my taste.

The Day the Earth Stood Still (Theatre) - Both

2008-12-12T19:00:00.000-05:00

Jennie and I love our “destroy the world” flicks Day After Tomorrow (2004), Independence Day (1996), War of the Worlds (2005). I don’t fully understand why Jennie, in particular, loves these films, but I can say that I enjoy them because they are big, wide screen, Movies (with a capital M). They usher me into a childish fantasy where the world is fragile. I don’t love explosions, but when the head gets torn off the Statue of Liberty in Cloverfield (2008) I get the message that something big happened. I don’t know if I am explaining my love for these films right, but I’ll end it at that.

In this remake of the end of the world Keanu Reeves plays an alien, Klaatu, who has come to earth to decide the fate of humanity. His decision is pretty much made for him when as he exits his ship the shoot-first-ask-questions-later American military attacks his alien form. Only America’s top science type person understands that he isn’t necessarily a threat, played by Jennifer Connelly.

She saves him from being sliced and diced, a constant threat to sentient beings who wander to this planet, and finds out he was sent here to see if the human race could turn things around. The Intergalactic Space Council decided that humans were ruining their planet. A planet with other beings on it – dogs, cats, platypuses, you get the idea. Our wasteful habits have brought the wrath of the Space Pope down on us and humans are to be exterminated.

You see, unlike the film this was derived from, this remake no longer believes war is a destructive human construct, or at least it isn’t as important as picking up our litter. To quote the producer, "the specifics of [how] we now have the capability to destroy ourselves have changed". While I agree that the human effect on the environment is substantial I beg to differ that our effects on the environment are as damning to the human race as war has been.

Keanu plays Klaatu well. Though I’m sure we all knew he would. His deadpan looks of logic are straight from Keanu’s past performances. And as for Connelly, well, she is a grade A actress working in a grade C movie, so her abilities fall flat. Jaden Smith is given a horrible role as a child that just can’t make up his mind. Does he love his step mother? Why is he unevenly angry at the world? His acting abilities aren’t as evident as other child stars, and his pedigree seems to be his ticket in, let’s hope he picks up some lessons.

As for the movie on a whole, I wouldn’t run to the few remaining theatres that are playing it, you will be disappointed. It is simply a quick get-in-and-get-out disaster film that is lacking in plot and character development.

3 out of 10 – This remake replaces our guilt of war with our guilt of recycling. The over handed message could have had some gravitas but the stakes were too low.

Sex and the City (Dvd) - Both

2008-12-06T20:00:00.002-05:00

Well, I have my first repeat movie! I’m not entirely sure what to do with a repeat, but I think I will simply give a short review on how it held up. I will also link to the first review for those that missed it.

Jennie and I purchased this DVD. Pause for dramatic effect. It is the first DVD purchase we have made since… Oh, man. I think, the Ghostbusters two pack over two years ago. We don’t really watch that many movies twice, and thus we never buy them. Though technically isn’t this a TV on DVD kind of thing? I don’t know, you be the judge. Jennie and I certainly buy a lot of TV on DVD so maybe this counts as that.

Anyway, how did the further tales of the Manhattan four stand up, you ask? Not bad actually. I liked the film when it came out, and I still enjoyed it on the second watch. This certainly held up to the standards of the show, unlike some television to movies, and I enjoyed the return to the characters.

I will agree with Matthew’s comments on the original post. Louise, played by Jennifer Hudson, did feel tacked on the second go round. She was there in six scenes tops and then goes off to marry some dude without affecting the lives of anyone. I think I initially liked her because if she had stayed on she would have been a great fifth female to follow. Oh, well.

We purchased the Blu-Ray extended edition, our first Blu-Ray purchase. This contained the added scenes which would have made the movie a lengthy 3 hours. And, not one of the added scenes were that interesting. One or two of them involved Miranda’s mundane actions after Steve told of his infidelity. There was a scene that gave Charlotte a little emotional meat to her movie character which in the previous review I lamented was wafer thin. But over all they were good cuts.

The one scene I might have kept, if it hadn’t had been for the somewhat racially awkward moments, would have been the Goldenblatt's trick-or-treating with Carrie. In this scene we see Charlotte dressed as a cow, Harry dressed as Uncle Fester, and Charlotte’s child dressed as a princess, with a white girl princess mask (very awkward). This mask later plays a role in the scene as Carrie must hide herself from the Halloween parents who recognize her from her messy nuptials. But, I can easily tell you the white princess mask was the reason this scene got dropped. I mean really, did you think it was a good idea to put a white girl mask on a little Asian child? Not sure what they were thinking there.

Will I watch this again? Yes. Well I watch it as often as I watch the show? No, probably not. It is a great translation of the show to screen – a very hard feat. And in this I praise its efforts.

6 out of 10 – A solid watch. Though the only reason I go back is my love for the characters.

Four Christmases (Theatre) - Jennifer

2008-12-05T19:00:00.003-05:00

When it comes to Romcoms Vince Vaughn is the king of male leads these days, but ask I you: has Vince Vaughn ever played anything other than a smooth talking, quick witted man’s man? So, I posit that he is actually not an actor, but a man who gets paid to be himself on screen. And in the female lead we have Reese Witherspoon who seems to be coming out of hiding. What was the last movie she was in? After checking IMDB I find that Rendition (2007) has been her last film. And before that we have to go to 2005’s Just Like Heaven, good lord.

But, back to the film at hand, we find Reese and Vince in a perfect relationship. No marriage to, I guess, ruin the fun of being eternally boyfriend and girlfriend, no children to mess up their tidy multimillion dollar pad, and no families to muddle with. This well tailored relationship hinges on honesty and a likeminded view of the future. This future includes blatant lies to get out of the dreaded family Christmas.

I want to stop here and ask: are all of you out there in the same boat? Do you hate your families so much that you would never want to see them? I have no clue what that would be like, I love the time I get to spend with my family during the holidays. That goes for my in-laws as well. I admit that sometimes it is an emotional gauntlet, but I wouldn’t want to miss it if I didn’t have to.

Reese and Vince get caught lying on TV about their whereabouts and are then relegated to visit their four parents. The scene in which they get caught is particularly interesting because for this to happen every one of their parents would have to be watching TV at the same moment, watching the same local news channel. Not only that, but, they must live in the same area meaning that Reese and Vince are complete bastards to their family the rest of the year as well. Who doesn’t visit their family at least once a year when they all live in the same city?

As their journey is played out we meet the unevenly written families that they were looking to avoid. Each character in the family is just a little crazy and then poignant. At points Kristen Chenoweth’s character who played a sister to Reese would be a childish berating little sister and then flip to a caring big sister vibe. I would blame the bumpy writing for this, not Chenoweth. This goes for Mary Steenburgen’s character as well.

The problem here was that the writers had to make the families look horrible in the beginning and then lighten up as they went on so that the viewers and the on screen couple of Vince and Reese could see what they were missing by being so standoffish. This poorly written solution included a father figure for Reese played by Jon Voight who seemed genuine and made Reese’s character seem like a complete asshole for avoiding him all these years.

Voight's character simply helps Reese when her well tailored relationship ship finds a single thread that is pulled and destroys the whole thing. And his thanks? Not being invited to the birth of his grandchild in the last scene of the film.

There were a few laughs to be had. And I have say, I loved seeing King of Kong’s Steve Wiebe in the background of a lot of shots playing Chenoweth’s husband. Go Wiebe! But ultimately this is a very forgettable script with horribly unforgettable characters.

3 out of 10: a watchable Romcom, but ultimately a waste of time.

The Simpsons Movie (Dvd)

2008-11-29T20:00:00.000-05:00

The Simpsons film has come and gone, and with it the small amount of fanfare that had been built up. Left now are the bitter ashes of a film found on a five dollar call out shelf at Target.

When this originally came out I was excited to see it. The marathon that the Simpsons have participated in has been a grueling testament to Groening’s ability to disregard quality. This is coming from a man who still has a season pass of the Simpsons on his DVR, and willingly watches each episode. I feel like a pig that has been shot from the sewers as Homer yells after me, “It’s still good. It’s still good.”

I wanted the movie to be great. I wanted it to hearken back to those heady days when the tale of Nelson Muntz and his bosom chum Martin Prince were told, when Homer choose crab juice over Mountain Dew, or even Homer’s disastrous turn as a sugar salesman. I wanted something that couldn’t be delivered.

The story was big enough for the movies, the box-office takings were high enough, and everyone claimed that despite the resent turn the show had taken that the movie was good. But as I popped in the dvd and waited for the choir to sing, “The Simspons” I felt deflated.

This isn’t the feeling I get when I go rewatch “Bart Sells His Soul”, “The PTA Disbands”, or even “Bart on the Road”. These episodes I could watch right now and have myself an enjoyable 22 minutes of solid entertainment. But upon my second airing of the Simpsons Movie I found myself waiting for the end to release me. I didn’t want to stick around.

The story line was grandiose on a ridiculous scale. Some of my favorite moments in the Simpsons are simple and sweet while being humorous. When Bart gets medically turned into a nerd in “The Last Temptation of Homer” the gag isn’t monumental, the world doesn’t change, but the human emotion of not fitting in is universal. They didn’t need Springfield to be cupped in a large dome; they played off of real life. This has been the key to Simpsons connecting to everyone, something I feel they have stopped doing in the last couple of seasons and in this movie.

They also played with continuity. I know that is a stupid fanboy annoyance, but come on. You are dealing with an historical series here, get it right. Homer and Marge were married by themselves, no family with them! Bah!

While I laughed and enjoyed my second viewing of this film I won’t say I loved it. I won’t say the Simpsons Movie is a success – it isn’t. It is the continuation of the degradation of the brand name, and I will continue to purchase your wares no matter what…

4 out of 10: Where are your roots, friend? Find them.

Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa (Theatre) - Neither

2008-11-15T19:00:00.004-05:00

The movie theatre is a barren wasteland recently. High School Musical 3 (2008)? Come on! I’ve never watched a Bond flick. The Changeling (2008)? I hate Angelina Jolie. So, with this in mind and money burning a hole in our pockets Jennie and I begrudgingly went to see this film.

My hatred for children’s flicks these days is well documented. And barring Pixar, I find the bevy of CGI films geared towards children to be a waste of time. Their morals are a wash in friendship themes and the villains are innocuous castrated beings just waiting for their chance to be redeemed. I guess the helicopter parents can’t let their kids see evil in any form.

Madagascar wasn’t the train wreck that some of these post Pixar films are, but it was not a walk in the park to sit through. The cast of big name actors portraying animals did the minimal work to make you believe their characters, as the writing meandered into a past that the second film created for its purposes only.

There was a smattering of the adult humor that Pixar uses to create their masterworks but Dreamwork’s productions never have been able to achieve the finesse that Pixar exhibits in this area. Stiller’s Lion and Rock’s Zebra bicker about race in a thinly veiled argument giving the adults a chuckle cause they get that Rock is black and Stiller isn’t, but this sort of humor is a low blow for Rock who I expect more out of. Stiller on the other hand, I expected this from.

Then there is the father son story line evolving Bernie Mac and Ben Stiller. Mac wants Stiller’s lion character to be a man (manly lion). Stiller can only dance/act - he is weak. Eventually Mac discovers that his son’s talent in dancing is just as good as being a good fighter. I’m not sure if I get/understand what this means, but the moral is so ham-fisted that I grew tired of the two the first scene they shared.

I keep thinking I’m getting too old for these movies, but then I forget, and Jennie and I go, and I realize - I’m too old for these movies.

3 out of 10: Oh children’s movies when will I learn, you offer nothing new.

Zack and Miri Make a Porno (Theatre) - Both

2008-11-04T19:00:00.002-05:00

Kevin Smith hasn’t been relevant in years. I’m not sure, even when he was relevant, if I even liked him then. Mallrats (1995) was o.k. as was Chasing Amy (1997). Jersey Girl (2004) wasn’t horrible – it wasn’t! Clerks (1994), though it is hailed as… well, something, was horrible in my opinion. The only quality film he has ever made was Dogma (1999), which I loved.

With this smashing intro you’d think I’d be down on Prono, but I’m not. I enjoyed it just fine. Jennie was unmentionably excited about this film as her new actress crush was staring in it. I’m not sure how Elizabeth Banks came to be held in such high regard by my wife, but she was positively giddy about her role in this.

Porno is a romcom at its core, a Harry Met Sally for the millennials. Zack and Miri have been best friends forever and their catalyst for change is that they find themselves in dire straights financially. After what seems like a minute they decide that the only lifeboat to their troubles is making a pornographic film that their high school friends can purchase. They set about casting it, making sets, and writing the script (who knew erotic films needed a script?). But while filming Zack and Miri fight about who gets to knob who, and how many different times this takes place. It appears they each do not want the other to biblically know anyone else. They mate on camera for their first scene and Zack feels a connection. Jealousy rears its head and the porno falls apart. Zack runs, a friend tells him that Miri felt the same way, he comes back and boom, ending.

It’s a romcom, what did you expect.

The acting is great. I have loved Seth Rogan from my virgin viewing of Freaks and Geeks and have wanted nothing but success for him ever since. Elizabeth Banks pulls off some good emotional scenes in a complicated role. I know comedies are never praised for their acting. I know comedy isn’t an actor’s skill according to Oscar, but I don’t think Angelina Jolie could have taken this role, and Elizabeth Banks is great with both the laughs and the tears. Also, Brandon Routh (superman, if you forgot) plays the straight man to Justin Long in a quick scene at a high school reunion and the couple makes some quality laughs with their portrayal as gay porn actors.

I also applaud the fact that this film didn’t reek of Smith. His directing skills were more subtle this time around. His dialog wasn’t as heavy handed. Smith may be lightening his touch, which I appreciate.

5 out of 10: Prono hit’s the romcom wall with quality acting and heavy petting.

RocknRolla (Theatre) - Ashleigh

2008-11-01T20:00:00.003-04:00

Guy Ritchie’s film career started at the peek. His first two films were brilliantly shot, fast paced gangsta flicks that left me wanting to move to England. Then he met Madonna. She ruined him. She destroyed everything he touched. First she stared in the laughably bad Swept Away (2002) a remake of a classic that allowed Madonna to “act” like a selfish princess. Then came the train wreck Revolver (2005), a movie that took three years to cross the pond. Revolver was an abolishment that tried to mix Ritchie’s gangstas with Madonna’s kabala philosophies. Then rumblings of a breakup – were they divorced – weren’t they. Who cares.

Fucking Guy Ritchie is back. During the tumultuous times Ritchie wrote and directed his return to greatness and while RocknRolla isn’t Ritchie’s peek it shines a light into the darkened alley that his career had become.

RocknRolla is Ritchie back to his roots: British thugs running scams. While it does returns to the formula - it’s ending isn’t as complicated nor twisting as his first two. The film starts by introducing the main players. This has worked for Guy quite well in the past and when something isn’t broke you shouldn’t try to fix it. The cast is a massive mix of characters that seem eager to go at each other in a mad dash for money.

The fun of Guy’s first two efforts is back as well. Gone are Revolver’s preachy messages; gone are the horrible acting and influence of Guys former wife. In its place is a well made crime thriller that has been Ritchie’s signature.

Is it anything new? Not really. The main villain gets taken to task. The anti-hero is given just rewards. The ragtag group of misfits is certainly something to root for. And I’m not sure I want Guy Ritchie to do anything else. If he gave me a movie like this every two years I would be happy.

Technically there were one or two new additions. For the first time Ritchie has added a well written/acted female to the cast of characters. The gorgeous Thandie Newton certainly responds well to the boys club that has been Guy’s cast. Also the promise of a proper sequel was splashed across the screen at the end of the film, so I guess I might get my wish after Sherlock Holmes (2009).

But I am grateful for Guy’s return. It is a welcomed return for me. Recently I have been lamenting the current state of films, and it could be because I live in Michigan. It could be because I’m growing older and people just don’t make movies for people like me anymore. I’m not sure, but I feel Guy’s return will give me something, even if it isn’t perfect, to look forward to.

6 out of 10: Guy Ritchie returns to what works.

Saw V (Theatre) - Both

2008-10-25T19:00:00.003-04:00

The yearly output of Saw is an interesting feat. Is it impressive? Not really, they aren’t great movies. Is it sad? Not really, people still enjoy the films. Is it necessary? Not really, I’m not sure anyone would care if they stop. I have a feeling that it is coming to an end with the much-hyped sixth edition that has a role cast by an MTV show. So the fact that the killer has been dead for three movies might actually finally kill the Halloween juggernaut.

This particular iteration brings us up to date with Jigsaw’s secret apprentice. Supposedly this man had been with Jigsaw after his second or third killing. But not wanting to simply rehash old set pieces there is a new batch of young actors to slaughter in inventive ways. The apprentice is simply carrying out Jigsaws dying wish, and Jigsaw reveals that the apprentice will not fully understand the implications of this particular action until later. I have a feeling this means the sixth movie will reveal some master plan of Jigsaws to eliminate the apprentice. We shall see.

Jennie and I are driven to these films by little more than tradition, and I think we stopped enjoying ourselves in the middle of the second film, but on we trudge. The reason this particular Saw outing was so disappointing was the ending montage.

As most Saw fans have come to expect the last ten minutes are a solid reveal orchestrated to some steady drum and base revealing that which we thought we knew, but were wrong about. The first Saw was the only one to truly do this with any lasting effect, and the fifth Saw does this with the least amount of surprise. They reveal everything we already knew, and nothing we didn’t, a subpar reveal at best.

The acting is straight-to-dvd as well as the directing. Any innovation has since fled the theatre in search for children’s fantasy (a booming genre right now). Maybe in a year or two we will have a horror film that redefines the genre and sends Hollywood running to make a quick buck, but for now Saw will have to do.

By now most have grown weary of this durable brand and are surprised by the yearly treatments. Maybe one day we will live in a land without Saw, but if they are released it looks like Jennie and I will be there. Reboot in 2010?

2 out of 10 - Barely watchable. Not even much to say about it. Beat that dead horse!

The Fall (Dvd) - Ashleigh

2008-10-20T19:00:00.000-04:00

The Fall is a gorgeous film that goes nowhere. The plot is a simple story within a story which is told by an injured stuntman to an injured girl, both of whom are recovering from unrelated falls in the depression era. The little girl is an immigrant who fell while picking oranges while the stuntman had an on the job accident which paralyzed him from the waist down.

This film came to my attention when I was perusing Spike Jonze’s latest films. How is it possible that he and David Fincher where involved in a film and I knew nothing of it. Compounding my interest was the actor who portrayed the injured stuntman, one Lee Pace of Pushing Daisies fame.

Oh, wait, Spike Jonze and David Fincher are only presenting this film. (Whatever the hell that means.) One thing I’m sure that means is that they had nothing to do with the production of this film. Shoot.

Lee Pace’s character Roy tells a grand story of five heroes who vow to kill a man named Odious for one reason or another. Roy’s story is told on an epic scale spanning, the back of the box says, 4 continents as these five men track Odious to his country. The back of the box also informs me that it took four years to craft this film. A fact which leads me to believe they should have spent some of that time on plot/character development.

Roy injects himself and the little girl into the story and will only continue the tale each day if the little girl retrieves medicine for him. Her repeated attempts to follow Roy’s orders quickly show that Roy wants the medicine for more than just pain relief. He is looking to kill himself.

The story Roy tells becomes increasingly dark as Roy’s depression sinks lower, but the relationship between Roy and the girl seems genuine and well constructed, and as the narration slips back to Roy’s hyper color hero tale the construction of character development falls apart.

These brief stints into the imagination of Roy’s tale are scene of great cinematic beauty. I truly believe they shot the film on four different continents, and as the camera angles arc and the focus blurs the line between art and film the eye is presented with a magnificent presentation of the filmmaker’s imagination. But while the scene are saturated eye popping wonders the plot is a dull knife serrating the film’s beauty.

Lee Pace’s skills are truly on display in this film and this is exciting. I feared, while watching Pushing Daisies, that his charm and impish idealism wasn’t true acting and maybe Pace was simply that optimistic. But the juxtaposition of Roy with the pie maker shows that Pace has true range – an exciting proposition for the actor’s future.

Ultimately the tale Pace weaves is the downfall of the entire film as it is not very interesting and often drags. I can’t help but think Tarsem Singh needs to find new writers to work with. His only other film, 2000’s The Cell, was similar to The Fall in that it was beautifully shot but the plot was horrible.

3 out of 10: superb visuals and quality acting are betrayed by the horribly slow and mind numbing plot.

Choke (Theatre) - Ashleigh

2008-10-04T19:05:00.001-04:00

I would have loved this movie at the turn of the century. I was always in the mode for nihilistic mood altering cinema. I would have found a message to carry away with me. But, since we are no longer in the glory days of pre-millennial film where apocalyptic views were the norm I feel this film misses the mark. Is this because I no longer think that way? Or could it be because the landscape of cinema is so different now that this type of film can’t be given the budget or the creative time that it takes to truly sculpt the nuances of the plot?

I vote the latter.

While the only other attempt to repackage Chuck Palahniuk’s work gleamed in its perfected anarchic dogma, Choke seems to wallow in nothingness. Was there a message for me to take away from the film? I’m not sure. When I read the novel I seem to remember the same empty moral. So perhaps the film did succeed in giving me nothing.

Victor Mancini, played masterfully by one of my favorite actors Sam Rockwell, is a sex addict. And similarly to Palahniuk’s previous protagonist, Victor attends meetings in dingy churches and VFW halls to cauterize his psychological wounds with other similarly afflicted individuals.

Many of Victor’s psychological scars were inflicted by his mother who is willowing away her remaining years in a pysch-ward. As her time approaches Victor attempts to ferret out his true origins from his mother and through this process begins to believe that he is the illegitimate child of Jesus. After reflecting on his life as a devious man he is lead to a revelation of sorts that he can be saved.

Being saved is a major theme in this work as Victor’s other main source of income is from victims of his con. Victor fakes that he is choking in an expensive restaurant and finds a sap to save his life. This sap then is given an overinflated since of power and importance and in turn they send Victor money every month to refresh the act of saving a life in their mind.

Victor reflects after his revelation of his birthright that Jesus didn’t start his good works till he was thirty-three – so why can’t he turn it all around? Though, as the delusion comes crashing down and Victor discovers he was actually abducted from his true family by his now dying mother Victor faces the dilemma of change. He may not be the child of the Christ, but that doesn’t mean he can’t remain a decent human.

The plot seems rather tame as I write it out. And while Palahniuk’s signature oversaturated themes of sex and grit abound the plot does seem that simple. Was I looking for too much from Palahniuk? Was this simply a story of self redemption? Possibly. But I could do with more of Palahniuk’s work.

5 out of 10: Palahniuk’s story is told with marginal success. But it isn’t something I would rush out to see.

Speed Racer (Dvd) - Asheligh

2008-09-27T17:00:00.002-04:00

My expectations of this movie were somewhat low. When it opened in May of this year it was berated by the critics and nobody went to see it, how far the Wachoski siblings have fallen. However, I quite enjoyed this film. The plot was tight, the action was only a little bit gratuitous, and the characters where enjoyable.

The recent influx of movies that attempt to be like comic books is an interesting concept. They take an image directly from the source material and attempt to recreate that scene on film in exactly the same way it was drawn. 300 (2007), Sin City (2005), and even the Wachoski siblings directing the Matrix trilogy are examples that use this technique. Speed Racer is loosely related to this because it is attempting to make a Japanese style animation cartoon into a feature film and while doing this they employee some of the same techniques that style of animation is known for. As this is the case we are presented with an over-saturated, sometimes vaudevillian, piece of cinema that works most of the time.

If you go into this film wanting anything other than a cartoon brought to life I can imagine disappointment. This isn’t to say it was perfectly executed – far from it. The beginning hour seemed to drag like a speedster with a flat tire. The viewer didn’t need to see Speed as a little boy in school. The moments establishing his relationship with his brother would have been enough. Also, I would fear for an epileptic to watch this film as its bright colors and flashy special effects sometimes overwhelmed the action. But, our hero was given his plot, as the forty-five minute mark rolled around, and from there the movie picked up its pace.

The plot was actually somewhat complicated as emotions were shouldered and details of financial intrigue forced the characters through their evolutions. I would find it hard to believe that a child could understand what was going on. But, I enjoyed how detailed the plot was. It made me work to understand the motivations of the characters and for a children’s film to do this is unique.

I will not recommend this movie as I’m not sure many would like it. Hell, Jennie fell asleep. But, if you were at all interested in it when you saw it in theatres, take a chance. Just, make it past the first hour.

5 out of 10: when it failed it did so monumentally, but the successes were there as well.

Baby Mama (Dvd) - Both

2008-09-21T16:00:00.002-04:00

Tina Fey churns out a horribly predictable comedy. It is hard to believe that someone who has the ability to make television incredibly watchable can put out a movie that is so uninspired. I have to admit I laughed a couple of times, and I didn’t hate it. But, my aversion for this conventional tired story line leads me to hate it more and more as I turn this thing over in my head.

The story sets up Tina Fey as a successful business woman who contracts a dangerous strain of baby fever. However, since Tina Fey’s reproductive organs are broken she decides to hire a surrogate. Amy Poehler was often relegated to play the dumb version of Tina Fey on SNL, and her role here is no different as she plays the hillbilly woman carrying Fey’s baby making ingredients. I find this relationship between the two stars growing old. Poehler has the chops to play many different characters both smart and dimwitted, but I feel the comedy team grasps what is comfortable and rely on this relationship too much.

The moment Tina Fey impregnates Poehler we are introduced to a male lead played by Greg Kinnear. If you are at all a fan of movies then you know what will happen with this revelation. The second I saw Kinnear on screen I knew Fey’s character, who previous to meeting Kinnear had a one in a million shot at getting pregnant, would be infected with child by Kinnear’s doing. True to form this was the case. The baby in Poehler is explained away and wacky romcom plot points are hit. Kinnear finds out about Fey’s baby mama, Kinnear runs and is mad, Fey finds out she is pregnant – tells Kinnear, happy endings all around!

Despite the tired formula, Steve Martin’s overacted C.E.O., and my politically incorrect views on single female surrogating/implantations I enjoyed this film more than I thought I would. I had a few laughs and is not that the goal of a comedy?

On a side note: For some reason, I can’t wrap my head around, I dislike the idea of single woman choosing to get pregnant on purpose just to fulfill a somewhat selfish need to be a mother. I’m not saying I think each family has to have at least two non-gender specific adults in it. Single mothers/fathers have a difficult and noble task. But for someone to choose that path is selfish, in my mind, and that is all. Additionally, think about this – a single man hiring a surrogate to create a baby. Is that not weird? Do you really think noble thoughts of this man? Any thoughts blog ‘o sphere?

3 out of 10 – Laughed a couple of times, but the lack of creativity stifled this romcom’s mojo.

Burn After Reading (Theatre) - Both

2008-09-12T18:30:00.006-04:00

About halfway through this Coen brothers farce we are presented with a scene depicting a C.I.A. agent talking to his boss. He tells a tale of five idiots who engage each other in a convoluted saga that destroys their lives. By the end of the scene the superior asks if they know anything. The subordinate informs him that they know nothing, and don’t truly understand what is going on. The superior asks to be informed when they understand what is going on.

This scene was put in place, I thought, to inform the patrons in the theatre who were lost where they should be in the story, and set up the ending. But I now believe the Coen brothers inserted this scene so it could bookended with the last scene and assure the audience that this tale of the idiotic was simply that - nothing more.

John Malkovich plays an ex-C.I.A. agent on the bad end of a failing marriage to Tilda Swinton who is having an affair with the lascivious Harry Pfarrer, played by George Clooney. After burning her husband’s financials onto a disc for her attorney, Swinton’s character initiates a divorce. This disc ends up in the hands of the self-involved Linda Litzke, played artfully by Joel Coen’s wife Francis McDormand, who with the help of her co-worker at Hard Bodies attempts to blackmail the ex-C.I.A. agent. Linda and Chad, played with hysterical accuracy by Brad Pitt, believe this disc contains C.I.A. secrets and play spy until Chad is killed. Pitt is marvelous as a foulmouthed moron and provides the movie with its biggest laughs. He skillfully delivers his line, “Osbourne Cox? I thought you might be worried about the security of your shit,” with such passion and well timed pauses that I found myself wishing Pitt played for humor more often.

In what can only be a screenplay coincidence Linda and Harry meet each other for a tryst tying the whole gang together in a nice little knot. Harry shoots Chad and runs to Linda. Harry then believes that Linda is in league with the ex-C.I.A. agent and gets arrested. The ex-C.I.A. agent murders the manager of Hard Bodies and promptly gets shot. And Linda gets cosmetic surgery.

As the film ends we return to the two C.I.A. agents discussing these events. The superior asks if all the loose ends are tied up. The subordinate informs him all but one. Linda needs her cosmetic surgery paid for. The superior oks the payment and states that he just wishes he knew what the hell just went on.

6 out of 10: I enjoyed the return to whimsy for the Coen Brothers, but I feel the stakes were so low that it made it impossible to enjoy fully.

Tropic Thunder (Theatre) - Ashleigh

2008-08-31T17:45:00.001-04:00

Ben Stiller doesn’t need to continue making films. His lack of acting ability is quite evident in that he plays the same exact character in every movie he has ever been in. If his character had been in Tropic Thunder another five minutes it may have tanked this movie. This, thankfully, isn’t the case and we are left with a pretty descent comedy spoofing the acting community in general and their immature desire for acclaim in their jobs.

The movie opens with a bevy of metamedia including several fake movie trailers and an ad. I doubt if anyone was fooled by these add-ons but I don’t think that was the point. They did add several laughs and introduced you relatively quickly to the main characters. After this metamedia the movie depicts a scene of a war movie that is being made staring the actors from the fake previews. The scene is confusing and drawn out to the point that it annoyed me. Stiller’s character, Tugg Speedman and Robert Downey Jr.’s character, Kirk Lazarus, battle with each other as actors about how the scene should be played out and end up missing an effects cue that wastes a lot of money. This initiates an intervention by the studio head, Tom Cruise playing Tom Cruise in a fat suit, who busts the director’s balls for wasting so much money.

The director, forced to do something drastic, then turns to the “war hero” screen writer who offers the crazy idea of taking the five actors out of their comfortable hotels and beds and dropping them into an effects laden forest to “get the real experience” of being a soldier in Vietnam. The director informs his actors that he is doing this to get gorilla style footage and promptly gets blown up accidently when he steps on an old land mine. Most of the actors believe this is part of the immersion and start their scenes. It is quickly discovered that this is not the case and all but Stiller’s character stop acting and attempt to get back to civilization. A delusional Stiller treks on through the jungle and the movie script till he is captured by drug lords, realizes it is no longer a script, and needs to be rescued by the crew of actors that knew something had gone wrong initially.

The meat of the film, and some of the funniest moments are created with the gang of actors as they make their way to save Stiller. Robert Downey Jr. takes on an unimaginable role as a white actor who plays a black man for the film. I can’t imagine a single actor who could actually pull this off without offending everyone, but Downey seems to walk the line splendidly. Downey has truly come into his own this summer with his role in Iron Man (2008) and this. Here’s to hoping this is the permanent return to greatness that he deserves. Jack Black is almost a none-issue here as he is neither a distraction nor a service to the movie as a whole. Brandon T. Jackson plays a black rapper who is attempting to spread his revenue stream to films, but, in a twist everyone in the theatre saw coming, reveals his homosexual leanings that juxtapose his “pimp” persona he displays as a rapper.

While this crew attempts to rescue Stiller, Matthew McConaughey, Stiller’s agent, attempts to get him a Tivo on set. McConaughey brings his trademark drawl and good looks to a relatively small part, boosting the role from a nonentity to a rather humorous addition. As Stiller is rescued and the crew takes off McConaughey inexplicably shows up to save the day with a Tivo box set, a great scene for McConaughey.

Overall I quite enjoyed this comedy. I wouldn’t really want to see it again, but I think one viewing would be warranted for most comedy fans. The addition of my new favorite bit part player, Danny R. McBride, made me quite happy. And it’s always nice to see an actor rise from self-imposed ashes as Tom Cruise does here and restore a tiny bit of faith that one day I could enjoy a movie with him as a lead. But Tom, don’t test this newly minted trust – it is tenuous at best.

6 out of 10 – Stiller has helped his directorial resume with this quality outing, but stay behind the camera, friend. No one wants to see you in front of it.

Harold & Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay (Dvd) - Ashleigh

2008-08-12T19:30:00.000-04:00

Who knows why the first Harold and Kumar movie was decent? Was the concept of a movie about two guys going to White Castle just that great? Was Neil Patrick Harris’ cameo/comeback that unexpected? Was it the cheetah ride? I don’t know. But I do know Harold and Kumar’s second adventure fails in just as many ways as their first escapade succeeds.

The film begins just as the first film ends. Harold is about to follow his crush to Amsterdam so that he can profess his love for her, and score some legal weed while there. The pair pack and get to the airport. While on the plane Kumar lights up a unique bong, which is confused for a bomb and they turn the plane around. Robert Corddry plays a hot headed idiot who works for the government in some capacity and thinks Harold and Kumar are out to get the U. S. of A. Corddry then sends them to Gitmo as terror suspects. In an entirely idiotic and repugnant scene the two see a pair of detainees eat a “cockmeat sandwich” (b.j.) while doing so the detainees bite the guards penis off and run for the exit. Harold and Kumar see their escape and make for the United States. There story then zigzags in and out of ridiculous situation after ridiculous situation. In this montage they run into NPH again, an incestuous couple, and Christopher Meloni. Nothing new, really. They get out of the trouble they are in when they smoke a marijuana cigarette with George Bush and he decides they are “cool”. And they all live happily ever after.

I think one of the reasons the first film worked was its scope was unusually small. The saga took place in one night that just had a lot of crazy things going on while in route to a local White Castle. The sequel, on the other hand, was a cross country affair ending in Texas that took the better part of a week. The scale just seemed idiotically big. Also, some of the racial humor was sophomoric to the point that it lost any laughs. This was the case in a scene where Ed Helms interpreted for Robert Corddry between Harold’s parents, who spoke perfectly good English, and Corddy. As they shouted at the idiot in English Helms’ character claimed they were speaking gibberish. My last complaint was just the sheer volume of previously used material. There was even a sex scene with a giant bag of mary jane! Are their no new ideas?

3 out 10 – So reminiscent of the first film that it begs the question – “Why make a sequel?”

Drillbit Taylor (Dvd) - Ashleigh

2008-08-11T19:30:00.002-04:00

After seeing the trailer for this movie I had no desire to partake in Owen Wilson playing Owen Wilson with a bunch of kids. However, after a conversation with bosom chum and fellow blogger, Travis, I decided to take a chance. During said conversation Travis informed me that this movie was actually quite good, and that I should give it a try. I now curse his name for wasting precious hours of my life that I could have spent finding album artwork online for my Ipod!

First of all, I hate Owen Wilson. I’m not sure I have ever found the butterscotch stallion appealing in anything, with his “chill” vibe and broken nose looks he is the poor man’s Matthew McConaughey. I’ve never thought he could carry a film, and Drillbit is certainly not new territory for the golden haired jester.

The film’s story centers around three kids who are starting high school and are ruthlessly picked on by a bully who randomly chooses them as his punching bag. This bully is ridiculously brutal and Jennie and I found ourselves constantly guffawing at his unlikely antics. He made the boys pee on themselves, shoves them in lockers (does this actually happen to anyone?), and in one insane scene of gratuitous shenanigans he attempts to murder them by running them down in his car. They decide to hire a bodyguard and after some interviews they choose Drillbit. He follows the well trod road of the Hans Solo storyline as he uses the boys for cash at first, they find out – get pissed off, then Drillbit decides he should help them after all, and saves the day when the boys had given up hope.

There is very little to laugh at in this movie. It was difficult even getting through it. I feel a little bit betrayed by Seth Rogan, who helped write this, and Judd Apatow, who produced this. Couldn’t they tell this was a stinker? I ask this, but then notice that Apatow’s name appears in the credits of Will Ferrell’s bomb Kicking & Screaming (1995) which has a similar amount of stink in it. Apatow and crew really need to stay away from children. They seem to fail miserably when they try to make a non R rated film.

2 out of 10 – Owen Wilson fails… again.

Pineapple Express (Theatre) - Both

2008-08-07T17:50:00.004-04:00

Pineapple Express has had large quantities of press and almost every word of it has to do with pot. What kind of research did they do (the reporters ask this with a giggle usually associated with tweens and the latest Disney pop group), did they actually use the product in the movie (more giggles). These reports and interviewers then usually discuss this film with comparisons to stoner movies like Cheech and Chong or Harold and Kumar. I don’t see the reference at all. This film certainly has pot being smoked and drugs being referenced, but little to know drug influenced scenes. Harold and Kumar rode a cheetah. Ultimately, Pineapple Express was an action buddy flick more in the vein of Nothing to Lose (1997) but funnier.

Seth Rogan, again, plays himself. I’m fine with that. I’m not looking for Rogan to win any awards. He is a process server whose only distinction is his love of pot and his high school girlfriend. His dealer, affably played by James Franco, seems to like Rogan more than their current dealer/customer relationship allows. Franco gives Rogan his top stash while dealing the twigs and roots to his other customers; however Rogan simply views the two as business relations. When Rogan witnesses a murder while smoking Franco’s top stuff called Pineapple Express he throws the spliff out the window and drives off. The murderers know that someone was watching them and find the spliff with the rare weed. They then track the weed down to get rid of the witness. Illogically Rogan runs to Franco’s apartment informing him about what he witnessed and the two then run. I couldn’t find any motivation for Franco’s character to run with Rogan. He wasn’t really in any sort of trouble, but I guess that was Franco’s character’s personality. Just a friendly guy.

The film garners the most laughs in the beginning with subtle off camera adlibs, but as Saul, Fraco’s character, and Dale, Rogan’s character, reach Saul’s hook-up, Red, to find out if the murderers know who witnessed the killing the laughs come from well written dialog and physical comedy as well. Red, who is played by the fantastic new comer, Danny R. McBride, steals the show. His dialogue and delivery lend the movie its top laughs and his invincibility, which brings to mind Monty Pythonesc humor, keeps his character thankfully on screen.

Saul eventually gets caught after Dale informs them they are not friends and they part ways. Dale then figures out Saul was truly his best friend, and enlists Red to come and help him save Saul. They fail, yet succeed in a mundane action scene that ends with Red crawling out of the rubble of demolished building and the three go to a diner to cheer their friendship and react to each others wounds. This last scene goes on for a minute longer than it needs to, but has some fantastic dialogue from Red.

This movie certainly wasn’t a stoner movie. If anything I believe it would be worse when stoned, but being as I’m a square and have never hit the ganja, I’m not sure. I also believe that the scenes with his girlfriend were rather unnecessary. She was a cut out character. There were a few lines of dialogue that sprung from these scenes that were funny, but ultimately she didn’t need to be in the film. I also think the Asian gang was a little to stereotypical for my tastes. I got no humor from them.

7 out of 10: Not the best form the Apatow gang, but certainly better than the worst. I actually think this one is worth multiple viewings.

The X-Files: I Want to Believe (Theatre) - Jennie

2008-07-29T19:15:00.001-04:00

I’m not really the biggest X Files fan. I watched it when I caught it, but was never too enthusiastic about catching it. My wife, to my knowledge, is also only the smallest of casual fans. So why did she want to see it? I’m not entirely sure. Part of the reason had to do with it being the only five dollar movie we hadn’t watched and still wanted to see, but Jennie genuinely wanted to watch it. So with only an inkling of interest we sat down to view this film.

I had read that it was going to be a Monster of the Week (MotW) movie. To explain: some of the best X Files episodes I have seen had nothing to do with conspiracy theories and aliens, but simply highlighted a weird group of people, or a particularly interesting unexplained phenomenon. Mulder and Scully would investigate, get to the bottom of it, though sometimes the resolution was vague, and that would be that. These were dubbed MotW episodes, and as had been reported this film was just such a story.

Scully is approached by a federal agent inquiring about the whereabouts of the, now underground, Mulder so that he may be brought in on a case that had supernatural elements. The following two hours was a very procedural resolution to the case. Mulder and Scully slept together, told each other that they loved one another, but couldn’t act on that love, and eventually came to the conclusion that each of them, in the vaguest of terms, brought out the dark in each other. But other than the slight nods to the series this movie was simply an extended MotW episode.

What baffles me is – why bring the series back to the big screen for something like this? They aren’t trying to resurrect the series to my knowledge. This could have easily been shown on television as a reunion type special and many people would have been happy. And my speculation is that that is what this was supposed to be, but when Fox found out about it they thought they might be able to make some money off of it. But then why release it in summer. It certainly wasn’t the blockbuster popcorn selling edge of the seat thrill ride that summer movies are thought to be. It felt like a fall movie. I could have lengthy discussions on the release of this film, but ultimately I point the finger at Chris Carter.

4 out of 10 – an alright thriller with familiar characters. I’m not entirely sure why or how this movie even came to be, but there it is in all its mundane glory.

The Dark Knight (Theatre) - Both

2008-07-18T18:40:00.000-04:00

Many people have been talking about Heath Ledgers performance as the Joker. The internet has been hot with debate discussing if it will be the definitive version of what Wizard magazine once called the most horrific villain in comic books. The Joker has had many iterations throughout the years; he has been a childish prankster, a mastermind of Gotham’s criminal underworld, and even in one deranged moment of glee killed one of the many Robins floating around. I begin this review of the Batman movie by talking about the Joker because to put it simply this is not a Batman movie. It is a movie about the Joker and Batman is only a side character.

Remarkably, the writer/director Christopher Nolan allows the Joker to be a visitor dropped into Gotham with no back story. I applaud this open ended origin. I feared an origin story that granted humanity to the Joker. I feel that is one of the downfalls of Tim Burton's Joker. The Joker is twisted and foul, amusing and dangerous – extremes. There is no beginning. One of the beautiful little nuances of this character is the Joker’s story about how he obtained his scarred grin. Was it an abusive father? Did he do it to himself because of his disfigured wife? The mirror that the Joker provides in this film to his nemesis propels the action and the drama. The point I’m trying to make is that while Ledger’s performance is fantastic, the writing and story is equally artistic.

This film makes art out of a blockbuster. It still has blockbuster elements that degrade some of the more subtle moments, like the Batpod, or whatever it is called, whipping through the streets of Gotham taking out trucks and generally being ridiculous, but in that same sequence we see the Joker in all his sadistic glory simply climb out of the broken truck and maniacally approach the deadly vehicle in quite defiance. The film is almost all climax.

There is one glaring chink in the Bat armor. One thing that picks at my brain and makes me want to take the perfect rating from this almost perfect film. When Christian Bale dons the cowl and cape he brashly lowers his voice and whisper/screams his dialog rendering every scene with Batman conversing unintentionally comedic. It could be argued that Christian Bale is the best Bruce Wayne, but his Batman is certainly the worst.

Despite this glaring problem Nolan has done what very few, if any, could do – make art out of a commercial product. Much like Alan Moore did with the comic book itself, Nolan has achieved here – an example that a blockbuster could be both artistic and crowd pleasing.

10 out of 10: Near perfect film, with the acting and writing that can top most films, I fear a superhero movie will never be made that can better this.

Back to the Future Part III (Dvd) - Both

2008-07-13T19:00:00.002-04:00

See Back to the Future (Dvd) - Both for full review

6 out of 10: a rather episodic adventure for Marty and the Doc, but retains the feeling of the previous films.

Back to the Future Part II (Dvd) - Both

2008-07-13T17:00:00.004-04:00

See Back to the Future (Dvd) - Both for full review

7 out of 10: a relatively interesting look at the future with some heady time travel to keep the fun going

Back to the Future (Dvd) - Both

2008-07-13T15:00:00.005-04:00

In the world of movie trilogies I believe, for most people, Back to the Future (BttF) ranks somewhere in the middle. For me it ranks somewhere near the top. I was the perfect age for this to blow my young mind when I first watched it and to this day it holds a place in my heart as being the first set of movies I really could not wait to see as each installment came out. Granted I believe I watched the first one on VHS and caught the last two in the theatre, but still. Jennie had never seen these films so to catch her up on great eighties flicks we watched this on our bored Sunday afternoon. Ghostbusters is next!

The first BttF film still holds up with few glaring eighties moments. These don’t necessarily take away from the enjoyment of the film, but they do date the film. The story holds up as a unique and imaginative plot that reflects the creative decade in which it was made. The intricacies of time travel are dealt with in a theoretically logical way and an attempt at an explanation of time travel allows this movie the latitude to hold my disbelief. While the fact that Marty is lusted after and stalked by his mother may have been a risky plot device, the relationship is played with such delicate humor and innocent teenage angst by Lea Thompson that it is impossible to get too dirty with it. The tightrope that Bob Gale and Robert Zemeckis, the writers, walk is awe-inspiring compared with the clunky work of today’s blockbuster scribes.

By not taking the visual effects root and having time travel be an instantaneous blip the movie’s look and feel is only dated by Michael J. Fox’s hair and colloquialisms. The DeLorean still looks like a very cool way to travel through time, and overall the film is as exciting and fun as I had remembered it to be. This is an example of a good story with thoroughly imagined characters being able to hold up against time.

The saga continues with back to back sequels produced and written at the same time. Bob Gale sets up a myriad of dominos to topple as the series completes itself and finds satisfying ways in which to end the tale. I remember as a child liking the second film better than the third film as the second film actually went to the future. Doc explains at one point in time that he has always wanted to explore the future to see where mankind takes itself. This is in fact, why I would want to visit the future and thus my bias is reveled.

Now that I have seen it again I believe the second film is still my favorite but for an entirely different reason. The film has a relatively convoluted plot that twists in and out of itself and even into the first film. The second film holds to the trilogy doctrine as it is the darkest of the three, and this twisted dark tale is satisfying because of its refusal to take the easy road and be The Time Traveling Adventure of Marty and Doc. The third film, while entertaining certainly feels like just such an episode.

The future that is displayed in part two is a bright happy place with a color palette of extreme hues and synthetic clothing. While most of the technologies displayed in this vision are impossible and impractical I found the most glaring inaccuracy to be the clothing. Though I can’t help but think that is simply due to the hyper colors of the late eighties and early nineties bleeding into the clothing designer’s consciousness.

The third film seems to be a self contained adventure that features Doc and Marty in the old west. This isn’t to say that I would have enjoyed another film with Marty fixing 1955, so I guess this is the best that could have been, but I still find it somewhat episodic in nature. There are some lovely call backs to the previous films, some of which are glaring, while others are subtle. One that I feel I missed the first time round was in dark 1985 in which Biff rules Hill Valley as a casino lord he is seen watching a movie in which Clint Eastwood saves his life with a bulletproof vest in an old west shoot out. Tannen loves this at the time but his relative is then fooled in the third film by the very same trick when Marty defeats Buford Tannen. These subtle call backs are what really make this film fantastic as it feels like the adventure is truly a continuation.

I believe this trilogy stands the test of time relatively unscathed. Jennie seemed to really enjoy her first viewing and that is saying a lot as Jennie usually hates older movies (read older than 1995). I myself was completely entertained and was left wanting more as I feel all good movies do. I am glad they have yet to tarnish the honor by making a sequel recently as they have with Indiana Jones, but I anticipate somewhere in Hollywood is a young scribe who is penning the continued adventures of Doc and Marty as I write this, or, hush my mouth, a remake!

Back to the Future - 7 out of 10: still a great film that contains the fun and excitiment I still look for in my blockbusters

Back to the Future Part II - 7 out of 10: a relatively interesting look at the future with some heady time travel to keep the fun going

Back to the Future Part III - 6 out of 10: a rather episodic adventure for Marty and the Doc, but retains the feeling of the previous films.

Enchanted (Dvd) - Jennifer, Natania

2008-07-11T20:30:00.000-04:00

Jennie and I had already seen this movie when it came out in theatres last year, but since my sister and her four year old daughter were coming to visit we decided to rent this with them. So, this will be a short review.

This movie was originally brought to Disney as an R rated film that poked fun at its history. Obviously Disney didn’t like that, but thought the overarching themes were smart enough. The next couple of years brought revisions and cast changes until you get the homogenized version that they released as a vehicle to get the young girls to spend money on princess merchandise. Giselle isn’t really a princess, but the idea is floated about with a quick marriage to a prince, but she never actually marries him.

The songs in this film do remind me of the golden era of Disney musicals (i.e. Beauty and the Beast (1991), Aladdin (1992), Lion King (1994), etc.). They even retain some of the jabs that I’m assuming the R rated version was full of: as Giselle begins “That’s How You Know” Patrick Dempsey’s character questions how both singers know the song when in fact he has never heard the song before in his life, and Giselle, seemingly, has never met the man she is singing with. This sort of irreverent humor gives this movie its best moments, but they are few and far between.

The film has a paper thin girl empowerment message which seems forced. The Disney princesses aren’t really role models in any since of the word. They all seem to find trouble and need to be rescued by a man. With Giselle, Disney rectifies this idea by having her save Patrick Dempsey all while in a lovely purple evening gown. A girl has to look her best. And despite the anti-love message of the first half of the film they all live happily ever after in perfect marital bliss. I can only imagine how the R rated version ended.

5 out of 10: Disney is finally able to capture the magic of its previous musicals, but as always melts it down till there is only a shadow of originality.

13 going on 30 (TBS) - Jennie

2008-07-10T20:12:00.000-04:00

This should be a quick one. This is Jennie’s favorite movie. I’m not entirely sure why, but I have a feeling that it something to do with Jennifer Garner being Jennie’s favorite actor. She loves her. And this film is pure Jennifer Garner gold.

I actually don’t mind this movie. It has a nice little plot device, and gull darnit if I don’t love me a time travel tale! A quick summary is that a young girl gets made fun of at her thirteenth birthday party. She wishes she was thirty. It happens! Hilarity ensues. It’s Big (1988) but with a girl.

The film has some pretty good elements in it including one of my man crushes Mark Ruffalo. Don’t ask me why – he falls in with Ron Livingston (Berger from Sex and the City) as a mundane nice guy that I would most likely be friends with. Who knows – but, for some odd reason I always find myself wanting these guys to succeed. The film is pretty well written for a Romcom. This includes scenes where Jennifer Garner has to see a man naked (Gross!) and when she interacts with a girl who is thirteen:
Becky: I like your dress.
Jenna: That's because I have these incredible boobs to fill it out!
Garner is fantastic in this role. She plays the character with wide-eyed innocence that few could pull off. I dare say she even got the best of Tom Hanks with his role in Big, as I believe it would be harder to pull off a thirteen year old girl than a thirteen year old boy.

There are only one or two complaints I had. The first one is the fact that “young” Matt (Ruffalo’s character) is played by a somewhat chubby brown haired kid who looks nothing like Ruffalo, while the “young” Jenna Rink (Garner’s character) looks to be every bit the part. Maybe they didn’t know who the leading man was going to be at the time, but couldn’t they have reshot? I also find it frustrating that they gave Ruffalo’s character a fiancé. He basically cheats on his fiancé and then ends up marrying her because – well, I guess, that is what you do when you get older. You marry a person who you don’t really love. Wait. What? Really? I guess, Romcoms gotta have some sort of spur to action. Don’t worry she goes back to when she was thirteen and gets him back from that hussy fiancé of his.

4 out of 10: probably the best score a Romcom can get. Light and fluffy – empty calories.

Hancock (Theatre) - Both

2008-07-06T17:30:00.000-04:00

Will Smith is back to his July 4th blockbuster shenanigans once again. And as with his previous efforts this film smacks of mediocrity. It is inventive, interesting, and still somehow vacant.

The opening scene is boisterously ridiculous with a Michael Bay flamboyance - too much for me. It shows Hancock (Will Smith) drunkenly apprehend a cadre of thugs while showing that he is an asshole. This becomes a catch phrase ala Marty McFly’s dreaded nickname “chicken”. Don’t call Hancock an asshole or you will get what is coming to you.

This sort of lazy writing humbles this promising popcorn flick along with Will’s lackluster performance. However, along comes Jason Bateman’s P.R. character to save the day and the film. He befriends Hancock after being saved by him and works pro bono to build his rep. This is when the movie shines – Bateman is his affable self (I fear Bateman may be a one trick pony, but, oh - what a trick) playing against Smith’s cardboard cutout of a self-loathing man.

At this point in time the film has quite a lot of potential. The scene is set for a quality ending as Hancock rises to the occasion showing he is a worthy hero. This is until the small twist rears its ugly head. Every encounter Hancock has had with Bateman’s wife, played by Charlize Theron, has been filled with confused stares and glaring eyes. There is a history there, a lumbering gorilla in the room; these two mean something to each other. The film takes a detour on the way to becoming a hit as Theron throws Hancock through the room displaying her hidden superhero powers. Oh, my – what a twist!

This hack doesn’t completely ruin the film and on the positive side navigates around any attempt at creating a supervillain for Hancock to fight. However, I somehow disliked the addition. The film never really addresses the fact that Theron’s character could have been a superhero too, but chooses domestic life instead. They then simply avoid the fact that Theron and Smith obviously have an unrequited love, but she is married to Bateman. And the film ends on a horrible candy coated note that almost ruins the film entirely. I will be fascinated to get my hands on the disc and see what kind of alternate endings this film had (read: the endings before the homogenization). The garble of ideas that come after the twist do add to the story giving Hancock a background of sorts and allowing the leads to display some emotional growth, but I find it hard to swallow the incomprehensible mess that they force on the audience. I won’t say I hated it, because I didn’t, but I also can’t say I’d recommend it.

5 out of 10: I appreciate the novelty, and can see where it could have been good, but the second half betrayed the first half’s promise.

Wall-E (Theatre) - Both

2008-06-28T19:20:00.005-04:00

Pixar’s track record is something to be envied in Hollywood. They consistently create some of the most well rounded films in recent cinema. These films are humorous, touching, and beautiful, and Wall-e is no exception. The lovable robot tugs at the heart strings from the very moment you meet him. The film shines in its simplicity but this sheen is somewhat tarnished by a preachy message and sharp digs at an increasingly lazy public.

Wall-e’s brightest moments are uncomplicated bits played as classic Hollywood shtick. The first thirty minutes of the film contain no dialogue and a sparse soundtrack. The humor spills from a small robot that is left to clean up humanities mess. He happily goes about his job sifting through waste and collecting small items of interest: A lighter, a spork, a velvet ring box (Wall-e tosses the useless diamond inside the box away). This could have been the entire film. I would have watched it.

Eve, a newer slicker robot, comes to earth in search of plant life. She rudely rebuffs Wall-e’s curiosity and goes about her work. Slowly the two build a relationship and Wall-e is smitten. He shows her the fascinating things he has found while working and they marvel at these things together. This could have been the entire film. I would have watched it.

But, Eve then finds Wall-e has stashed a plant. Eve gets picked up by the ship that brought her to earth and as Wall-e attempts to rescue her he is taken to a spaceship floating in a far off nebula. This ship is an ark, so to speak, for humanity, and this is when the film stumbles.

Humans have become fat lazy slobs who haven’t walked in generations. Computers tell them where to go, what to eat, and when to sleep. Eve had been sent to earth to check if it was safe to come back. This raises questions, but I will hold off for a second. She delivers the plant, eventually, and the humans return to earth.

There were several problems I had with this film that stem from science. The first would be if humans had been inactive for generations it would be improbable that they would be able to use there bodies in any capacity, let alone walk off a space ship. Also, trash wouldn’t simply destroy all of life on a planet, and if it did, the damage would be irrevocable. And, I’m o.k. with pretending robots have emotions. It allows you to enjoy the film, but I find it very difficult to have a computer’s motherboard replaced, as Wall-e does at the end of the film, and have that robot retain its “memories”. Bah! Scrimshaw!

Additionally I hated that Pixar had Fred Willard live and in person in the film. Hated it! Pixar is animation. Period. Having a live actor in a Pixar film would be like if in Iron Man (2008) Pepper Potts was played by an animated character.

Despite these flaws I loved this film. I thought the humor in the film was simple and clean. The characters were as well rounded as two robots could be. And the first hour of the film was flawless.

7 out of 10 – Despite some tragic flaws Wall-e shines as a nod to classic comedy.

Fool's Gold (Dvd)

2008-06-21T19:00:00.001-04:00

In our continued effort to see all the Blu-ray DVDs blockbuster has to offer I bring you Fool’s Gold. This mundane film wastes an hour and a half of your time by combining How to Lose a Guy in Ten Days (2003) and National Treasure (2004). McConaughey and Hudson just seem to be here to get a paycheck, and why not? If I couldn’t spend a month in the Bahamas flirting and swimming I would. There is some inexplicable violence. There are some inexplicable boobs. McConaughey inexplicably can’t keep his shirt on for more then ten minutes.
I’m not sure what draws studios to make films like these, but I have a feeling they turn a fair amount of profit in that they can’t take a lot of money to make, and I’m sure you get some kind of return on your investment.
I just looked this up and they made 100 million off this movie, and that aint countin’ the DVD sales/rentals, so there is your answer.
If I were to compare this to something like 30 Dresses (2008) I would say this was pretty good. But that is setting the measuring stick pretty low. Hudson and McConaughey’s character’s motivations seemed interesting and diverse enough, but the other two main character’s motivations, played by Donald Sutherland and some unknown tart, were thoroughly confusing. They paid for an expedition to search for gold, with only McConaughey and Hudson’s word for it. Why would an affluent man do this? I’m sure he didn’t make his money by throwing it at harebrained schemes. And the tart, at first, seemed motivated by the thought of the shirtless McConaughey, who, as always, was playing himself. But by the end of the film Hudson and McConaughey were together while her motivation evaporated into thin air. So, while motivations were confusing at points the playful banter between McConaughey and Hudson were what kept this film afloat. I’m sure we shall be seeing this combo again, soon enough.

3 out of 10 – Not the worst Romcom I’ve ever seen… though that aint sayin’ much.

National Treasure (Dvd) - Jennie

2008-06-17T19:00:00.000-04:00

This should be brief. Jennie and I watched Nation Treasure 2 (2007) with her brother on Christmas break. She really enjoyed the story and the movie overall so I suggested that she would probably enjoy the original, and, since she had never seen it, we should probably check out Indiana Jones, as it is about a treasure hunting historian as well. As you know we watched the latest Indy flick and we weren’t too impressed with it, which inclined me to believe that perhaps I only loved Indy for nostalgia’s sake. This I have yet to confirm, though perhaps later this summer we will rent the earlier Indy flicks and cement my views.

As for National Treasure it was as good as I remembered it to be, which was only partially good. The film runs at a brisk pace till Gates is captured, but it quickly regains its footing after this slight tumble. The puzzles are somewhat fun and interesting, though somewhat historically inaccurate. I won’t argue with a film about a hidden revolutionary war era treasure though. Jennie enjoyed it a lot more than the recent Indy flick, and I have to whole-heartedly agree. This is what I wanted, or remembered, Indiana Jones to be: realistic, no aliens, no Mutt - fun. Maybe I remember Indiana Jones incorrectly, but as for recent adventures I choose Ben Gates over Indy anytime.

4 out of 10: A perfectly run of the mill adventure. Subtract one for Nick Cage being Nick Cage.

Resolved (HBO) - Both

2008-06-16T21:07:00.003-04:00

Jennie and I often find the doldrums of summer are a catalyst to some of the worst television has to offer. Simply look at the lineup of the networks: Celebrity Circus, So You Think You Can Dance, and America’s Got Talent. This forces us to the barren wasteland of our digital cable as we search for something to watch.

Why don’t we do something active? Read books? Play strip poker? Something? Who knows, get off my back.

This particular night we stumbled upon a documentary that has been making the festival circuits. Now, I would be hard pressed to say that a documentary about policy debate garners any of my interest, but for some odd reason I stayed on the channel and Jennie and I were treated to a fantastic little film. You may have previously read my thesis on documentaries as of late, so I won’t go into the manipulation I’m sure occurred in the presentation, but I truly felt for these “characters”.

The documentary focuses on two sets of debaters, one from a highly prestigious Texas school and another from an inner city California school. The film at first focuses on how debate has mutated to its current state that is a speed read (sp-read) contest to see who can up the body count till one team proves the other team’s solution will cost more to humanity. The two teams the movie focuses on use vastly different strategies from this, now common, strategy and are successful in varying degrees.

Greg Whiteley, the director, uses cartoons and celebrities to push along the agendas and describe the action as it unfolds. This method is used by many of the new documentaries and I find it to be a perfect way to keep one's interest in a particularly dull subject. The team from the inner city eventually stands out as the true heroes of this film as they mount an attack on policy debate itself. They believe that just winning trough shear volume of arguments read isn’t true debate. Their noble attack leads to the climax of the film which finds them confusing debate teams across California as they deconstruct the very act of debate. We cheered as the bewildered opponents shuffled their stacks of paper and grumbled that they couldn’t understand what was going on. But, as the Clash have taught us, if you fight the law, the law will win. And in light of this inevitability the team eventually falls, but it works for the film.

6 out of 10: Whiteley turns policy debate into movie magic!

The Happening (Theatre) - Jennie

2008-06-13T19:00:00.002-04:00

Halfway through this movie Jennie leans over to me and whispers, “This is supposed to be camp.” I thought about this for a second. In my mind this movie had been a train wreck: the horrible acting, the ridiculous dialog, the gruesome mutilations. And as Jennifer’s revelation washed over me I immediately got mad at the individuals responsible for this film’s advertisement.

The last film Shyamalan put out suffered from the same problem. Lady in the Water (2006) was fantastic children’s film. It was a little scary for the youngest set, but it was a new fairytale. The Grimm brother’s tales are just as dark and fantastic but we have heard them all many times. Shyamalan created the first true fairytale in years. I went into Lady in the Water expecting what was advertised, a film much like Shyamalan’s previous work, when I didn’t get it I turned on the film. Only after Jennifer and I were leaving the theatre did she explain what he was trying to do. And I realized what a great film and story he had created.

Fast forward a couple of years and Shyamalan’s new film is advertised as, “the directors first R rated film.” Dark stuff, right? Again, I went into the film expecting Shyamalan in his normal state, and again I hated it, till Jennie revealed the real twist. This is Shyamalan doing a 1960’s B movie. In the style of such B movies as They Came From Beyond Space (1967), The Terror (1963), or Attack of the Monsters! (1969) The Happening has a ridiculous horror attacking the protagonists. The advertising should have gone a little something like this:

(in a large flamboyant font each words spins in and spins out before the next word shows up)Horror!
Terror!
(woman shrieks)
Unimaginable Fear!
(show a shot of a massive crowd running and screaming)Voice Over: Stay indoors, keep close to your family, pray for mercy from
(the screen goes black)
The Happening
(pizzicato strings, close up on a woman screaming)

You get my drift. This film is over acted, Mark Wahlberg is hilarious. The dialog is completely over the top and comical. The gruesome suicides are frightening and entertaining. This is Shyamalan doing camp. And he does it well. After “getting it” I enjoyed myself thoroughly. Now, I know it is popular to bag on Shyamalan, but go into this film thinking it is camp and you will enjoy it. Shyamalan is original. In a summer filled with superheros, remakes, and adaptations The Happening is fresh. Enjoy it, because there aren't many originals out there anymore.

Spoiler Alert, there is no twist.

7 out of 10: I loved what Shyamalan was trying to do, he got me to like camp as much as I will, and that aint much.

The Mist (Dvd) - Both

2008-06-08T21:05:00.003-04:00

This is the forth Steven King adaptation for Frank Darabont. His previous works include The Shawshank Redemption (1994) and The Green Mile (1999). This leads me to believe he just found out that Steven King actually writes horror novels, but better late than never I guess. Darabont does a pretty good job with his first horror film allowing the horror to be human drama and not just blood and guts, which most horror films rely on these days. He also altered King’s original ending opting for a much grimmer finale.

This film quickly gets to the point. Ten minutes in and we are at our main set piece, a grocery store, and paranoia is brewing. The film is set in a small Maine town where a mist is quickly approaching after a particularly bad thunderstorm. At this ten minute mark a man runs into the grocery store alerting the principle actors to an unknown danger in the mist. The crowded store huddles in fear as the mist surrounds the now barricaded building. There is no further explanation as to why anyone should be afraid of this mist, but everyone buys into it and we begin our standoff. The group realizes, through deadly trial and error, that inhuman beasts inhabit the mist and any attempt to leave the store results in mutilation. The hysteria builds as a religious zealot claims the end is nigh, and converts soon begin to follow her. The level heads begin to plot an escape and while doing so find out that the beasts in the mist are inter-dimensional beings brought to earth through a dimensional-door opened by the military. This sounds ridiculous, but, frankly, I didn’t care. I went along for the ride, and was happy I did so. (On a side note: Turn off your brain sometimes and you will be pleasently surprised.) Eventually a group tries to escape the store and drive hoping they may find an end to the mist. The gas runs out and the survivors, realizing a horrible death awaits if they leave the car, take the quick way out. Since they only have four bullets and five individuals the male lead quickly murders the rest and exits the car screaming for the beasts to come.

This particularly grim ending is just one of the fantastic choices Darabont makes in this adaptation. King’s story ends with the survivors hearing one word out of the scrambled car radio, “Hartford.” They then head towards Hartford and the story ends. Darabont’s ending feels more realistic as it is missing the glimmer of hope. Darabont’s design crew also does an amazing job of making the fantastic creatures that inhabit the mist. My favorite shot in the movie happens as the band of survivors drive towards the unknown and a massive beast the size of a 10 story building walks out of the mist ignoring the small vehicle at its massive feet. On the flip side of the fantastic coin is Darabont’s ability to focus on the drama and horror of mob mentality. The religious zealot is able to be just as horrific and diabolical as the inter-dimensional beasts that rip people limb from limb. This isn’t to say Darbont’s film is perfect. The religious zealot is verbose and boarders on annoying at times. The mob seems all to willing to turn emotionally on a dime. And while the designs for the creatures were intense the effects crew did a particularly crude job in their execution of said designs. As a fan of Sci-Fi take my recommendation with a grain of salt. If you can’t believe in the fantastic don’t bother with this.

6 out of 10 – A satisfying Sci-Fi horror film that uses both human and inhuman horrors to tweak your nerves.

Untraceable (Dvd)

2008-06-04T21:00:00.000-04:00

Three to five years ago this would have stared Ashley Judd, but she has moved on to bigger and better things (like Bug (2006), I guess). So Diane Lane fills her sassy cop loafers to put away this particular bad guy, and this leads me to a discussion of the fate of 40+ actresses. They seem to be segregated to the waste bin of movies, left to play menopausal newly single mothers who need to learn to date again, over sexed fashionistas, or, as in this case, hard nosed cops. Other than the occasional role as Queen Elizabeth (any of them), or the portrayal of a mental disorder, the meaty roles are nowhere to be found. Hell, Cate Blanchett got nominated this year by playing a man! I posit this question, is it that no one wants to write these films? Or is it that no one sees these films? Or, is it something else?

Leaving that lofty question in the air I bring you down to this waste of marquee space. If you watched the trailer I’m sure you already know the entire plot sans one or two details. You already know Colin Hanks character dies, in what is an emotionally tough loss for the already frazzled Jennifer, played by Diane Lane. I’m sure you know that the killer is caught by his own hubris. I’m also sure you know that her family is somehow threatened, but ultimately o.k. This film is nothing new or even relatively interesting.

Why did we pick this up from Blockbuster then? Well, my wonderful wife got me a Playstation 3 for my birthday. If you are not familiar with these behemoths they are both a gaming system and a Blu-ray DVD player. When we went to the Blockbuster to pick out a movie this was one of the only ones in the meager selection of movies that we hadn’t watched in that format, and I wanted to see what the new system could do. Simply put, it can waste our afternoon with crystal clarity.

To continue, I also have a hatred for internet/computer films. I’m sure all professionals who see films about their professions think this, but they never get it right and end up sounding incredibly stupid.
“Oh no, the criminal hacked the kernel and concatenated hidden bits on the end of each program counter so the instruction cycle would print out to an IO and he would eventually be able to take over the assembly language!”
Guh. The writer of this script must have grabbed the latest copy of Interwebs For Dummies to type up this dialog. The movie going public doesn’t care; they wouldn’t know what you were talking about anyway. The only people that would know what you are talking about will hate you for failing to even get it close. On that note, the film also displayed a distinct hatred for the internet. It tried to make it look like a dark alley where predators stalk any who venture in.

I recommend that you quickly close this browser and shut down your computer. This movie thinks the web will kill you.

2 out of 10 – Thankfully, no one wants to watch this, so I don’t feel obligated to discourage you from watching it.

The Orphanage (Dvd) - Both

2008-06-02T21:02:00.001-04:00

I had heard very little about this film. I just knew it was a horror film and had been out around Lansing playing somewhere at some point in time. Being that Jennie is a horror buff I figured we would give this a shot. By the time I popped it in the DVD player I found out that Guillermo del Toro was presenting this film (I’ve never been sure what that even means) and that it was Spanish language film. So my hopes had reason from interested to anticipatory.

I was greatly disappointed. The film is about a family who moves into a now defunct orphanage. Laura, the mother, was previously a resident of this orphanage and the first scene depicts her as a child playing with her orphan chums. After she is adopted the movie jumps thirty years to when she arrives at the house with her husband and child. She has adopted a son who has a group of invisible friends and a secret. He unknowingly has aids, a secret his mother keeps from him. I only point this out because the movie initially makes a big deal about this in the first twenty minutes or so, but then drops it all together after the boy finds out about it. The purpose of the young child having this disease was lost on me.

I’m sure you can figure out what happens simply by hearing this set up, but I’ll give you the nickle tour anyways. One of the boy’s invisible friends actually ends up being the ghost of one of the Laura’s orphan friends. This ghost friend supposedly kidnaps the boy and the mother is then forced to search for her lost son. After six months the father gives up looking while the mother swears ghosts have her child. In her search she finds out that right after she left the orphanage after being adopted the orphans accidentally killed one of their own. In an act of vengeance a worker at the orphanage kills all of the remaining orphans (the original murdered orphan was her child – I ask, then why was he at an orphanage? Who knows.). And, in my opinion, Laura surely would have heard of this massacre when she purchased the old orphanage but she seems unaware of it. Laura solves the decades old murder case and is then given the key to finding her lost son by the now happy ghosts.

I can’t tell you how much I hate this style of horror film. Do dead children always come back to have other people help solve their murder cases? There are so many movies out their like this, The Others (2001), Stir of Echoes (1999), the Ring (2002), must I go on? I figured since this was a foreign film this might be different. Maybe outside of America there is some originality.

3 out of 10 – Nothing here is original, it isn’t even that frightening. Though if your child is murdered fear not, he or she will eventually help solve their own murder case.

Lars and the Real Girl (Dvd) - Jennie

2008-06-01T20:00:00.000-04:00

This quaint romantic comedy is propelled by a role that Ryan Gosling disappears in and some very dark comedy. It revolves around a small town’s acceptance of Lars’ new girlfriend who just happens to be a life-sized sex doll.

Gosling plays Lars as a joyful yet reserved hermit who has lost the ability to be comforted by touch. After a coworker introduces him to Real Dolls, which is a company that creates plastic ultra realistic sex toys, Lars orders one and begins a delusion that she is real and has come from a foreign local to be his girlfriend. His sister-in-law in a desperate attempt to connect with the emotionally and physically distant Lars accepts this delusion and forces Lars brother, her husband, to go along with the ruse. Gosling’s Lars seems genuinely delusional and as the brother accepts that he will have to live with Lars’ mental issue he begins to ask the town to play along as well. This acts as the meat of the plot and it plays like an episode of the Gilmore Girls.

The small town seems to love the crazy Lars and go so far as to give his fake significant other a job, cut her hair, and party with her. In one particularly foolish scene the man-made female sits in front of a gaggle of children with a tape player on her lap as she “reads” them a story. An on looking adult smiles pleasantly as the children stare at the expressionless sex toy. I say this plays like an episode of the Gilmore Girls because the whole town seems in on it without any animosity. They joyfully dance with her at a birthday party, they keep a schedule of her activities, and the doctor treats her ailments. The deceptively cute Kelli Garner eventually pulls Lars back into the real world and provokes the climax in which the town throws a mock funeral for Lars’ now deceased toy.

I was pleasantly surprised that Nancy Oliver, the writer, didn’t fall for the usual trappings that accompany plots like this. There was never any ill will towards Lars by some angry-for-no-reason punk kid. The brother, despite not liking the game, plays along the whole time and never forces Lars to quit. I feel these things were obvious roads to travel down, but she didn’t take them. It did take away from the realism, but that is a casualty I was willing to suffer. I also have to add that Paul Schneider, who played the brother, did a fantastic job and should be called on more often then I am aware of.

6 out of 10 – a relatively harmless romantic comedy that timidly breaks the mold.

Sex and the City (Theatre) - Both

2008-05-31T19:45:00.001-04:00

It appears this film was an event to some. Jennie and I witnessed a fanboy (girl) opening night like that of Lord of the Rings. Woman came to the theatre in sequined gowns and floppy hats. Some had glow in the dark martini glasses while others sported shiny footwear unlike anything I had ever seen. Large groups of women from fifteen to seventy put on their most club worthy attire in an effort to out do their compatriots. It was a sight to behold. While Jennie was unusually excited, I myself was only somewhat. It’s not that I don’t love Sex and the City, I do. I even said to Jennie that I would rather Sex come back on air then anything I could think of at the moment (this includes Arrested Development, Seinfeld, and Sportsnight). But, I wasn’t entirely sure that Sex and the City was movie material. It was prime time material for sure, but a movie could be big and obnoxious, and that was not the Sex and the City I loved. My favorite episodes were the ones were everyone was dating some tragically flawed individual, then they would have sex and break up, no muss no fuss. That couldn’t be movie material.

After watching the movie however, I said to Jennie, “That was like watching six episodes in one sitting,” I was quite pleased. They begin the movie with the inevitable wedding between Big and Carrie. This was what I expected. Obnoxious, big, outlandishly expensive, in short every thing I hated in Sex in the City in one bird headed mess. Carrie looked horrible in her dress, not just horrible, but silly. The fashion shoot for Vogue looked ridiculous; Sarah J.P. could never be mistaken for attractive. And Big got cold feet, but as the tamer died down and Carrie went on her honeymoon with her three friends the movie also became present to me. They had set up some fantastic storylines for the remainder of the movie and I anticipated their resolutions. Before I get to those I can only say that I felt Charlotte’s storyline was a lackluster. She berthed a child, yeah. That was about it. Though now that I think about it, her yelling at Big and being angry at him felt like a subplot for her. But when you compare it to Steve cheating on Miranda I feel Charlotte got the short end of the drama stick.

Speaking of Miranda and Steve – I loved this story most of all. I hated that they had Steve cheat, but they gave him a good enough reason. I’m not saying he is justified in cheating, but any prolonged time without sex can hinder a relationship. As Samantha said in one of the episodes, “Sex is a barometer for the relationship.” The emotion in that story was well played by both actors. But I think their resolution was what I enjoyed the most. They wrote that with extreme delicacy and treated the violation between Steve and Miranda with very realistic solutions. However, I juxtapose this with Big and Carrie’s resolution. I was not entirely happy with how they treated Big’s “violation” (I secretly feel he had very little blame in the whole thing. I could discuss that more, but only if you are interested). Their resolution seemed like a quick oh-no-we’ve-already-spent-two-hours-on-this fix. He asks her to marry him right after they resolve his violation? If they would have spent half the time on their resolution as they did with Steve and Miranda I might have been happy, but oh well. You can’t always win. Jennie thought that the audience just wanted them together to get it over with. Which sounds sort of right to me.

A few quick notes before I wrap up. I thought that they played Charlotte’s mess herself scene a little too slapstick. I could have done without all the fart noises. I loved the addition of Carrie’s assistant, though she came and went a little too quickly. And I thought Samantha story was well done except they played Smith too nicely. Overall, as a fan of Sex and the City I was pleasantly surprised. We will defiantly be buying this as it seems like a short seventh season, but I can’t recommend it for none fans. I would have no clue what you would think of it.

7 out of 10 – it was exactly what I wanted, another season.

The Strangers (Theatre) - Jennie

2008-05-30T19:30:00.004-04:00

I would be hard pressed to write this review without taking into account the experience Jennie and I had at the theatre while watching it. We had gone to see the Sex and the City movie but were idiotically surprised when it was sold out to overdressed overaged fans – more on that in the Sex and the City review. So we purchased our tickets for a Saturday showing of Sex and picked up tickets to see The Strangers instead. This ended up being the best thing we could have done. The theatre was packed with high school kids abuzz as young dating couples made idle chatter and text messages flew. This made Jennie and me antsy and feel somewhat claustrophobic. As the film started the noise subsided and the theatre grew dark. We heard a loud thump and someone shout out, “Oh, shit,” in a mundane cry for help as they fell to the floor. The theatre blew up in laughter as the patron picked himself up and hurried out of the theatre. After twenty minutes the customer came back saying audibly, “That shit hurt my knee!” to another roar of laughter. Throughout the viewing the audience participated yelling at the screen, “Oh. Shit. Girl, get out the house!” or explaining what was happening on the screen, “Them were some footsteps.” At some moments the audience screamed in fear and in other moments mocked the dialog. This made the film as enjoyable as it could have possibly been and I feel it has affected my view of the film.

From what I remember this film was a typical murder-for-no-reason horror film that dragged on for a little too long. I hate Liv Tyler and this movie didn’t help that view. Her tepid performance enticed me to root for her character’s departure. I do have to mention that I love that Glenn Howerton, Dennis on It’s Always Sunny, made a cameo though it was extremely short lived. The writing was on par with the rest of the genre, and continues the trend in horror films that Jennie and I love – everyone but the murderers die in the end. The direction was nothing to remember, but I will admit that if a sequel came out I would go see it - but only on opening night.

5 out of 10 – I feel you have already missed the window for this film to be enjoyable, but if you can watch it with a boisterous crowd, go for it. If not, then subtract two or three points.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (Theatre) - Ashleigh

2008-05-24T19:45:00.010-04:00

I will reveal significant plot points in this blog. So don’t read this if you don’t want it spoiled.

Aliens? Aliens. Ok, I know searching for the Holy Grail and the Ark of the Covenant is similar to searching for an alien skull in that they are fantastic artifacts. I know. I won’t pretend to argue that. But Jesus didn’t resurrect in front of Indy’s eyes when he drank from the cup. It was never even debated that Jesus himself drank from the cup. It was simply an artifact that someone hid very well in a cave with an invisible bridge so that few could find and retrieve it.

Hmm, invisible bridge – ok, that seems pretty out there too.

Shoot – well, maybe I shouldn’t be so harsh on aliens – I mean, Indiana Jones has never really brought stark realism to the screen. Technically, when a man’s heart can be pulled from his chest magically, I think I should be able to make the jump to aliens. But I couldn’t. When the alien came to life and gave Cate Blanchett her wish I left the world of Indy. I know lampooning George Lucas is a popular thing, but he makes it incredibly easy, not to mention necessary. He knew it was a “controversial” decision, "We're all going to get people throwing tomatoes at us. But it's a fun movie to make,” and I guess he wanted to have fun. But I have to say, I don’t fully understand where Lucas get’s his masochistic tendency to destroy his legacy, but he seems to love doing it.

I also won’t stand here and preach the Gospel of the past Indy films. As the Doobie Brothers are with Jesus – Indy is just alright with me. So this didn’t destroy any childhood that I had.

As a Hollywood blockbuster I can say I was entertained. I can’t say I was impressed with all the action scenes, when Blanchett and Hollywood's new hard-on Shia Labeouf sword fought on cars I could see the green screen. In this day and age that is inexcusable. I don’t care if you are trying to be consistent with your previous films. But the journey to the interdimensional alien spaceship was alright. I know this may sound crazy, but I think National Treasure 2 (2007) achieved more and enthralled me in its journey to unknown plunders better. So, I guess go rent that instead of spending ten bucks to see this.

5 out of 10: Indy is still alright with me – though barely.

Oh and I wanted to post this last time but I forgot. This ran in front of Prince Caspian. I have no words, hopefully you do...

The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian (Theatre) - Both

2008-05-16T20:10:00.006-04:00

I’m not really sure what to think of the Chronicles of Narnia. Are they going to make more movies? Are they going to complete the saga? Can they even try? If they do that will make for an awkward fifth and sixth movie (These two are substantially different to the other books as they don’t have any of the Pevensies children in them and jump backwards into the timeline of what has occurred in Narnia already). If not, why should I continue to follow the saga? These answers are not simple ones. They have much to do money and how the other films fare. But as history has taught us the Chronicles have fared much like the big screen adventures of Don Quixote, a book that is notorious for being impossible to bring to film. The BBC first attempted the chronicles in 1967, but they only made it four novels in. Then in 1984 London's Westminster Theatre attempted the run and again only made it four books in. So, I believe the feat of bringing the chronicles to film is an impossible one. This puts a damper on my desire to continue watching these movies. I can’t really figure out why though. I think it has something to do with knowing that I will not be able to complete the journey with these characters and thus I don’t care where they go.

With this underwhelming intro I hopefully put you in the mind frame I was in when watching this. The movie opens in the Telmarine’s capitol where a child is born to someone. This causes a flourish of activity including an assassination attempt of someone. Jennie and I were sort of lost at this point and I felt that way till about an hour in. I believe if they would have kept C.S. Lewis’ story telling device this confusion may have been avoided, he opened the novel with the Pevensies children coming to Narnia – the events of the past 1300 years were then summed up by a dwarf named Trumpkin including the movies opening scenes. But the way the movie opened caused Prince Caspian and much of his character’s motivations to seem confusing. Why would he be fine with talking animals when he has never seen a talking animal and knew of them only through fairy tales? Why would he join Narnia’s fight so readily? Why didn’t he have control of his kingdom? He certainly seemed old enough. I could go on, but I feel that would be boring.

To continue, I felt the film also felt compact. Much like the Harry Potter films, I feel the chronicles tried to have too much story crammed into the three hour run time. A particular scene I could have done without is the temptation of Caspian to revive the white witch. It simply didn’t need to be in the film. It didn’t advance anyone’s story nor did it cause any real character development. There was a reason Peter Jackson was successful while translating the Lord of the Rings to film, he knew where to cut the fat. Sure, Tom Bombadil was one of my favorite character’s in the trilogy, but he wasn’t necessary. This is a lesson I feel the Narnia crew could learn from.

I also feel that an epic battle sequence with no bloodshed is ridiculous. I know they had to contractually keep the film to a PG rating, but come on. If you swing a sword at a man and make contact I would think there should be some sort of blood. Or should children be misled into thinking violent swordplay has no consequence?
Oh, the other way gets them a better rating?
Screw the kids, they’ll figure it out.

Unlike the last film I reviewed I did buy the magic here. This is essential to the enjoyment of the film. If you can’t turn off your brain for a film about a magical world with talking lions then I fear this is not the film for you. I enjoyed the talking animals with their warrior abilities to kill a man without shedding a single drop of blood – this is a world I can believe in. This also lead to a fantastic discussion after the movie between my wife and I about whether or not we would like the ability to talk to animals. I was completely against it citing the fact that I enjoy eating animals too much and hearing them talk would put a damper on the situation. Jennifer on the other had declared that she would become a vegetarian if this fantasy were at all possible. To this I replied that she would have to become a vegan, because she couldn’t just go up to a talking cow and take her milk, nor could she take enough milk to make cheese with - let's not even discuss fried chicken babies with a side of pig flesh. To this Jennie replied that this was an incorrect assumption because she would be friends with the cow and she would ask it for some of the milk and it would readily give her its bounty. This, I assured her, would not solve the problem as obtaining milk would be too hard for the masses and the milk could not be processed properly thus distorting the taste of the milk. Jennie replied that she simply wanted a talking cow friend which I could not argue with.

5 out of 10: I will not remember this film experience after a month or two. Good thing I write these things.

Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium (Dvd) - Jennie

2008-05-11T16:07:00.007-04:00

I enjoy Harry Potter. I love the magical realm that his world is built around. When I was younger my favorite movies were Labyrinth (1986) & Never Ending Story (1984). So, I have magical credentials. I’m not some fussbudget that can’t get into a magical story. But this film hinged on the ability to accept the fact that a store could create magical fun, and this wonder and awe was not created by the film’s director. Helm, who directed this train wreck and wrote Stranger Than Fiction (2006), did not get the viewer to retreat to the magical world the film was set in and thus the story seemed ludicrous and childish. Now, I understand that this film was for young children, but even films like Zathura – A Space Adventure (2005) got me to become part of that world while watching. I guess I was supposed to feel excitement when a room completely filled with bouncy balls was depicted, but I just didn’t buy it. I guess I was supposed to be amazed when Portman picked a red fire engine out from a book and the real thing appeared from nowhere, but who cares. I guess I was supposed to – well, I’m not sure what the zebra was doing there, but I didn’t feel anything about it either.
The acting itself was blandly stifled much like the magic. With stars like Bateman, Portman, and Hoffman I would have expected more, but I guess they figured out what a misstep this would be and quit trying. Hoffman was annoying to witness choosing to have his character lisp and seem child like in everyway possible. And I usually root for the child who is the outcast in films like these. I remember watching Never Ending Story and thinking. “I hope Bastian gets away from these bullies and wins the day,” or whatever eight year olds think. But Zach Mills, who plays Eric, was irretating. I did not want him to succeed in anything he did.
The emotional center of the film hinged on the fact that we believed in the store, its' magic, and most importantly ourselves. These beliefs helped the store restore its magic after its founder dies. It also helped me die a little inside. This is the second most played out message in kid cenema today behind believe in your friends – I fear for this next generation of children.
This movie was an overall disaster, from its played out friendless protanganst to its over zealous five year old store owner. I can’t tell you how bad it was.

1 out of 10: There is nothing redeaming about this.

Iron Man (Theatre) - Ashleigh

2008-05-11T13:10:00.003-04:00

Let’s get this out of the way – I know the bad guys were the horribly racists “cave dwellers of middle eastern descent”, I know their were gratuitous millionaire playboy antics that were just plain sexist (see the scene on the plane where the flight attendants danced on a pole), and I know the product placement was shoved in your face by the director enough that I wanted a Whopper after the movie. I know all these things. I’m not going to argue that they didn’t occur. Nor will I say that they didn’t hurt the film (I mean come on, a video with Stark being hooded and having gun wielding men video taping him as they screamed at him in an eastern dialect – Jennie almost wanted to walk out of the theatre), but even with these flaws I am happy to say this summer has started off with a resounding explosion. After the film, while watching the credits role so I could catch a glimpse of S.H.I.E.L.D. leader Nick Fury, I told Jennie that I thought this film reinvigorated the waning superhero genre. I felt like I did when I watched Spider-Man websling through New York City. I must admit I wasn’t expecting this.

Iron Man isn’t really my kind of superhero. I mean, how can you root for a millionaire lord of war? Tony Stark certainly isn’t the everyman. Robert Downey Jr. however brings so much of his charisma to the role that they are one in the same. Downey actually is credited with some of the more memorable Stark moments as he adlibbed the speech he gave while showing off the Jericho and he told the director that Stark should sit on the floor during his return press conference. Downey actually allows you to enjoy Stark as a character. This is certainly to the film’s benefit and it renews a past love of Downey as an actor for me.

The film much like it’s subject has a glossy outer shine that you expect from multimillion dollar bill, but at its core is human. The story is not overshadowed by the effects or the action sequences. The film, when broken down, is about a man who comes to a realization that he has been an accomplice to mass murderers and must atone for that sin. This is why this film is such a success. Also important is that Jon Favreau brought the fun back to superhero movies with brisk action scenes that take up very little of the film and focuses more on the elation of being superhuman and Downey’s perfect performance.

I know some films promote themsleves as “the most fun you can have at the movie theatre” which is something I never really get. But in my estimation this is one movie that comes very close to justifying this expression. It is a great expreince to be had while munching on overpriced popcorn.

9 out of 10: This is what summer movie going is all about. Is the April 29, 2010 midnight showing of Iron Man 2 sold out yet? Cause I am there.

Forgetting Sarah Marshall (Theatre) - Both

2008-04-22T19:05:00.006-04:00

Judd Apatow is a man that can get things done – now. Back in early 2000 when he was trying to keep his television show about siblings growing up in Chippewa, Mi on the air this was not the case. Today things are vastly different, though his friends are not. With this power to get things done Apatow has had any and every film he and his friends can think of green lit and made into critically loved films. Seth Rogan put together Knocked Up (2007) and Superbad (2007) with help from Apatow and now Jason Segel is getting his Apatow-boost. These Freaks and Geeks alums aren’t alone; this August James Franco is getting his with the buddy flick The Pineapple Express (2008).
In this film Jason Segel plays a lovelorn loser that resembles his Freaks and Geeks role. He is dumped by his girlfriend of six years and decides to take a vacation to get his mind off things. The scene in which he gets dumped is particularly hilarious in that Segel is naked throughout the whole scene. He attempts to stall the breakup by not getting dressed which further humiliates him as he is then subsequently dumped while flaccid (a fact that is shown multiple times). This humiliation is not his last as Segel’s character garners many of his laughs from his degradation. The shining moment is when Segel plays a song from his incomplete Dracula musical. This scene is particularly funny and well played by Segel as a crowd looks on with confusion.
The key to most of Apatow’s projects are raunchy humor and a secret ingredient. Films like Waiting (2005) and Good Luck Chuck (2007) have raunchy humor and don’t understand this so they fail. Apatow knows that good humor is real (for lack of a better term, “it has heart”). I don’t know how else to put it. But I see it in every one of Apatow’s projects. Knocked Up had true soul searching in Rogen’s character as he struggles to quickly grow up, Superbad had a friendship that felt genuine and faced the trauma of a separation after high school, and Sarah Marshall has a breakup with real substance. The two protagonists both do things to ruin the relationship they have spent six years on and this is devastating. This film doesn’t pretend it isn’t, but it finds the humor in this devastation.
While I can’t say this is my favorite of the Apatow’s Crews’ flicks I must say they are operating on a different level than the Frat Pack of the early 2000s. And while Jason Segel isn’t a leading man – he just isn’t, I can’t help but fall for the old Andopolis charm.

7 out of 10: Segel gets humor out of real life a feat which is both hard and rewarding for the audience.

21 (Theatre)

2008-04-22T08:12:00.004-04:00

With a keen eye and knowledge of my blog readers will notice this entry doesn’t have a who wanted to watch it and the explanation on that is that no one really wanted to watch it. We wanted to go to a film and there was nothing else on. So, Jennie, Vamsi, and I decided on this bland film that claimed the top spot for two weeks in a row (a hard feet in this movie-of-the-week world).
Early spring is a wasteland for the movie going public. Studios seem to drop films here when they didn’t pan out as ideas, or maybe they weren’t Oscary enough for an Oscar run, or they didn’t have a big name star to anchor them. Films like Daredevil (Feb. 15, 2005), Failure to Launch (March 12, 2006), Disturbia (April 13, 2007) aren’t really expected to do very much – maybe they can hold the audience over till May kicks the movie going season into full swing, maybe they can’t – who cares. But movie studios neglect the early spring. This is the only explanation for a film like Disturbia to be the only movie last year to hold the top box office spot for three weeks in a row – the only one. In that tradition I bring you 21.
This film is about a poor kid who happens to go to MIT and wants to go to Harvard medical school after he graduates, every financially handicapped kid’s dream. Kevin Spacey notices him in a class as being particularly bright, again the kid goes to MIT, and enlists him in his gang of cronies who go to Las Vegas on the weekend to make money. They aren’t doing anything illegal – just counting cards. They teach Ben, played by a forgettable Jim Sturgess, how to count cards, a talent he already seems to know, and he rises in the ranks to become head crony. One of the gang is jealous of him, one is attracted to him, and one is a stereotype Asian guy. The jealous one gets mad and then gets kicked out, the one attracted to him gets laid and befriends him, and the Asian stereotype does what stereotypes do. Kevin Spacey turns on them, then they turn on Spacey – Ben gets to go to Harvard Medical. Nothing really stands out. In the spring wasteland this movie becomes a hit, if it were released against any other competition this film would be seen by Jim Sturgess’ parents and forgotten, but in the 2.99-bin-next-to-the-gas-station-register that is spring this movie is box office gold.

4 out of 10: your two hours and three minutes could be spent doing something else, so do so.

Smart People (Theatre) - Jennie

2008-04-18T20:00:00.003-04:00

Noam Murro hasn’t directed before, Mark Poirer hasn’t written any other film – according to IMDB this film is the fledgling ship for both of these artists. So, why does this film feel so familiar? In the landscape of Hollywood today most films can be categorized pretty easily: big budget blockbuster, chick flick, raunchy comedy, and charming “indie” just to name a few. This falls so squarely in the latter’s category that I know I have watched this film before. The struggling college professor who must raise his children despite having no clue how to, the hip child who doesn’t know how hip she is, and the icing on this cake of déjà vu – Thomas Haden Church playing an overgrown child who bares his ass for laughs. Didn’t he play this same exact character in Sideways sans the middle school mustache? Despite this being a fairly entertaining film I found myself disappointed by its lack of flavor. I laughed at most of Church’s Man-Child antics, Dennis Quaid sold me on his beleaguered father shtick, hell, even Ellen Page’s rightwing incestuous student seemed fleshed out and real. I’m not sure what I was expecting. This was exactly the film anyone could have guessed would come out of this premise, but for a first film, how can this seem so rehashed?
I also have problems with the idea that all professors of English are depressed while maintaining a delightfully introspective hermit quality. Examples abound: The Squid and the Whale (2005), Wonder Boys (2000), even Sideways (2004) contained an English teacher who couldn’t get his career off the ground. This theme runs rampant in literature as well – John Irving comes to mind. Were all our English professors in college mollycoddled sourpusses? Mine certainly wasn’t. Though, as I think about it now I can understand the impetuous for such characters. I don’t know many English majors who focus on writing and want to become English teachers. No, they want to become writers. Thus becoming a teacher is settling, and writing about how they settled is more interesting than anything else that has happened in their life thus far. Well, I guess I changed my mind. But I still have a problem with it. Can these people only write about their life experiences?
Anyways, back to the film (warning: big spoiler here), the end completely pissed me off. For some odd reason they had Dennis Quaid impregnate Sarah Jessica Parker’s character – this was an annoying plot device in the first place. The two wanted to work with this development and so they get back together in the closing seconds of the film… uh… yeah. The most confusing and thus annoying thing about this was they showed shots of Quaid happily handling a child in the closing credit – ok. But, then, in the last shot they showed him cradling two children, one a baby girl, one a baby boy… she had twins! Yup, after a relatively well written albeit unoriginal film they end with a sitcom quality twist, maybe in real life that is what happened and as we all know English professor can’t write about anything but what they know.

6 out of 10: a humorous film for those that enjoy beards, butts, and books though it was bleakly bland.

Leatherheads (Theatre) - Both

2008-04-06T19:05:00.003-04:00

George Clooney creates yet another love letter to the golden age of film in this simple story. With slapstick gags, miscommunication with humorous results, and a feisty relationship between to female and male protagonists I half expected this film to be set in black and white with stalk cards providing the dialog. I’m sure some enjoyed it, but to me, Clooney is loosing his charm. I hate to admit that. He seems cocky not confident, pushy not charming, I no longer want what he is selling. Clooney wants to sell me on the idea that a woman is only good if she can make it in a man’s world as a woman with a man’s attitude. He wants me to believe that fooling the police by dressing like a policeman is funny. It isn’t. It isn’t even entertaining really. These jokes don’t work anymore for a reason. We aren’t watching moving pictures for the novelty. Charlie Chaplin don’t cut it in my book. This is what I feel Clooney misunderstands or if he does understand it he wants to lead the charge back to making these things funny. Clooney and Soderbergh make yet another misstep in predicting that Clooney’s charm is limitless and can hold anything together.

4 out of 10: John Krasinski gives a worthwhile performance in this Clooney smarmfest though it isn’t nearly enough to be worth it.

The Ruins (Theatre) - Jennie

2008-04-04T21:00:00.004-04:00

Horror movies recently have lost their identity. The torture-core of the last couple of years is dying down as are the Japanese imports. Every once in a while we will get one or the other, but overall horror movies are a drift in a sea of PG-13 schlock. Take the future release Prom Date; it seems to be about a very nondescript stalker who terrifies a young girl on prom night. Nothing pulls me in – and it is rated PG-13, how can horror movie be rated PG-13? In a year or two there will be a movie that reignites the genre, but for now I feel we are to be satisfied with remakes and weak fair that will please the public at large with their low rating.
The Ruins feels like a simple attempt to do something – certainly not reignite the genre –but something. Much like Turistas (2006) this film starts with a semi-attractive group of college-aged kids who ventured to the southern Americas in search of spring break fun. They meet a German who informs them that his brother knows of a temple that is not marked on the maps and that they could join him in a hike to this temple if they wanted to see something special. They oblige him and make their way to the temple. The temple turns out to hide a secret… Man Eating Plants! This does sound silly, I know. In fact, if I had to stop and think about the film, while I was watching it, I might have had less fun, but that was the monster – a plant that ate humans. Luckily this film doesn’t really give you time to stop and think about the preposterous nature of this fact. It keeps a brisk pace and throws up distractions such as an amputation without anesthetic and a search for a cell phone that is hidden in the dark recesses of the temple. The plants also have the ability to mimic speech, which, at the time, seemed like a perfectly normal thing for a man-eating plant to do, but now that I am writing this I feel somewhat stupid to be ok with it. They even gave an explanation that satisfied me (something about the plant being able to vibrate its flowers to a pitch that sounded like a human’s voice). Now, don’t get all persnickety with me and judge my ability to loose myself in a movie. Though, I am doing that as I write this. I dare you to watch this and not believe that a plant can fool humans into thinking that a cell phone is ringing with its flowers. Curse, even my defense sounds bad. Well, let me get out of this with some dignity and say that though this film's premise was laughably impossible the writer and director do a good job at throwing diversions at the audience to keep them from thinking to much about the situation.

5 out of 10: successful on some level – in that, I was entertained, but if you can’t turn off your mind for an hour and a half don’t bother.

Gone Baby Gone (Dvd) - Both

2008-03-25T21:00:00.004-04:00

I have picked this movie up from Blockbuster at least two times. Jennifer and I could never bring ourselves to watch it. I’m not really sure why, but I think it has to do with the same magical force that does not allow us to watch all of our tivoed episodes of Law & Order. I think you just have to be in the mood for a crime drama.

The remaining paragraphs contain major spoilers so don’t read it if you don’t want the ending or the plot revealed, but then go watch it. It is certainly worth the four dollar rental charge.

Gone Baby Gone is a tale told in two acts. The separation from each act is so clean that it is almost two distinct tales. Kenzie (Casey Affleck) is a straitlaced private detective in a suburb of Boston, Mass. He is hired by the aunt of a young girl who has been kidnapped. The mother of the girl, the deservedly Oscars nominated Amy Ryan, replays her view of the kidnapping. This tale involves child negligence and indifference to the girls well being, she is presented as a wholly unfit mother. While pursuing the kidnapped child Kenzie joins forces with the detective on the case, Remy (Ed Harris). The two uncover a drug trafficking ring which the young girl’s mother seems tied to and they attempt to retrieve the girl. This plan goes sour and the first act ends with the victims death. As the second act progresses it slowly is revealed that Remy, the detective on the case, and the Uncle of the girl, played the by fabulously mustached Titus Welliver, are somehow tied to the kidnapping and the act of the victims botched retrieval was a lie. The little girl is still alive – hidden from the public. This kidnapping was never a drug-related act but an uncle’s act of salvation for the young girl. The uncle believes that the child would be better off outside of the mother’s reach. These details give the audience a dilemma and as Affleck’s character draws closer to the girls location the audience is seemingly forced to make a choice. Would you want a child to be reunited with a mother who barely wants her and who’s negligence has already put the child’s life at risk, or would you want the child to be raised by absolute stranger’s albeit well meaning absolute strangers? The obvious answer for the viewer, in my opinion, is to allow the girl to remain kidnapped and leave her alone. Affleck’s character cannot seem to allow this to happen though. Previously in the film Affleck’s character is given the chance to kill a child molester after stumbling into his den of iniquity and he takes his opportunity. The audience and the cops praise his character for performing this act of pesticide. However, Affleck’s character hates himself for this act. He feels he is morally repugnant for his impetus. And as the conundrum of leaving the girl be or reuniting her with her mother is presented he chooses the latter. Is this the morally correct choice? It certainly is the legally correct choice. And this is the brilliance of this film. After it ended I turned to Jennie and we discussed our particular views on the outcomes, did the child molester deserve death, should Affleck leave the girl with the well meaning family?

This being Ben Affleck’s first successful venture into film’s in a while it seems his course is laid out for him. He is an impressive director with a surefooted feel for Boston and its people. His script wasn’t dumbed down and provoked genuine discussion after the film.

8 out of 10: a well made crime drama that elicits a response. Ben Affleck should keep his seat behind the camera.

Revolver (Dvd) - Ashleigh

2008-03-24T21:00:00.011-04:00

There has been a lot of bad press about this movie. A lot of it centers around the fact that with this film Guy Ritchie unsuccessfully tries to go back to his staple, gangster flicks, after laying the goose egg Swept Away (2002) starring his horrible wife. Still more of it points out the fact that a movie that was released in Britain in 2005 and took more than three years to come out in America (it went straight to DVD and came out last week on March 18, 2008) is not a good sign for the quality of a film. Still more of it focuses on the fact that this Kabbalah-centric film is too serious and too complicated for anyone to enjoy.

I must admit, I agree with all of these sentiments. But to make a short story long: After hearing, over three years ago, that Jason Statham would be returning to work with Ritchie I was elated.

A side note: I, like most twenty year olds, love Snatch (2000) and Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (1998). I own about fourteen movies and these two are privileged enough to be part of my collection. I don’t feel it is necessary to purchase movies for repeat viewings as I rarely view a movie more than once; the miniscule cases that I do actually watch a movie more than once, I purchase it. So, having these films in my library is a unique situation, thus as you can understand, I couldn’t wait for Revolver to jump the pond.

So, I waited. And waited. And eventually forgot. But, the other day while traipsing through the local Blockbuster Revolver stared back at me. I looked to my wife for the oh-crap-I’m-going-to-have-to-watch-this-aren’t-I look - it was there, but she approved! Jennie and I quickly exchanged our Project Runway season 3: Disc 3 from Blockbuster Online and hurried home. I had heard everything that was bad about this film, but I didn’t want to believe it. I tried to think that maybe people just didn’t like that he had made English Gangster Flick 3, because, as we can all admit here, Lock, Stock and Snatch are basically the same film. And if that were the case, if Ritchie had simply made another English Gangster movie I would have been happy. I tried to dismiss the critics. I thought maybe it took this long to cross the pond because Ritchie was unhappy with the packaging. Maybe, just maybe, this movie was so awesomely complicated that not many people got it and the film was waiting to be cracked open like an egg till all the juices flowed out. But, it was an egg alright, a horribly stinky rotten egg.

The movie centers around Jake Green (Jason Statham) who is told, after being released from prison, that he has three days before he dies, they don’t really bother to tell you what aliment he has. He is forced to work for gangsters who are extorting two other gangsters. There is a lot of money involved, people get shot, chess is talked about, and Statham seemingly gets existentially duped. I can’t even really describe why this movie was so awful but I will attempt to. There seems to be no motivation for Statham’s character to work with the first set of gangsters, he just simply starts working for them. Their motivation is also seemingly lost on me as they start a war between two other factions of gangsters for no reason. Why they do this and what they get from it - well, it turns out that they are figments of Jake’s imagination cooked up to force Jake trough the existential ringer. The worst part of this film comes in the form of a long monologue about how the only real con is the one that each individual portrays to himself, namely “I am me” and “me is greed”. This, according to Jake Green, is the biggest con of them all. Guy Ritchie attempts to show this inner struggle with an annoying shoutfest between Statham, Statham, and Statham. Using fast edits and overlapping tracks he attempts to create this dizzying fight between the ego and the I. And, I guess, the real Jake Green wins? But really did I care? The film ends and as the credits role Ritchie shows interviews with psychologists who wax philosophically about the greatest trick we play on ourselves is thinking “I am me.”

3 out of 10: Yes, it is as bad as you have heard, the only redeeming item would be particular shots which were chosen and shot to perfection.

Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day (Theatre) - Jennie & Matt

2008-03-15T17:45:00.010-04:00

This film chronicles a hectic day for a recently out of work nanny who finds herself waltzed into the breezy life of an up-and-coming actress. Miss Pettigrew (Frances Mcdormand) fibs her way into becoming Delysia Lafosse’s (Amy Adams) social secretary after being fired from her previous nanny job. We are directed to believe that Delysia’s life is a whirlwind of men, sex, and stardom, but we are shown that this is all a lie and she is actually a poor girl from New York just trying to make in this world. This farce leads to a love quadrilateral that ends with the guy with the heart of gold getting Amy Adams. And on the way Miss Pettigrew finds love, the ability to smoke cigars, and a bite to eat.

If this all sounds very simple and somewhat stale I can understand that. But this movie was going for that 1960’s whimsy. It felt very much like Breakfast at Tiffany’s (1961) to me, in that oddly paced, wacky-love-winning-the-day kind of way. The problem is it didn’t go far enough. Back in 2003 Renee Zellweger and Ewan Mcgregor starred in a 1960s style farce called Down with Love (2003). This film took that style and ran with it, campy couches and all. I feel like Miss Pettigrew was attempting to compete with this but didn’t fully commit. Where Down with Love had the lame puns and the absurd misunderstandings, Miss Pettigrew wanted to find a middle ground, maybe to make it more relevant to today’s audience. This, however, makes Miss Pettigrew feel just a little bit stale and not fully confident with what it was trying to do.

I also feel compelled to add that Jennie, my wife, thoroughly enjoyed this movie. She particularly enjoyed Lee Pace, the entirely delightful lead from Pushing Daisies. She believes him to be her new celebrity crush. I'm not entirely sure how this effects the film, but I will admit he is particularly dreamy in this film, so there's that.

5 out of 10: A fun film, but Down with Love would scratch the itch in a much more satisfying way if you had both to choose from.

Funny Games (Theatre) - Ashleigh & Matt

2008-03-14T21:45:00.009-04:00

The previews for this film make Funny Games out to be another torture porn movie that attempts to make the audiences squeamish with close-ups of dismemberment and murder. However, this is not an altogether accurate portrait that has been painted. Funny Games shows no actual violence on screen (other than one hit with a golf club to the knee). In fact, if it weren’t for the psychologically violent scenes this movie would be rather tame when compared with Hollywood’s recent fascination with blood and guts. And, this is to say nothing of the most fascinating aspect of this film.

The film begins with a mundane scene; a top down shot contains a family vehicle that is making its way to its summer house. George (Tim Roth) and Anne (Naomi Watts) are playing "guess the composer" as their son Georgie (Devon Gearhart) and his dog sit and listen. The strings ebb and flow along with George’s incorrect answer to Anne’s choice of symphony in their game and the whole family smiles, a happy upper-class family. A jarring scream rips through the theatre as John Zorn and Yamantaka Eyes replaces the peaceful classical music George and Anne are listening to and the title card is shown, the family continues to smile as the animalistic shrieks bleat through the theatre's sound system – truly an offsetting scene. The family reaches their distention and the games begin. Michael Pitt and his creepy, puffed-out-version-of-Leonardo-Dicaprio-self plays a disturbing ringmaster to the family circus that is about to take place and his companion Peter, played by the equally creepy and unibrowed Brady Corbet, begins the action with a seemingly neighborly request to borrow eggs. The boys use this ploy to eventually escalate an argument with George Sr. This argument ends in George slapping one of the boys and seemingly in retaliation the boys attack George with a golf club, again the only real violence shown on screen. As things progress Peter and Paul take the family into the living room and prepare them for the game they are about to play. Paul makes a bet with the family that they will not live to see the next morning. The family is eventually murdered one-by-one and by nine a.m. Peter and Paul take the family’s boat to another pier and knock on the door. They ask the neighbor who answers if they could borrow some eggs.

The unique twist of this film is Paul knowledge of the theatre’s audience. He “breaks the forth wall” multiple times either to goad the audience or to explain to Peter why different methods of murdering are more entertaining to the audience watching the film. If the son remains alive, argues Paul, then the drama will be more intense. The director of the film uses the usual tricks that horror films evoke and dismisses them just as easily. Case in point, the films sets up that a knife has been accidently left on board the boat, but when the murders take the last surviving family member out to the boat and a last chance effort at survival for the family member could be made, Paul and Peter simply take the knife and throw it overboard in an anticlimactic snub to the theatre audience wanting some sort of justice for the dead family members. As an audience member it is believed that evil will be triumphed over by the end of the film, or at least some sign of retribution will be present by the last frame and Funny Games does not deliver on this and as Peter and Paul point out by the end of the film, this is not usual. Haneke, the director, peppers this device in just the right amount. But, I did have one problem with Haneke’s methods. At one point in time Paul rewinds the film in an attempt to undo some action he deems unsatisfactory. I felt that that was a little too much in terms of meta-entertainment. But overall I loved the self-aware shtick. The soundtrack was delightfully stark causing scenes as innocuous as borrowing eggs to have an edge. And the performances by the actors were brilliant; I believe Pitt was born to play Paul. I don't really understand why Haneke felt like he had to recreate his 1997 thriller, but I enjoyed the effort.

8 out of 10: a delightful addition to a tired genre, dare I say, a new Psycho?

Howard the Duck (OnDemand) - Matt

2008-03-13T21:15:00.013-04:00

I have to explain why this movie is even on this list. Notice, this is a Matt pick. Matt Siblo, brother and consistent contributor to this blog’s comments page, is visiting me this weekend as a surprise by my lovely wife and himself.
Now, last time Matt and I visited each other we watched six movies in two days. We love to do this: eat bad food, watch movies, and discuss them. Occasionally other topics sneak in, but these are rare occasions and often happen on the way to a movie. So, when we arrived back home from picking Matt up from the airport and Matt asked to view our offerings OnDemand the pickings were slim. So, Howard the Duck was chosen.

Howard T. Duck lives on a planet inhabited by anthropomorphized ducks whose civilization apparently evolved exactly as ours did; only ducks were the dominant species. Their civilization even has duck related media. This leads to such mallard-enhanced naming schemes as Playduck and Indiana Duck. After a hard day at work Howard sits in an easy chair and is instantly transported through a wormhole. He lands in Cleveland, Ohio and waddles out into our world where he is gawked at as he is a 3 foot walking talking duck. After getting thrown out of a punk rock club, I’m not sure how he got there; he is witness to Lea Thompson’s character’s potential rape. Howard comes to the rescue, I guess, by distracting them enough to be browbeaten by a 3-foot water fowl and a punk rock version of Marty Mcfly’s mom. Beverly, Lea Thompson’s poorly named character, almost instantly feels sorry for the poor mallard alien and asked if he wants to come over. This leads to a series of odd happenings that added to the running time of this movie and culminate in a very awkward scene in which Beverly seduces Howard. Matt and I were turning away from the T.V. at this point as no amount of Lea Thompson nakedness could make us stomach the idea of a duck and a woman. Eventually, this is broken up by scientists who break into Beverly’s house and tell Howard they were the reason he was brought here and they can get him home. This is about at the forty-five minute mark of an hour and a half duck movie so Matt and I were confused at how a resolution to this farce could take another forty-five minutes of our lives. Sadly, it could. Here is the fast version: Howard is brought to a facility where he was pulled down by some tractor beam, but as he arrives something has gone horribly wrong and another being has been brought back, but not from the duck-verse! It turns out it is a demon from some unknown demon-verse who possess a scientist and plans to take over the earth! The cops show up! Everyone runs! Howard gets separated from Beverly and this leads to a fifteen minute scene in which Howard flies an ultralight (a very small aircraft that looks like a hang-glider)! Howard kills the demon and destroys the tractor beam now he can’t get home! Beverly and her band play a monster gig rocking the song “Howard the duck”!

So, to say this is a waste of time is an understatement. An hour in Matt was pleading me to fast forward but I claimed that for the honesty of this blog I must watch the whole movie. Matt did this several times, but I refuted his pleas. This movie was far too long. Multiple scenes were pointlessly added and the ending took thirty minutes from my life which I could have used to brush up on my duck puns. This seems on par for George Lucas, who has done his best to hide this mallardy (yeah thats right, a duck pun), and hasn’t done something relevant since Last Crusade. But, Based on the premise of this movie I can’t say I didn’t see this coming. However, when the execution on a 37 million dollar project is this bad it is a thing to watch. 37 million-1980-dollars that is insane to think about. Matt and I weren’t entirely sure who this movie was even marketed to as it was too racy for 1986 kids to see (there were duck boobs), but the premise was too stupid for anyone else to see. The score, which was written by Academy Award winning composer John Barry, seemed out of place in this tottery world of ducks and Lea Thompson. But, it did help remind me of films like Flight of the Navigator (1986) and The Explorers (1985) which contained science fiction with a starkly family feel. So, maybe it did have some sort of audience that it thought it could cater to, but they were obviously misguided in thinking this film would reach anyone as this film eventually became known as a clausal bomb.

2 out of 10: bloated, overly long, and poorly executed, though some fun can be garnered from mocking it.

Be Kind Rewind (Theatre) - Ashleigh

2008-02-24T15:05:00.006-05:00

Michel Gondry’s work is certainly unique. If you have seen any of his previous work from his music videos to the four films that he has created there is a similar thread running through each piece that imbues a child like awe when viewing his work. Gondry is a wizard of the old school of film making, though he occasionally uses special effects, most of his visually stunning work is simple camera tricks exploited to their fullest extent, and Be Kind Rewind is no exception. In fact, I believe it is the purpose of this film. I can picture the meeting to get this film green lit going like so:
Gondry: I want to make classic films that everyone knows and loves using only technology that a pair of idiots can get their hands on.
Studio Head: What?
Gondry: Like if two guys simply made every classic film.
Studio Head: What?
Gondry: Like if two guys tried to make King Kong with a super 8 machine, one guy standing real close to the camera and the other guy stands far away to simulate depth. You know. The close guy is King Kong the far guy is an onlooker – depth.
Studio Head: What?
And though Gondry successfully pulls this feat off with a spectacular flourish it is lacking something very important. This was my problem with his previous work, Science of Sleep (2006), though the visually stunning pieces in both movies were eye-popping, how-did-he-do-that masterpieces, the story took a back seat. This is also why Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004) succeeded where these two movies fail. With Eternal Sunshine Charlie Kaufman’s story was accented with Gondry’s visual flair, but Gondry sans Kaufman is like the Jagger-Bowie collabortaion, “Daning in the Street”: all flash, no substance.

The movie opens with a confusing biopic about a jazz piano player named Fats Waller. This biopic is played in pieces through the film and threads together the story like a loose fitting sweater draped over the idea of recreating previous films. This also plays as a theme for Gondry’s filmmaking itself, jazzy and improvisational, skirting convention with sour notes and syncopation, but it does not let him off the hook for his lazy story telling. Jerry, played by Jack Black who once again overplays the annoying sidekick he once hit perfectly in High Fidelity, and Mike, played with a little too much sap by Mos Def, are forced to recreate a slew of VHS tapes that were destroyed. They dub this sweding a film (it had something to do with Sweden and Jack Black rambling, so I lost what this meant) and then become minor celebrities as their sweded films are more popular than the original. But this story line takes far too long to get to and the film recreations, the meat and potatoes, are few and far between. Gondry hits a few sweet notes with his display of filmmaking as a community affair bringing people together to create art, which is a nice little band-aid for this post-writer’s strike Hollywood, but the overall plot seems shoehorned into the desire to recreate classic films.

6.5 out of 10: Visually melodic when it wants to be, but, like pop music, missing any real substance.

This is a mind blowing piece Gondry did a few years back.
Steriograms - Walkie Talkie Man
Director: Michel Gondry

Vantage Point (Theatre) - Jennie

2008-02-22T21:00:00.007-05:00

I’ll have to be honest here, I thought this concept could have been good. It was possible. I have seen T.V. shows pull this kind of plot device off with fantastic results. This device goes as follows; the viewer is treated to one scene after another as seen through the eyes of only one character. Other character’s stories are advancing around them; however, we are not privy to their motivations till we see their view point. It is often very difficult to keep the full details of the plot from slipping out while advancing through the earlier character’s stories and revealing just enough to keep the viewer enticed is a key element to this plot device’s success. Confusion is also very hard to escape as some early character’s actions seem very unmotivated and haphazard. However, redundancy is the largest of hazards that can fell this device. Vantage Point fails in all of these areas and more.

Instead of artfully hiding information as to not reveal too much, they simply don’t show the action. Case in point, when Thomas Barnes, played by Dennis Quaid, saw a traitor on a television screen, they held the shot on Barnes, and we got some pathetic eye acting from Quaid. Revealing this information would have destroyed the plot, so instead they simply shot Barnes’ reaction and faded to white, and proceeded to the next character’s story.

Also, Characters motivations were seemingly left up to the viewer to interpret, leading to confusion as to why Forrest Whitaker’s character, Howard Lewis, would run after a supposed assassin when he was simply a tourist with a video camera. I guess he just had to see what happened with the assassin. We were never given a reason for him to follow the action, however his character had to be in the final shot, so he ran for no reason.

Finally, Vantage Point had no qualms with being redundant. They showed the explosion eight or nine times. They replayed character’s interaction; I guess so the viewer didn’t forget what happened. They milked every ounce they could from every car crash that happened, replaying the scenes multiple times.

The failure of the device is the cornerstone to this waste of a movie, but it was not helped by the lackluster performances of some pretty solid actors. The script was stale, with dialog like, “I’ve got you now Mr. President.” And even if these “vantage points” succeeded it would still have been a stale plot about terrorists attempting to sabotage America. It even contained the down but not out cop (secret service agent) who came back to prove he wasn’t done yet, only to end up saving the day (Harrison Ford’s role was played by Dennis Quaid this time).

I must add that Jennie liked it, though. She enjoyed the car chase scenes and that is pretty much all she told me. I prodded for more after declaring, “What a stinkbug,” as we left the theatre, but she didn’t want to placate me with more discussion.

2.5 out of 10: A waste of time, money, and brain cells. Redundant, stale, and annoying.

Jumper (Theatre) - Both

2008-02-16T16:45:00.003-05:00

I'm not an adventurous eater, but I have a rule, I will try anything once. This certainly doesn't mean I'll like it, but I'll try it. The same can be said about works of Science Fiction for me. Jennie and I recently got into Jericho, I watched three or four episodes of Firefly this morning, I'll even watch the occasional Star Trek and enjoy it, so I warn you I enjoy Science Fiction stuff a little more than most and will try any of it once.
With that being said Jumper is mediocre at best. Jumper is half taken from a Steven Gould book from the early nineties and half taken from the Matrix. The parts it adds seem to fit quit nicely and add a villain for the protagonist which were absent from the book. Hayden Christensen the cardboard prop from the Star Wars prequels plays David Rice a young outcast, aren't they all, who discovers an ability to teleport. At first he can't really figure out why or how this works but he eventually learns the rules to jumping and uses them to runaway from his abusive dad, aren't they all, and gain wealth. Years pass and David finds that there is a police force to protect the world against Jumpers and this causes David to go underground and return to his home. The movie's multiple cliché relationships create some drama, but lack any weight for the viewer to muster up any emotion for them. His relationship with a childhood crush is the catalyst to most of the movies forward momentum. He takes her to Rome and gives her a Jumper Date allowing him to get into places normal people couldn't. This scene takes far to long and I simply lost interest here. He gets caught, she finds some reason to hate him, he finds some reason to save her, he finds some way to escape the Jumper police, it is all very action filled, and about as much fun as it sounds.
I have to admit, I like the concept. I actually think this would have made a pretty good t.v. show, all the pieces were there, but the movie was just an abridged version of an idea and because of that it lacked any real power.

5 out of 10: mundane execution, but I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water.

The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters (Dvd) - Ashleigh

2008-02-09T19:30:00.002-05:00

Ever since Michael Moore’s Bowling for Columbine (2002) documentaries have had a resurgence in popularity. Super Size Me (2004), March of the Penguins (2005), An Inconvenient Truth (2006) have all ridden this wave to fame and fortune. But all of these movies, excluding March of the Penguins, have been reviled as they have been revered, with naysayers and voices of decent crying charlatan and hoax at the filmmakers and their subjects. I say this only to put you in the frame of mind I was in when starting this film. I was looking for the director, Seth Gordon, to play on my preconceived notions (of what, I’m not sure, but documentarians lie right? They show us only half the truth - don’t they? They show us only what they want us to see - right?)

Billy Mitchell, the long lost brother of Wolf from American Gladiators, is the world champion of Donkey Kong. His record of 874,200 in 1982 is the best in the world (actually this is a lie; in 2000 Tim Sczerby obtained 879,200, the current record at the making of this film.) But Billy is also a world class villain. There is no documentary trick to make this guy into any more of an ass than he is. He is simply an arrogant, egotistical – gamer? In Billy’s own words, “Well, maybe they'd like it if I lose. I gotta try losing sometime.” The documentary shows very little of his family life, it contains damning footage of him being overly aggressive in his business practices, and he is a no-show in the one chance the documentary gives him to defend himself. But, he is the villain and the documentarian shows this with a lot of help from Billy.

Steve Wiebe is our hero. He is a nice guy who is dragged into the sorted world of competitive gaming and despite the pressure and upsets he maintains his nice guy persona. Steve is often overlooked, he takes second place in everything, and was recently let go from his job when the movie starts (he becomes a teacher while filming, I can’t think of nobler profession). You can’t dream of a better guy to take on the likes of Billy “Wolf” Mitchell.

The movie sets up that Steve beats Billy score, on videotape, one night in his garage and sends it to Twin Galaxies, the retro gaming record holders and friends of Billy. Steve is given the record and a small amount of fame in his local town. But then referees from Twin Galaxies come out to Steve’s town and look at his machine and claim that the machine is tampered with and thus the score is revoked, giving Billy the record back. (Actually this is a lie; Wiebe held the high score at the moment his score was revoked, and it reverted back to Steve’s high score.) Steve then goes out to FunSpot, a Retro gaming Mecca, to beat the score live and compete against Billy face to face. Billy sends a videotape. Steve beats Billy’s score live (the now reigning live high score), but Billy’s videotape, a scrambled mess of glitches and odd time stops, shows Billy reaching over a million points and Steve’s achievement is forgotten. In this moment the movie shines showing Steve’s everyman defeat against the cogs of the Twin Galaxies and Billy’s suspect tape. Steve’s plight is tangible at this moment as he is helpless to defeat the genius of Billy’s villainy. I won’t go into any more detail here.
This documentary certainly tries its hardest to make you root for Steve and fear and hate Billy. And even when I knew I was being shown half-truths and pandering I still rooted for Steve. You can’t help it. Billy is a villain without the cameras. Steve is a good guy without Donkey Kong. While I understood Steve’s emotional, family loving character could have been a construct of the filmmaker; it’d be hard to fake. And while Billy’s character could have been selective quotes and sharp edits; it’d be hard to fake.

8 out of 10: A fantastic underdog tale that will unexpectedly draw you in.

The Brave One (Dvd) - Jennie

2008-02-05T20:00:00.000-05:00

If someone is a bad person do they deserve to live? Can you kill a criminal without feeling guilt? Is it O.K. to murder someone who breaks our rules? Vigilantes – the romantic heroes that pervade justice and right without the hassle of jurist’s prudence can murder, but should we cheer for them? It seems there is some level of society that feels that vigilantism is fine and good, they do the policeman’s job when they legally can’t. This movie speaks to these individuals - a frightening concept in my mind, championing the murder of “bad guys”. Erica Bain’s (Jodie Foster) fiancé is beaten to death by minority stereotypes causing her to see the fear that she always overlooked in her beloved New York City. This fear envelopes her and shows her that it was always there, under the surface, she had previously ignored it. This is the impetus for murder. The movie then turns into the most unlucky series of contrived situations allowing Erica to murder without her looking like a “bad guy” herself.
A man runs into a bodega shoots his ex over a custody dispute, clearly a bad guy, so Erica murders him back. A Detective Mercer, played by Terrence Howard, is on the case. Then, while riding a subway, two minority stereotypes steal a guys iPod, call an old guy homosexual, and threaten to rape Erica with a knife, clearly bad guys, so Erica murders them. Detective Mercer is on the case. Then, while walking around central park and pimp propositions her to join is cadre and locks her in a car with another girl he has captured, clearly a bad guy, so Erica murders him. Detective Mercer is on the case.
I have many problems with this series of events that happen. As my wife pointed out, who gets into all these life threatening, bad guy revealing, situations in a life time, let alone in a span of four months or so? Also, were these bad guys worthy of murder? The subway goons only stole an iPod and threatened rape - no jury would sentence them to death. Dangerous, yes - justifiable murder, no. And Mercer would not have caught all those cases – ever (I know that it is a writer’s prerogative to suspend disbelief but – come on! Mercer starts piecing the puzzle together after the second murder. That would never happen). Logistically this movie was a mess.
The directing was marginable at best. I hate it when directors feel the only way to fully portray claustrophobia or panic is by tilting the camera this way and that in an attempt to disorient the viewer. I believe a good actor can portray this sort of emotion without rookie camera tricks, and Jodie Foster is a quality actor. Why choose this campy method? Jordan does allow Mercer and Erica to gradually realize one is on to the other in a series of beautiful scenes shot with the clarity and understanding. The two actors trade knowing glances as they reveal themselves through a mirror.
The ending could have given the movie a chance to justify itself by having Mercer turn in his now close friend as he has figured it all out. She is a murderer; admittedly, she shouldn’t get away with it. But, no, Mercer gives her a way out and lets her go since he cares for her. Wait, what? Meaning vigilantism is fine as long as there is an excuse? I guess bad guys deserve to die even without their day in court as long as they're bad guys.

4 out of 10: Allows for some interesting discussion on vigilantism/capitol punishment, but logistical nightmares and a disregard for society pollute the viewing experience.

The Invasion (Dvd) - Both

2008-02-02T18:30:00.000-05:00

At first glance this movie is a modern Hollywood science fiction thriller. Aliens inhabit bodies; try to take over the world, things explode. And if that is what you go into this movie expecting you will be disappointed. I believe this is why this movie was panned almost universally. I came into it expecting just that and was pleasantly surprised that is was not. Yes, this does happen (and there is an explanation as to why) but not in the Will Smith July 4th blockbuster way. This movie attempts to make a very shallow message with its bodysnatching. I’m sure the original did so as well, but having not seen it I cannot vouch for its success in this area. This message, that humans are themselves a destructive force to humanity. Carol Bennell (Nicole Kidman) finds that the world is being taken over by an entity that fell from space that inhabits humans like a common cold (through the blood or bodily fluids). When the humans fall asleep the alien inhabitant is given the ability to put the human into a permanent mode of R.E.M. sleep and thus control it forever, the human looks the same but acts as if they were on some pretty good medication. This method of bodysnatching gives the film a pretty good plot device that the writer exploits. Carol is given the virus pretty early in the movie, and thus has to stay awake for the remainder of the movie, lest she turns. Since the aliens can’t identify themselves she only has to act without emotion to blend in. This lends the film its most suspenseful and successful moments. Carol walks down streets with eerily vacant crowds and must remain calm. The film emits a claustrophobic feeling by just following her. Where the film falls apart is when it turns into the blockbuster it never wanted to be.
Let me give you a little history.
Around October 30, 2005 the film was finished with no green screen action and minimal visual effects by director Oliver Hirschbiegel, this version did not seem viable to the studios (interpret: needed more explosions) and thus the Wachowski brothers were enlisted to infuse it with action. After 17 days and 10 million dollars the film was finished, again.
These “infused with action” scenes are quit obvious, and slowly rip at the films message, integrity, and quality as each extra flies from each resulting explosion till we are left a Nicole-Kidman-saves-the-day moment. Sad, really. I guess studios really know what the public wants…
And this is the general quandary of this film. I believe the film did not succeed because it wasn’t a Blockbuster Alien flick, but it wasn’t a subtle suspense film either. It attempted to be both, and you cannot serve two masters. Might it have been successful without the magic touch of the Wachowski brothers, I think so.

4 out of 10: While it remains subtle, this film works, but when it strays from its origins it fails miserably.

Rocket Science (Dvd) - Ashleigh

2008-02-01T19:30:00.000-05:00

This film falls into the categorization of such films like Thumbsucker (2005) and to a lesser extent Juno (2007), a film about high school angst through the eyes of an outcast. This film’s outcast is Hal Hefner, played by Reece Thompson, a shy 15 year old whose debilitating stutter leaves him leery of the spotlight. Thompson gives a fantastic performance that leaves me looking forward to his promise as an actor. His character is enjoyable to watch and easy to side with which is fortunate as Hal’s stutter could have been as debilitating to the movie as it is to his character. The film opens with the state championship debater Ben Wekselbaum, played by Hero’s Nicholas D'Agosto, fervently spouting his resolve while his partner Virginia Ryerson, played by Anna Kendrick, looks on with a mix of desire and respect. Wekselbaum suddenly is silenced by an unknown force and we are introduced to Hal. These three character’s involve themselves in each other’s lives in varying degrees eventually leading to Hal’s attempts at debating. Virginia’s character is erudite and purposeful in enlisting Hal as her partner for competition after Wekselbaum lost the championship for her in the opening sequence. Hal, not being used to the attention, let alone being stunned by the proposal of him stammering publically trying to speak, is drawn to Virginia and this incites purpose into Hal. This movie could have turned into a Rocky/Mighty Ducks-type film where the hero gets over his stutter to win the debate and save the day, but it doesn’t - and this saves the movie. The ending is perfect in its delivery giving Hal small victories in love and in life but not going as far as to ruin it by having an entirely fairy tale ending. The soundtrack, however, stripped scenes often being obtrusive and misplaced. The arrangements were sparse and somewhat spastic which made it feel like a trying rip-off of a Wes Anderson score. The dialog, on the other hand, was hyper articulate and surprisingly accurate for a high school movie.

8 out of 10: This movie succeeds with a fantastic performance and an ending that satisfies, despite its debilitating soundtrack.

There Will Be Blood (Theatre) - Ashleigh

2008-01-27T15:15:00.000-05:00

I had high hopes for this film. I have enjoyed Daniel Day-Lewis’ performances in the past and he is one of the few actors I actually follow. This movie is on the top of many lists this year, and is up for eight Oscars. But to be blunt, I was not fond of the movie. Daniel Plainview played by Daniel Day-Lewis is a riveting character. The performance is as powerful as Day-Lewis’ Bill the Butcher with just a little bit of compassion thrown in. He commands the screen with the power of a father and a shrewd businessman. His antagonist, Eli Sunday, played by Paul Dano was equally well constructed. I would posit that Dano may have gotten the better of Day-Lewis but for Day-Lewis’ subtle work when he is not at the height of emotion. This movie portrays two actors at the pinnacle of their craft. Yet, I was not fond of the movie. The soundtrack was beautifully constructed with careful attention to the nuanced performances and the bleak setting. The largely stringed arrangement ebbed through the starkly captured American west holding the viewer on edge in anticipation of God-only-knows. However, I was not fond of the movie. The two most powerful scenes, a mirror of each other, where to two protagonists battle each other in a desperate attempt to destroy the other left me drained. They defy each other to denounce their religions, one who’s devotion to himself is selfish at best and megalomaniacal at worst, and the other whose devotion to God is frighteningly posed. Each one falls to the other's demands and in the end are destroyed by the other. These scenes alone are some of the most powerful put to film this year. Though, I was not fond of the film.
My largest complaint is the misstep in introducing Paul, Eli’s brother. The confusion this character represents deflates Dano’s character’s motives. Is he Eli? Many critics think so, despite P.T. Anderson’s denial. If he is not and is the twin of Eli, where was he the rest of the film? I know Daniel gave a synopsis of his life to Eli in their final battle - this actually was a barb Daniel pushed into Eli to draw blood, but that fact makes the character even more confusing. P.T. Anderson’s refusal to construct a plot also hinders my admiration for this film. This is common practice for Anderson, and one of the cardinal reason why I haven’t enjoyed most of his work. I’m not saying all movies need a plot, but Anderson pretends he has constructed one, and I hate this lie.

6 out of 10: I wouldn’t recommend this film, but the acting is beyond anything I’ve seen in the last year.

27 Dresses (Theatre) - Jennie

2008-01-26T19:20:00.000-05:00

I’m no longer into Romcoms. I feel in the early days of the genre there was substance to these movies. I could be wrong, but here we go. Think about films like When Harry Met Sally (1989) and Splash (1984). These movies were directed by the likes of Ron Howard and written by Nora Ephron. This wasn’t a throw away genre. True, young actors who were barely in their prime were staring in these projects, much like 27 Dresses’ Katherine Heigl. And yes, the plots were formulaic. Harry did literally run after Sally. But Hollywood recognized that these films were well made. Nora Ephron got nominated for an Oscar for writing When Harry Met Sally, even though there was a stale chase scene at the end of the movie.
These days this genre is as much, if not more, of a subgenre as Sci-Fi, which brings me back to the name, Romcom. Much like the Sci-Fi genre these movies are slowly becoming written for a very small subgroup of moviegoers. Women made up 75% of the population that went to see this movie. 75% (I have stats if you wish)! And let me tell you, it was made for them. The male characters were two-dimensional props stood up next to the female leads as eye candy for the female viewership. This mirrors nicely with the Sci-fi genre were the females seem to be eye candy for the largely male viewers (just watch any Sci-Fi channel original movie. I swear those ladies were plucked from the nearest porn set in the exact costumes they were in).
This movie made me cringe at multiple times. The movie opens with Jane Nichols (Katherine Heigl) attending two weddings at once where, we are to understand, she is the glue that holds the ceremony together. At the end of each wedding Jane is thanked in front of the whole crowd by the bride. I do not remember seeing the groom once in either ceremony. We are then introduced to Jane’s life where she is under appreciated and takes care of everyone, ahhhh. The venerable bridesmaid of Romcoms, Judy Greer, plays the same role she always plays as Jane’s best friend/coworker at Urban Everest where Jane is an assistant to George (Edward Burns). George is a wealthy philanthropic dogooder who is the object of Jane’s affection. He obviously hasn’t noticed this yet. This is about all we will ever know of George's character, though he is one of the leads. The second male lead, and the winner of Jane’s affections by the end of the movie is Kevin (James Marsden). He is the commitments writer for the New York Journal, but hates weddings and marriage in general. Kevin did have some pretty nice oneliners about how horribly capitalistic the wedding industry is but the writers quickly doused that fire before it could turn any of the audience members off of his character. They explain that he is cynical about weddings because, gasp, he had the perfect wedding before and his wife left him for his college roommate (when this was reveled I heard sighs from the theatre, literal sighs.) Kevin dates Jane, Jane almost falls for Kevin, Kevin betrays Jane, Jane returns to George, George realizes the truth about Jane, they kiss, nothing is felt, Jane realizes Kevin is right for her, perfect wedding, end!
I can't portray the kind of loathing that I have for poorly made movies like these. Why waste the time, the money, the film? I know these movies aren’t made for me. But, it corrupts the delusional minds of the viewers into thinking that weddings are magical egotistical days where the man is an afterthought and the perfect dress can and should cost more than 10,000 dollars. Come to think of it, much like the sci-fi genre corrupts the delusional minds of its viewers into thinking that with the right construction of rings they can travel to different dimensions. Romcoms nerds are the new Sci-Fi nerds. But I fear that while the Sci-Fi nerds know that that is fiction, the Romcom nerds do not. Here’s to hoping.

4 out of 10: watchable, but contains more cliches than you can shake a stick at.

P.S. Jennie told me to say that women could enjoy it.

Cloverfield (Theatre) - Both

2008-01-22T08:32:00.000-05:00

The marketing for this film was, in my opinion, sheer genius. If you watched Transformers this summer you were treated to a preview that portrayed a going away party. This party seemed pretty normal till all hell broke loose and screaming, running, and general mayhem took over. The last shot saw the head of the statue of liberty fly by and land in the street, ripped from its body. The last sound was someone yelling, "I saw it, it's alive, it's huge!" Then no name, no nothing, just 1-18-08 (the release date).
Now, most people have come to know that this is a monster movie. Simple. Monster comes - attacks city - people panic, but Cloverfield has its niche. Not only does it succeed as a solid monster film, it also adds a chaotic first person view. This allows Cloverfield to succeed beyond the other alumni. The sometimes nausea inducing camera work plays to the fear accompanying the characters as they make there way through the hoops the writers make them transverse. The drawback of this device is that there always had to be a reason someone was taping everything, which in a run for your life situation, seems pretty ludicrous. The writers didn’t necessarily succeed in coming up with reasons for this, but I can forgive them this in most instances.
I have seen Cloverfield likened to The Blair Witch Project (July 1999) which I can see, but I believe that is a shallow reference. Yes, the first person view lends itself to the reference, but that is about it. Ultimately this reference simply states that this is the only other movie to have used this device so successfully. However, I would liken it to The Host (July 2006) a South Korean monster movie that, if you watch, seems to be Cloverfield's long-lost brother. I can picture J.J. Abrams sitting with his buddies watching it and saying, “We should totally make a monster flick!” The similarities are many, but the most glaring would have to be its devotion not to the monster, but to the characters. Abram’s film focused on the humans in the situation and not the monster. The monster was an afterthought, a catalyst, but defiantly not the focus. This is why both of these movies succeed and movies like Godzilla (1998 film) fail so miserably. This is not to say the writers did this that well, the dialog was vapid, the characters were thin, and their motivations were confusing, but it is always interesting to see humans react, even unsuccessfully, to sheer terror.
Spoiler Alert:
The way this movie ranks so high to me though, is that it does the one thing you expect to happen when and if a monster were to attack an island. Everyone dies. I love that. It makes everything seem that much more realistic (I know, I know). But, they die too late. The movie would have been a complete success if the Manhattan scenes ended about five minutes earlier than they did: when the helicopter crashes. End it. *Crackle* It’s still alive *Crackle* then Coney Island scene. But no, they had to have a soliloquy by the last two characters before they die. Ho Hum. The second ending, the Coney Island scene was great. And did you see the monster’s origin in that scene? Or did you miss it?

8 out of 10: Succeeded on all levels that it wanted to, at times the melodrama was too much.

Transformers Trailer:

Joshua (Dvd) - Both

2008-01-21T08:39:00.000-05:00

Joshua is a suspenseful sparse drama in the vein of The Good Son (1993) and to a lesser extent The Omen (1976, 2006). The star, Jacob Kogan, plays a child whose conscience and emotions are void and whose family has just welcomed a new baby sister. He seems indifferent to this addition and in the first scene where the new sister is brought home by the couple his character, Joshua, plays a stark dirge on a piano while the family gathers around the newborn. He plays the piano and acts far above his age, and is always in formal attire, even when in his pajamas he seems to be a grown up. Jacob Korgan is incredibly well cast, and his cold stare makes his character seem completely devoid of all emotions. The movie plods through its plot sometimes aimlessly wondering around this child’s creepy actions. In one scene Joshua sits emotionless almost intrigued, inches from his television watching old home movies of his years as a baby, his mother screams and cries constantly in the throws of postpartum depression yelling at the camera that she does not want to be taped. In another scene his father, Sam Rockwell, visits his son’s room and sees him cutting his teddy bears nose and then pulling stuffing from the bear. When asked what he was doing Joshua describes a fascination with Egyptians and their burial processes in rather precise detail. These actions are accompanied by a beautifully crafted soundtrack that pulls you into the world as you watch Joshua’s parents slowly go crazy. Joshua is never fully blamed for any action, and the film does not allow you to conclude any accusations that may be leveled against him. This is how the film succeeds. In one scene his mother drops a glass on the floor and Joshua, standing between the broken shards of glass and his mother, simply steps back. His mother then steps forward to touch him and pierces her foot. You can never fully blame the child, but it is easy to be fearful of him. The film seems to never truly reach any conclusions as to the child’s behavior, and that is a positive thing. The negative thing is that the film seems like a series of vignettes. Scene after uneasy scene roles by, each its own five minute story slowly, rolling to a stop by the end.

6 out of 10: well crafted suspense, a little too empty to be riveting

American Pyscho (OnDemand) - Both

2008-01-21T08:36:00.000-05:00

This movie isn't bad. It is superbly well written for the screen. The frank depiction of Patrick Bateman that Christian Bale gave was crisp and clean. It's New York's high fiance as I imagine it to be, all blank white business cards with a hint of cream etched with Payne's gray script. The juxtaposition of manic serial killing and disposable pop music make for brilliant satire. And the open ended discussion that it sparks is a nice after-dinner mint that the writer leaves the audience. Was Bateman a sadistic serial killer? Or was he simply a psychopath in his mind and truly held to societies bosom in real life? All good things. But the history I have with this movie makes it frightening to me.
When I was a senior in college I took an acting class to fill the time. We were given the assignment to memorize a monologue and then act it out in front of the class. We could choose our own monologues but the professor had to approve it. Several of my classmates immediately decided that they wanted to do a scene from this movie. I hadn't watched the movie then so I thought nothing of it. But the scenes they suggested were all turned down due to their content. I now understand why. These freshmen wanted to recite line like:
"Harold, it's Bateman, Patrick Bateman. You're my lawyer so I think you should know: I've killed a lot of people. Some girls in the apartment uptown uh, some homeless people maybe 5 or 10 um an NYU girl I met in Central Park. I left her in a parking lot behind some donut shop. I killed Bethany, my old girlfriend, with a nail gun, and some man uh some old faggot with a dog last week. I killed another girl with a chainsaw, I had to, she almost got away and uh someone else there I can't remember maybe a model, but she's dead too. And Paul Allen. I killed Paul Allen with an axe in the face, his body is dissolving in a bathtub in Hell's Kitchen. I don't want to leave anything out here. I guess I've killed maybe 20 people, maybe 40. I have tapes of a lot of it, uh some of the girls have seen the tapes. I even, um... I ate some of their brains, and I tried to cook a little. Tonight I, uh, I just had to kill a LOT of people. And I'm not sure I'm gonna get away with it this time. I guess I'll uh, I mean, ah, I guess I'm a pretty uh, I mean I guess I'm a pretty sick guy. So, if you get back tomorrow, meet me at Harry's Bar, so you know, keep your eyes open."
Not only that, but they seemed to look up to Patrick Bateman as if he were what they wanted to become! This is a character made to be wholly unlikable (he kills a dog, the worse thing a character can do). Disturbing if you ask me.

6 out of 10: Well made film, watch it if you have the stomach, though don't say I didn't warn you.

Meet the Robinsons (Dvd) - Family Ski Trip

2008-01-18T08:34:00.000-05:00

The wasteland of children’s cinema these days is immense. Strewn about this vast dessert are great production companies whose animation heyday seems ions ago. Children’s movies now consist of four or five trite staples that can be seen a mile away. To list a few: The spunky, dare I say gay (though a children’s movie would never admit such a thing!) sidekick, a villain whose motives seems questionable at best, a second spunky, dare I day black, sidekick (usually voiced by Wanda Sykes), toss in some funky fresh references to pop culture and you got yourself a hit. Maybe I’m nostalgic in thinking children’s movies when I was a child were inventive, thought provoking, and unique. Honey I Shrunk the Kids (1989)? All Dogs go to Heaven(1989)? Not to mention all of the now classic Disney musicals! I’ve read that when I was a child it was Disney’s golden age. Beauty and the Beast (1991), Little Mermaid (1989), Lion King (1994), Aladdin (1992), need I go on? Have you seen a recent children’s movie? Barnyard (2006), Chicken Little (2005), Happy Feet (2006) They are train wrecks. I hardly waste my time.

[This diatribe disregards Pixar. I have no beef with them and think nothing but great things about all their movies, save Cars (2006).]

Meet the Robinsons certainly isn’t perfect, but it has a lot more going on than Everyone’s Hero (2006) or Flushed Away (2006). The story is a well crafted, for children, mystery. They drop hints that any adult could figure out, but I can picture children having a blast trying to connect all the pieces. The dialog is truly funny. I laughed out loud several times, and was repeating lines after the movie. The characters were well constructed and humorous, especially the villain, though I thought the protagonist was never a fully realized character, just a camera for us to view the events that transpired. This isn’t to say the movie didn’t have its faults. The chase sequence seemed to be an excuse thrown in at the last second for the video game. The crazy family was a bit much; they could have toned it down a bit. But largely this movie was great fun to watch. I didn’t mind the moral ending; adopted kids can be well rounded successes! And the soundtrack wasn’t even that bad. It certainly aint no Flight of the Navigator (1986), but it has its moments.

6 out of 10: Won’t bring you your childhood back, but you will be laughing. Oh, and watch for the villain’s reveal.

Sunshine (Dvd) - Ashleigh

2008-01-13T12:01:00.000-05:00

Fantastic Sci-Fi thriller. I enjoyed the visuals thoroughly. They made the vastness of space a character to be reckoned with. The first half of the movie was a psychological bender that could hold its own against any previous sci-fi-emptyness-of-space-gets-us-frightened-of-our-own-shadow movie, but it does nothing new from these movies. I'm not entirely sure it ever does anything new, which isn't a bad thing, but it does stumble a bit at the end. As the movie jogs to its climactic tipping point it turns into a Michael Bay fight to save humanity against a blurry melting villain. There were so many directions you could have gone to have avoided this poor ending, but alas this is not the case. Boyle again chooses a score that compliments his style and the film's mood. Overall, another fantastic film in Danny Boyle's arsenal, making me think this man can do no wrong.

7 out of 10: Sci-Fi at its peak, but missing a satisfying ending

Eagle vs. Shark (Dvd) - Ashleigh

2008-01-13T11:00:00.000-05:00

I had high expectations for this movie. They fell short. Not too short, but short. It was a little slow, a little too awkward, a little too kiwi, a little too Napoleon Dynamite, a little too depressing, but just a little. Jemaine was a dick (from Flight of the Concords), it was hard to root for such a character's happiness, which we were forced to do through Lily, the female lead. Lily was a character who you couldn't help but feel bad for, but her misguided attempts at happiness through Jemaine's character were confusing and frustrating to watch. You wanted Lily to get something, somewhere, somebody, but she wanted Jemaine's character and I just can't get behind that. Not a bad watch, but I wouldn't ever want to see it again.

6 out of 10: funny at parts, but lacking the push to make it great.

Juno (Theatre) - Both

2008-01-09T11:00:00.000-05:00

Started slow… a little too much hipster-myspace talk, all perfectly understandable, but it sounded like a marketing director for Phire-Blazin' Cheetos wrote the dialog. Then a dramatic turn, and the movie came around into a blossoming adult! The scene where Jennifer Garner touches Juno's stomach is beautiful; watch Garner's face in a pitch perfect strain of awe, respect, and longing, acting at its best. The remaining cast turned out good performances, from which Juno got its footing, and slightly stumbled as it crossed the finish line with a little too saccharin sweet ending. I must mention the soundtrack because it is blowing the iTunes sales charts up: I did not like it. The music sounded like fifteen different artists took on the sad-mellow-chick indie rock thing, and it got old.
There were a ton of people at the theatre and that made for a bad movie experience but they shut up when it got dramatic.

Overall a 7 out 10: weakness: the dialog and the sweetness.

The Kingdom (Dvd) - Jennie

2008-01-02T11:26:00.000-05:00

This was basically CSI: Middle East. Great Movie, the ending two lines blew me away. The ending made the movie. It was kind of slow at some parts, but largely it was well acted and directed, I would highly recommend it. I never really wanted to watch the "middle east" movies, Jennie forced me to watch this one. A little hackney in the everything is "happy" ending, meaning all American's stay alive. All in all it was as if Michael Bay directed a CSI episode in Saudi Arabiah.

6 out of 10: a little too action movie for my tastes, though I applaud the topical locations

Sweeny Todd (Theatre) - Ashleigh

2008-01-01T11:00:00.003-05:00

Good, almost great. The musical part of it didn't succeed as well as the movie part of it, though that is not to say I didn't love the music as I do most musicals. Depp was solid. There was something missing, almost a haphazard quality. Meaning the story felt splintered.

6 out of 10: Great cast, a well constructed mood, lacking... well... something.

Hotrod (Dvd) - Ashleigh

2008-01-01T11:00:00.001-05:00

Horrible, horrible movie. There were scenes in it that made no since being in any movie. Example one: a 2 minute back and forth of "cool beans", literally they said "cool beans" different ways for about two minutes. Example two: (this one almost made me turn the movie off in the middle of viewing it) a 2 minute punch dancing sequence. I never have turned off a movie, well, except for Date Movie, and that was because Jennie wanted me to (though in its own rights, it was horrible).

2 out of 10: Burn the disc.

For your viewing pleasure, the "cool beans" scene.
No it is not at all edited, that is how it appears in the movie:

The Heartbreak Kid (Dvd) - Both

2008-01-01T11:00:00.000-05:00

Not good, way too long, reminded me why I hate the Farrelly brothers, wasn't as bad as the worst Farrelly brothers movie, wasn't as good as the best. Ben Stiller just really needs to focus on something else. He hasn't been funny since... um... Has he ever been funny? Jennie and I were flipping the channels the other day and Zoolander came on, I don't see how anyone thought Ben Stiller was remotely good in that, and that is one of his big movies. Anyway, back to the review, there was graphic nudity that just didn't need to be there. I'm no prude, but come on, it was just there to ensure the R rating, am I right? Also, the movie was an hour too long. An hour. Can you make a good 2:30 comedy? Maybe, but the Farrelly brother certainly aren't up to the task in any way.

3 out of 10: Don't waste your time. If you do Jerry Stiller might reward you... a little.