SHERLOCK HOLMES.

From the trailers, I was never sure what to make of this movie. I'm not an avid fan of Sherlock Holmes or anything, so it wasn't an issue of staying true to source material or whatever. I guess it just made it seem a pure action movie with slow motion visuals and little on the mystery. I suppose this is a case where the trailer wrongfully portrays a film.

Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.) is the greatest detective of his time. He and his partner and friend, Dr. Watson (Jude Law), have just stopped Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong) from killing another person. Blackwood is then tried and hung for his deeds. But then he rises from the dead and boggles the minds of the Scotland Yard. Around this same time, an old 'flame', Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams), arrives to stir up a bit of trouble in Holmes' life. But while working on her case, he gets mixed up in the new case of Blackwood's resurrection. And it's up to him and Watson to solve the case before it's too late.

First, the movie wasn't just all action as I had feared. There is plenty of it there, but there's also a good bit of mystery involved, as well. And as for my much-feared slo-mo fighting, it worked in the context of the movie. Basically, it's Holmes slowing down the situation and thinking out his points of attack, rationalizing it, before he does it. And it only happens a couple times. Other than that, the action is pretty good.

The mystery, on the other hand, is (from what I hear) classic Sherlock Holmes. By that I mean that there is no way for the audience to figure it out beforehand. You know what bits and pieces are important when you see them, but there's no way (unless you're a scientist or genius) to figure out what the pieces mean or how they fit together. Usually I hate that kind of mystery, as I think the point of a mystery is to be able to figure it out yourself (thus becoming the detective), so taking away that ability and giving it a "out of nowhere" response is a bit of a letdown. Not necessarily the case here. I think they kept it entertaining enough and shot well enough that it didn't really bother me.

As with most Guy Ritchie films, the dialogue is heavy and fast, making it sometimes hard to follow. Though, unlike his other films, it doesn't permeate throughout the entire film. It's just in a few places here and there. But also, like other Ritchie films, the cinematography and overall visual style was great. There were some really beautiful shots in the movie.

I don't have too much to say about the film, really. I liked the visuals, the music, and (as expected) the comedy. I suppose the biggest surprise was Jude Law. I don't go out of my way to see Jude Law films, but I really enjoyed his portrayal of Dr. Watson and wanted him back when he wasn't on screen. Anyway, an all around fun film. It was good entertainment, and I'll definitely be seeing the sequel (because there's gonna be one).


A Keanu 'Whoa'

P.S. The biggest disappointment? The McAdams cleavage shot from the trailer isn't in the movie. Boo.

NINE.

As a fan of musicals (I was raised with them and come from a pretty big musical family), I knew I was going to see this. It also didn't hurt that it was fully of people (both behind and in front of the camera) who either won or were nominated for an Oscar. But then reviews started coming out, a lot of them stating that the film was somewhere between pretty good and great, and most leaning toward merely "pretty good." I suppose this is the part where I usually do my plot description, but that's really the film's primary fault: there really isn't one. If I had to try, I'd say it's the following: a famous filmmaker, Guido Contini (Daniel Day-Lewis), is having a bit of writer's block for his upcoming film. So he tries to just get away from his crew (including Judi Dench) whilst cheating on his wife (Marion Cotillard) with Carla (Penelope Cruz). There's also a reporter for an American fashion magazine (Kate Hudson), visions of his dead mother (Sophia Loren), as well as daydreams about a prostitute from his childhood (Fergie). All the while trying to figure out a script to be able to give to his leading lady and muse (Nicole Kidman).

Basically, it's more of a character study than anything. And if you couldn't figure it out on your own, over half the songs constantly repeat the name "Guido," making sure you understand this is all about him. And I don't mean this as a bad thing... I suppose one of the movie's main themes is Guido's selfishness and possible narcissism and how it affects everyone around him.

But really, there is absolutely no real plot to carry the movie, and I think that's where it suffers the most. Well that and the fact that about a third of the songs are kinda boring. I had a couple friends at the movie, too, and one of them had the complete polar opposite opinion in one regard. But as she tends to have worse taste in films, I'll go ahead and say I'm probably right in this case (and the fact that most of the reviews out there share the same thought as me). And the opinion? (Mine:) Kate Hudson's performance wasn't the greatest in the film, while Fergie blew them all out of the water (My friend: But Fergie just sat in a chair, and Kate Hudson danced around! Me: *le sigh*). Fergie had the best and most memorable scene in the film, the best choreographed number, the best edited scene, and the best song (which I suppose is why they used it in the trailer). It's just unfortunate that all the songs weren't at that same level. I'm not saying that was the only good song, though. No, there were a lot of good songs, and a lot of the songs were filmed really well. I just mean that that one was the best (in my humble opinion).

The acting was outstanding, of course, with all these great actors and actresses. Though with all these great people in one movie, you can't have them all with big parts. There are tons of beautiful women in the movie, but only a couple of them are in the movie more than 5-10 minutes (these being Penelope Cruz and Marion Cotillard. Nicole Kidman comes in third, then Kate Hudson and Fergie). Judi Dench is also in it quite a bit, and she does really well with her role. Sophia Loren only seems to be there so the movie can go "Hey, look, we have Sophia *beepin'* Loren!" Will this one be another Oscar nom for Day-Lewis? Probably not, but he still did brilliantly as usual. And he was surprisingly funny. I wasn't expecting the amount of humor he brought to it.

Overall, the movie is gorgeous in every way possible. The cinematography is superb (and you wouldn't expect any less from the director of Chicago). The women are beautiful and scantily clad (and you wouldn't expect any less from the director of Chicago). The musical numbers are dream-like and fascinating (and you... OK, you get it). Good music, good acting, decent writing, poor plotting. In other words, it could have been better, but it was still pretty dang good.


A Keanu 'Whoa'

THE PRINCESS AND THE FROG.

I wasn't planning on rushing out to see this, but after all the "best animated film in years" reviews, I knew I had to check it out, if just for my "Top 10 Animated Films of the 2000s" post. So I went out tonight on a whim and checked it out. And I have to say... I was pleasantly surprised. It takes place in Jazz Age New Orleans. Tiana (Anika Noni Rose) comes from a poor family, but it was her father's dream to open up a popular restaurant and run it with her. But her father dies before making it come true. Tiana continues to grow, trying to make this dream become a reality. But she's an ultimate realist who thinks you have to purely work hard to get what you want, as just wishing upon a star will get you nowhere. That is, until carefree Prince Naveen (Bruno Campos) comes into town with his British man-servant, Lawrence (Peter Bartlett). They stumble across Dr. Facilier AKA The Shadow Man (Keith David), a VooDoo witch doctor with a devilish plan up his sleeves. He turns Naveen into a frog and gives Lawrence the ability to look like Naveen, so that when the right time comes, Facilier can use him to take over the town and fulfill a deadly deal he had made to those "on the other side." Long story short (too late), Naveen escapes and comes across Tiana, thinks she's a princess, and talks her into kissing him. But because she isn't a princess, she turns into a frog herself. They end up on a crazy journey to try and get themselves back to normal, and they come across a couple of new friends, including a jazz-loving alligator, Louis (Michael-Leon Wooley), and a Cajun lightning bug in love with a star, Ray (Jim Cummings). The movie also shares the vocal talents of John Goodman, Terrance Howard, and Oprah.

I know, that's a lot of plot... but it's really not all that complicated. But if I were to complain about anything with this movie, it would deal with plot-related things. For instance, there's either too much story going on or not enough. The beginning moves way too slowly for my liking. It was right before the first song when I started thinking "OK, is this movie gonna, you know, start yet?" It feels like it takes about 30 minutes (and it probably does... I didn't look at my watch) before we even get to the frog stuff. But then the singing starts, and I start to feel better (I'll get into the singing momentarily). Though it really isn't until the frog stuff comes in that I felt the movie really started. But then there's the other side of the spectrum. What kind of debt did the Shadow Man owe? How did some of these characters figure out specific information that hadn't been shared yet? Who the heck said anything about having to be kissed before "midnight" so that the curse could be broken? Naveen didn't even know the kissing thing would work until he saw the fairy tale book and got the idea. And I know "before midnight" isn't in that story, because I researched different fairy tales for a book. And, (SPOILERISH), didn't Naveen explain to Tiana that there was a Human-Naveen impersonator... and if so, why did she react the way she did near the end? (END SPOILERISH).

The only other real issue I had was that I didn't quite buy into the quickness of the falling-in-love of the two central characters. In past Disney films, there's always a passing of time or a musical montage. Sure, there's one in this movie, but there's a difference. I think the difference is that in previous films, the characters have actually liked each other for a bit before the montage so that the "falling in love" sequence works. Here, it feels as if Tiana goes from being highly annoyed by Naveen to being all Ga-Ga over him and falling for his Love Game while Just Dance-ing (sorry, I really couldn't help it). And the musical montage isn't even that long... nor is it much of a montage. It's just the two of them dancing for a brief song. I want another "Kiss the Girl" or "Whole New World" or "Can You Feel The Love Tonight" or "Beauty and the Beast (main theme)." But maybe it's just me.

But speaking of the music, it really was wonderful. Sure, it takes a while for the singing to start in the movie, but once it does, it doesn't let up. I already love the music of New Orleans and the whole Jazz Age thing, so that was actually one of my only initial draws to the film (for instance, one of my favorite things about True Blood is the fact it's based in deep south Louisiana. I'm just fascinated by the culture). I'm not sure there was a song I didn't like.

The characters were good, too. The Shadow Man is a great villain... and actually pretty creepy. I honestly think he might be a little too scary for some small children. But his whole voodoo thing, as well as how they portrayed him and his "shadow" were great. Louis and Ray are good side characters, as well. I particularly loved Ray's neverending love for Evangeline... it was such a sweet aspect of the film, and it really added a whole other layer. It's just upsetting that it had to start so late in the film (I'd say about halfway). Of course, we have Naveen and Tiana, as well. Naveen is the spoiled prince who has never worked in his life, and Tiana is the workaholic waitress who knows nothing but work. So of course their personalities are going to clash. I particularly liked Naveen. He had some pretty funny lines.

And I haven't even talked about the animation yet. As you probably know, this is the first hand-drawn Disney film in 5 years (since Home on the Range)... but it harkens back to the good 'ol films, the myth-and-musical films of Disney, the last of which was arguably Mulan over a decade ago. I would argue that this film, especially the best parts of this film, ranks up there with those late 80s/early 90s films of Disney (Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, etc.).

The animation is gorgeous. The characters are fun. The story is good. The music is great. It has a few issues here and there, but don't most films? I went in not knowing what to expect fully, and I came out really enjoying it. It could have started faster, and it seems they cut out a couple things that maybe they need to put back in. But for the most part, it was a really good movie.


A Keanu 'Whoa'

AVATAR.

I really don't know what to say. I'm still in a bit of awe from the film. I suppose you could say I was marginally taken in by the hype, but not even close to fully. I do enjoy James Cameron films. But I wasn't sure what to make of this movie by the trailer. But I suppose my lesson was learned: Don't try to decide what to feel about the movie by the trailer alone. You just have to see it to believe it, I guess.

Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) is an ex-marine and current paraplegic. His twin brother was involved with the Avatar program, a program in which people link up to a hybrid lifeform that looks like the Na'Vi, the humanoid natives of the planet Pandora. On Pandora is a mineral substance that is worth a lot of money. The Avatar folks, led by Dr. Grace Augustine (Sigourney Weaver), want to try a peaceful way to get the Na'Vi to relocate from the Hometree, which just so happens to be the largest deposit of the mineral. But the military folks, led by Colonel Miles Quaritch (Stephen Lang), have more violent measures in mind. But when Jake's avatar gets involved with the natives on a personal level, the colonel takes it upon himself to enlist Jake to give him secret intel. But Jake, who is quickly learning the lifestyles and rituals of the Na'Vi, primarily from a female named Neytiri (Zoe Saldana), begins to realize that the side he's working for might not be the right one.

To get the negatives out of the way first, I'll begin with the story. There really isn't one. That mineral stuff is really only mentioned by name once and only shown twice (that I remember). It's not really discussed at any great length. There are hints that Earth is a dying planet, but the idea isn't really explored, either. Two things really come about due to the lack of story: 1) certain character developments (such as the Norm character, who feels like he had some deleted scenes that altered his character in spots) and 2) the entirety of the second act comes off as one giant montage. In other words, the movie has your basic "Guy Infiltrates Enemy, Guy Discovers Enemy Is Good And His Team Is Enemy, Enemy Finds Out About Guy And Shuns, Guy Finds Way To Prove Self, Guy Fights With Opposing Team" story and doesn't go much deeper than that.

But it doesn't have to. What the movie lacks in story, it makes up with... well, everything else. I can't even say enough about the visuals. You really get nothing from the trailer. You can tell there's gonna be eye candy, but until you're sitting in a dark theater and seeing the full movie in its 3D glory (and you must see it in 3D... otherwise, there's probably no point), you have no idea. Every little detail is gorgeous.

And the movie is so damn imaginative it makes me weep with envy. This is really one of those stories that makes me go "I wish I had thought of that..." And not just about the Avatar thing. That's hardly even the tip of the iceberg. There's a whole new mythos created for this film. The plant life, the animals, the religion, the landscape, and even the way of life--the detail and thought put into this new planet and this new species is breathtaking and rich.

The acting is great, as well. Stephen Lang would make R. Lee Ermey proud with his portrayal of a douchebag military officer. It's funny to see the two completely opposite sides of Stephen Lang--first a more comedic and/or whimsical character in The Men Who Stare At Goats, and now this. Also in the movie are Michelle Rodriguez and Giovanni Ribisi, who do well with the little screen time they're given. But I really wanna throw it up for Zoe Saldana, who portrayed the emotions of this alien being so beautifully. Though I kinda found it funny how her character was conflicted with Eve Syndrome (no matter what was going on, the leaves always covered her 'parts'. I swear, she could be swinging upside down in high gusting winds, and the leaves would always stay perfectly positioned around her breasts). I don't know, I think that was more distracting than it would have been having random bits of nudity. Or maybe we've already met the year's quota on blue genitalia with Watchmen.

Anywho, on that note, I suppose I'll wrap this up. The movie's only real negative is its lack of story... which doesn't even feel like an issue until about halfway through. The movie is nearly 3 hours long, and when you have a nearly 3-hour movie with little story, you start to feel it after a while. But luckily the visuals are there to keep you going. And the characters do get you invested. You root for the Na'Vi, even though the movie is mostly predictable. So go out and see it, definitely. But see it in 3D, or else you're completely missing out. I'm not even going to dock my final score for the story issue, either. The movie was so pure imagination and fun that I'm gonna give it my highest.


Royale With Cheese

NINJA ASSASSIN.

For any of you who know me well enough, or any of you who just listen to the LAMBcast, you'll know I've been relatively excited about Ninja Assassin. Therefore, it's no surprise that I went and saw the first showing available this morning. Was it what I expected? Yes and No. The movie is about Raizo (Rain), a former ninja who decided to leave his clan and fight the ninja themselves (like an assassin of ninja... hence the non-redundant title, Ninja Assassin). We also have two Europol agents, Ryan (Ben Miles) and Mika (Naomie Harris), who stumble upon a scandal involving political assassinations that seem to have been committed by a ninja clan. Of course, everybody thinks they're crazy, at least until Mika starts being hunted down for knowing too much. But Raizo steps in to protect her, and they have to work together to stay alive while trying to bring down the clan.

The first thing that I noticed about this movie that I didn't expect was the amount of blood and gore. Good God, there's a lot of it. From the start, when a guy's head gets sliced (horizontally) in half and fake CGI blood splatters everywhere, you know you're in for something. I actually wasn't bothered by the amount of blood in the movie as much as I was bothered by the amount of CGI blood in the movie. It's in Tarantino amounts here, but instead of gushing from hoses strapped into fake stumps or whatever, it's just gushes and gushes of technically nothing. It isn't anything that bothered me enough to dislike the movie, however. And it isn't all CGI... in fact, when you get real fake blood instead of fake fake blood, it's all the more welcome.

The second thing I noticed was that the acting wasn't nearly as bad as I had read in early reviews. Sure, it's nowhere close to Oscar-worthy, but it's also nowhere close to, say, The Legend of Chun-Li from earlier this year. And I bring up this particular movie because the Naomie Harris/Ben Miles scenes reminded me a lot of the Chris Klein/Moon Bloodgood scenes from said movie. Fortunately, though, they weren't nearly as poorly written nor as horribly acted. And I have to say, Naomie Harris is a freakin' chameleon. Raise your hand if you've actually realized that this is the same woman who was Selena in 28 Days Later... and Tia Dalma (AKA the weird Bayou woman) from the Pirates of the Caribbean sequels. And then we have Rain, who I've had my eye on since his brilliant (and award-winning) performance in I'm A Cyborg, But That's OK. Also, for those of you who don't know, he's also a South Korean pop star (which is what makes a certain "boy band" joke in the movie funny, but which will be lost to the majority of the film's American audience).

The third thing I noticed was that the action was really freakin' cool (not to mention it's all actual stunt men and little-to-no wire work, which I think adds to the cool-factor)... but it's not the whole movie. In fact, the first half of the movie is backstory interspersed with action scenes. It flips back and forth between three main occurrences: 1) Raizo's childhood being raised as a ninja, 2) Mika and Ryan trying to figure out the ninja conspiracy while not being killed, and 3) action scenes. It's mostly when Raizo's story and Mika's story converge that the action really picks up. Everything up until that point is really good, but everything after that point is awesome (and almost non-stop). In fact, had there not been any action throughout the whole movie except for the climax scene up through the final fight between Raizo and his old master, I would have just dubbed it a slow burn film and been content. Because seriously, that final fight is epic in both the choreography and in the filming style (anything from filming through a burning wall to just the silhouettes behind a lit sliding door... and more). OK, maybe not wholly content (it is a violent ninja movie, after all), but it was still an awesome climax nevertheless.

Story-wise, one thing I wanted to point out was that it could have used a bit more building up of the relationship between Raizo and his "rival" (the guy who always calls him "brother"). I suppose you see them competing against each other growing up, and he's involved in a very important moment in Raizo's life, but outside that, there wasn't really anything that made their bond strong. Because of this, their big fight scene near the end had less of an impact... or at least not as big as the one between Raizo and his old master.

Anyway, on the one hand, I expected it to be a cheesy action movie about ninjas. But what I got was an awesome action movie (with some strong horror elements, especially toward the end) about ninjas with a couple cheesy moments tossed in here and there. So I guess it met my expectations and then some. I was thoroughly entertained, albeit a bit thrown off at first by all the backstory in the first half of the film. I guess I wasn't expecting, what's the word... character depth (:P)? But it's there. And the movie is great fun.



A Keanu 'Whoa'

THE TWILIGHT SAGA: NEW MOON.

I'm gonna do this review a bit differently than usual (don't worry, you're not missing anything by me skipping the usual plot blurb at the beginning. There isn't much of one to begin with. Anywho...). It's no secret that I have a large disliking of the Twilight books. Yes, I've read them all. No, it's not because I'm a lit snob (I'm really not). If you want a full list of reasons why I don't care for them, you can check here. Otherwise, I'll keep it to New Moon in this post. And on top of not liking the books, I hated New Moon the most of them all. But ever since I saw the first film and discovered, much to my surprise, that the film was actually better than the book (not hard to do when all you can do is make improvements... the books are, for the most part, unfilmable to any common viewer, so they have to add into the films everything the book was lacking to make them work), I actually started to anticipate New Moon. I wondered if it would take out everything that made me hate New Moon: The Book and make New Moon: The Movie actually enjoyable.

So let's go through a list of why I hated New Moon: The Book so much:

1) Bella is an insufferable, unlikable, selfish character who just uses and abuses those around her to satisfy her own needs.

2) Jacob goes from great character and much more suitable love interest to unlikable jerk about halfway in.

3) All depression, not much humor. And without much plot to keep you going, that's not that great.

4) Long, drawn out scenes of Bella being a moaning zombie... and not that kind that eats human flesh.

5) Absolutely zero action (as is the case with basically the whole series, really).

So how does New Moon: The Movie fare with these five aspects? Let's see:

1) Bella, unfortunately, is still an insufferable, unlikable, selfish character who just uses and abuses those around her to satisfy her own needs. But hey, at least she admits it once or twice in the movie (not in those harsh of words, but whatever). Oh, quick note while we're on the subject of admitting things. I love an admission she makes at the beginning of the movie that I don't believe she makes in the book. Bella and Edward are fighting over age, and Bella says something along the lines of "Isn't this kinda gross? I should be disgusted" based on their age difference. That made me smile.

2) Jacob... oh, Jacob. I loved Jacob in the first half of the book and came to hate him in the second half. In fact, Jacob didn't start to turn back around to likable again until about the mid-point of the last book. So I am delighted to announce that not only does Jacob stay likable in the movie, but his bursts of anger feel more rationalized in the movie than in the book. However, because of this, I feel movie goers are going to have an even harder time accepting that Bella would rather choose Edward over him. I think the only thing that helped me rationalize her choice in the book was the fact that Jacob became kind of a douche at times. And while he has some moments in the movie, they actually make some kind of sense, unlike the book. But the actor did a really good job with the character. He was very fitting (and funny).

3) Which brings us to our next point. The book was pretty dark, dull, and depressing. Like the book, the movie still has not much of a plot, and just kinda bounces from scene to scene. But the movie inserted some much needed comedy, particularly with Jacob and his La Push friends (though I'm actually kinda upset that they basically all but removed Quil and Embry, giving them only a couple lines each). And surprisingly, a lot of the humor was purposeful. Though there was quite a bit that wasn't, as well. For instance, there's a scene with Edward walking in slow motion as the wind blows his shirt back, as if he's some TV model (who eventually starts to sparkle). I'm sorry, but that's just so terrible it's funny. That's really the only thing that helped me get over the ridiculous melodrama of the whole thing--it takes itself so freakin' seriously that it almost makes a mockery of itself. In fact, I'm wondering if the director purposefully gave it some self-deprecating moments because he understood just how silly it was.

4) So, I've already mentioned the melodrama. Some of this does, indeed, include Bella as a moaning zombie. Her nightmares are particularly stupid, as she continually screams into the night, annoying her father (who is so far continuing to be one of the better film version characters) along with the audience. However, one of the eye-rolling sequences of the book (at least for me) was when there are just four pages with the name of the month on it, showing how she just mopes about for four months after Edward leaves. This is actually handled very artfully in the film. Bella sits in a chair staring out the window, and the camera slowly rotates around her. As the camera gets back to showing out the window, it shows a different season outside while giving a subtitle of the month. Eventually, there is also some voice-over of her speaking out her emails to Alice, which was a nice touch that I don't remember from the book. I like how they use the emails to Alice throughout the film to show that she's actually missing other Cullens besides Edward (of course, the emails don't go through, but she keeps trying nonetheless).

5) In the first film, they added the climax fight that wasn't shown in the book. They even tossed in some action bits here and there throughout the film to keep the tempo going. So how did this one fare? There were some moments interspersed... nothing really major, though. But they also added in the scuffle with the Volturi at the end, which was awesome. The action looks much better in this film than it did in the first. It's much more stylized and fun. You can tell they had a bigger budget this time around. One of my favorite scenes in the film is when Charlie and Harry are out searching for the "wolves," and Victoria shows up. The whole action of the scene is so muted with the music and it's really nicely shot. Of course, all this leads up to the "big scene" that jump starts (no pun intended) the climax. But tying all of it together was a great way to make it flow into the ending.

So I said the first Twilight film was better than the book. I also said I hated the book of New Moon, but would hope, like its predecessor, the movie version would also be better than the book. Was I right in this assumption? Yes, I think I was. And it pisses me off that Hollywood seems capable of adapting a bad book into an entertaining movie, yet seems incapable of adapting a good book into one. But that's another post.

I can't, in right mind, give it the following score for being a good movie. The acting is mediocre at best (the best of it coming from Billy Burke, Ashley Greene, Michael Sheen, and Taylor Lautner). But that's what makes it so laughably good (in adding to the melodrama). The characters aren't particularly likable (except, ironically, for the characters played by the aforementioned actors... except Michael Sheen, but I only say that because his is a villain, and he isn't 'likable' in the same respect). The dialogue, most straight from the book, is nearly vomit inducing. But there's still just something about it that I liked. Maybe it's just a good 'bad' movie. So I'm giving it this score based solely on entertainment, I suppose. And I can't wait to love/hate the next one (assuming it, like the last two, is better than the book).


A Keanu 'Whoa'

2012.

For such a long movie, you'd think I'd have a lot to say. I really don't. It's pretty much what you'd expect from a Roland Emmerich film. It has a huge cast of seemingly unrelated yet interconnected characters played by the likes of John Cusack, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Amanda Peet, Thandie Newton, Danny Glover, Oliver Platt, and Woody Harrelson. It's the end of the world, so there's a lot of survivalist action mixed with family drama. Some will do anything to live. Some will stay behind to do the nobel thing yet die in the process. Others will be jerks and upset everybody. Someone will put themselves and/or others in jeopardy to save a dog. And somebody will inevitably try to act the hero and nearly die in the process.

It's not a bad movie. Is it predictable? Sure. Is it entertaining? Most of it (it starts to stretch itself a bit thin in its second hour). How is it acted? Averagely. Are the special effects good? Very. Do I care about the characters? At least two (Cusack and Ejiofor. Maybe Cusack's daughter).

The best part of the film is its action scenes, the scenes wherein our main characters are trying to escape certain death. The main two scenes (or at least the best two scenes) are within the first hour or so. The first is when the world is first starting to go, and Cusack has to get his family across town to the airport in a limo while everything is falling apart around them, which is immediately followed up by the small airplane sequence as seen in the trailers, with the plane flying low through the collapsing city (the 'flying low' thing makes more sense in the context of the film, I think, once you know the circumstances). The second is at Yellowstone, when Cusack goes to meet back up with Harrelson to figure out where the "ships" are to get to safety, and in the process gets stuck in the middle of a Super Volcano eruption. After these two scenes, you do see a lot of worldly destruction, but it doesn't involve any main characters, so you really don't care. The next major suspense scene is at the climax of the film, which I won't ruin.

This is why I believe the second hour drags a bit. The two biggest suspense scenes occur toward the end of the first hour/beginning of the second hour. Then you have about an hour stretch with no major suspense before the climax of the film. We probably could have lost the subplot with the two fathers on the cruise ship. If we wanted to keep the time length, we could have given more substance to the Chinese family, which would have made them more than just a Deus Ex Machina for our main cast. Instead, they get about 2 main scenes of less than 5 minutes or so total before they come back into the picture in the third act.

In other words, it looked good and it did have some decent entertainment. There were some parts that probably weren't meant to be funny that were. And I couldn't help but think of Fezzik (The Princess Bride) any time that Russian Businessman spoke. I expected him to start rhyming any second. But it was a bit too long and could have easily been trimmed down a bit, mostly in the second hour. But it was pretty much exactly what I expected, so I wasn't really let down, either.

Stop Saying Okay! Okay.

THE BOX.

I wasn't never sure if I was going to see this movie in theater or not. I've seen both Kelly's previous films (Donnie Darko and Southland Tales), both of which take quite a bit of, well, something to sit through and still stay sane. The first time I saw Donnie Darko, I knew I had seen something pretty good. Strange, but good. In fact, it made no sense whatsoever, but something about it still resonated with me. I saw Southland Tales earlier this year after hearing mixed reviews of either "this movie is terrible" and "this is a really good bad movie." And sure enough, it took everything I had to sit through that way too long film, but in the end I felt it was worth it, because it was simultaneously one of the worst movies I had ever seen mixed with one of the most ambitious and possibly genius. And, like its predecessor, it made absolutely no sense.

So enter The Box. When I first saw the trailers, I thought this would be one of his more accessible films. After all, with a pretty straight-forward concept, how could you mess it up? Then the reviews started coming in. Did I actually want to sit through a roughly 2 hour movie that made absolutely no sense and had thus far had a 10:1 good:bad review rating? Everything I had heard said it was just yet another Kelly film: (After the first half of the movie) 1) it just stops making any sense whatsoever, 2) it's confusing, 3) it's weird, and 4) it's pretty terrible. But I was off today and decided to give it a shot. So now that I've seen the movie, do I agree with these sentiments? 1) No, 2) No, 3) Yes, and 4) No.

The basic story for the film is that Norma (Cameron Diaz) and Arthur (James Marsden), a couple in need of money, are given a box with a button on it by a strange man named Arlington Steward (Frank Langella). Here's the deal: If they press the button within 24 hours, they will receive 1 million dollars. The catch? Someone somewhere in the world that they do not know will die.

It's really not until about 45 minutes to an hour into the movie before it starts getting a bit weird. I mean, there's the weird characterizations (disfigured foot, disfigured face, random nosebleeds), but that's nothing compared to what comes later. However, everybody is saying that it makes no sense, it's confusing, and they just had to stop trying to figure it out and roll with it if they were even going to remotely enjoy it. I didn't find it confusing at all. Maybe I'm just weird, but I thought it was pretty easy to figure out and it made quite a bit of sense. I actually thought some of it was a bit predictable, honestly (not everything, mind you). And the closer the movie came to its close, the more I began to like it, as more and more behind the purpose of the box was revealed. I just really liked the whole concept of it.

The acting could have been better, though. I'd say the only two who were really any good were James Marsden and Frank Langella. It's like Cameron Diaz couldn't be bothered to even phone this one in, and all the "blank" people, as I call them, ended up kinda annoying after a while. But Marsden held his own as a leading man, while Langella played a pretty good bad guy. If they had any bad moments, it was a scripting issue. There were a few really cheesy/forced dialogue moments (for instance, the 'christmas tree lights/everybody dies' conversation). But they weren't too terribly common.

The only other thing of note is the special effects. They could have been better. The facial scar on Langella was almost distractingly fake. They could have taken note from The Dark Knight on that one. And all the 'water' effects hardly looked complete. The Abyss had better water effects, and that was made 20 years ago.

Overall, I honestly didn't think I'd end up liking it as much as I did. Will I run out to buy it as soon as it hits DVD? Probably not. But I don't regret seeing it. If I saw it on Showtime or some other movie channel, I might stop and watch. It wasn't remotely as bad as I'd heard, and the story was pretty good. Was it weird? Hell yes. But it wasn't confusing, nor did I have to stop thinking about it to enjoy it. It was good.

I Am McLovin!

(P.S. I'm still not sure if there was some intentional comedy thrown in there from the strangeness, especially with the 'blank' people, but I would hope that Kelly wasn't taking the whole film seriously. Either way, it made for decent entertainment.)

Short Review: The Room.

Premise: A woman no longer loves her "Future Husband" and starts to destroy the relationship between the two of them and all of their friends when she begins an affair with her Future Husband's best friend.

Starring: Tommy Wiseau, Juliette Danielle, Greg Sestero, Philip Haldiman, and Carolyn Minnott.

My Reaction: This movie is hailed as one of the worst of all time. After Jason from Invasion of the B-Movies ragged on it, and then Fletch from Blog Cabins began on it, as well, I knew I had to check it out (especially once they began planning a LAMBcast around it). I didn't see it in time for the episode, but I finally saw it and... wow. Just... wow. No words can explain this movie. From the dialogue to the acting to the music to... anything. And the first thirty minutes of the movie is like a bad Cinemax porn. The last movie I saw this splendidly terrible was The Spirit. Seriously, this movie had me laughing at things that probably weren't meant to be laughed at. From never-ending sex scenes to characters saying one thing and then immediately doing the opposite (or asking for advice and then going "I don't wanna talk about it!"). In the realm of this type of dialogue, my favorite was something along the lines of "My mother tries to control my life! But not anymore. Nobody will control me. I'm my own woman. So what do you think I should do?" And then the flower shop scene ("Hi doggie!") and... it's just hard to pick a favorite. Like I said, there are no words that can describe this movie. Well, maybe four. In the words of Tommy Wiesau's Johnny, "Ha ha ha ha."

THE MEN WHO STARE AT GOATS.

I wasn't too sure what to expect going into this movie, but I knew it looked good. So I guess, in that sense, the movie exceeded expectations. There's really not a plot. Not only is the movie non-linear, but it's more of a character study than a plot-driven film. Basically, all I can say is that after his wife leaves him, Bob (Ewan McGregor) decides to do some field journalism in Iraq. While there, he meets Lyn (George Clooney), recognizing his name from an earlier interview he conducted with another man (Stephen Root). Lyn, apprehensive at first, eventually takes a liking to Bob and takes him under his wing as they travel through the desert-land of Iraq. Lyn explains his past with a secret military unit known as the New Earth Army, developed by Bill Django (Jeff Bridges). The unit specialized in psychic, peace-driven, non-lethal warfare techniques that made the men into super-soldiers--or, as commonly referred to in the film, Jedi. Kevin Spacey plays a man named Larry who joins the unit and is an eventual catalyst to its downfall (not a spoiler, as the voice-over narration basically tells you this when he's introduced).

Like I said, the movie is very non-linear. It bounces back and forth through time constantly, but it isn't distracting. The only time I was confused was the beginning, as it starts in 1980 but, after the opening scene, it goes to present day without saying 'present day' (unless I missed it). But I quickly caught on (the TV showing George W. Bush speaking as President helps). Though I suppose it isn't really present day, as the "present day" of the movie is actually something like 2003. But I digress.

The non-plot of the movie doesn't really hurt it, either. I only felt one moment of drag, which is about a 5 minute span of film near the end when the movie turns a bit too serious and feels like it needs to start wrapping things up. But then, right when you start feeling that, it starts wrapping things up. So it's all good. Well, as much as you can 'wrap up' with this movie.

The best thing about this film was the writing. It was very clever, very smart, very witty, very funny movie. And it's totally a nerd movie wrapped up in a "non-nerd" casing. The entire movie is filled with nerdy references, the most common of which is Star Wars. And every time I heard things like "warrior monk" or "shaman," or when they constantly talked about things like "level 3 invisibility" or "level 2" something else, I couldn't help but think of things like Dungeons and Dragons. The nerd part of me (which is a pretty big part) wanted to squeal with glee at nearly every other line in this movie. It's just hilarious. There's no other way to put it. Oh, and the satire of the film is good, too, though the ending might be somewhat controversial to those with a more conservative outlook.

And what helps pull off the comedy is the straight-faced way that these guys, led by Clooney, pull it off. You can clearly tell that everybody is having tons of fun with this movie. Clooney is at his comedic best here, and even Spacey has some out-there moments that are so bizarre they're funny. Of course, Jeff Bridges is good in whatever he does. But there are a couple smaller roles that are great. Stephen Root and Robert Patrick make fun cameos, while Stephen Lang has a small but memorable role as he steals every scene he's in just by smiling. And then there's the straight man, Ewan McGregor, who is the Sancho Panza to Clooney's Don Quixote.

I mean, that's really the best way to explain this movie. It's a modern day Don Quixote. Don Quixote thought he was a warrior of legend in his day--the knight. Lyn Cassady thinks he's a warrior of legend in our day--the Jedi warrior (sans light saber). And Ewan McGregor is the one riding around with him, getting into trouble, constantly getting hurt, but sticking by his new friend and eventually coming over to his way of thinking. And in the end, it's up to the viewer to decide if it was all real or BS. And I loved it (I might even go so far to say it could be one of my new favorite movies, and definitely in my Top 10 of the year).

Royale With Cheese

(P.S. As a warning, there is a scene that might be a little too close to home for some people. If you were affected by the tragedy of Ft. Hood, there is a scene in this film that depicts a military base shooting, though in a comical fashion... but after recent events, some might not take to it real comically).

(P.P.S. I almost forgot... I thought it was funny and ironic that Ewan McGregor, at one point, asks the question "What's a Jedi?" Not to mention the constant Jedi/Star Wars references made to, from, and/or around him. But then again, it might have been purposeful casting as an in-joke of sorts).

PARANORMAL ACTIVITY.

(Note: I'm not going to say what the movie's about in this review. Chances are, if you're reading this review, you already know.)

Okay, so I'm a bit late to the game here. Color me skeptic. I first started hearing about this movie a few weeks back when my students were begging me to watch the trailer (read: let them watch the trailer) on the YouTubez. Honestly, I thought it looked lame; I didn't find the trailer even remotely scary. And then I started hearing the reviews about how it's the scariest movie ever made, et cetera. The last time that comment was made, it was for Hostel... and we all know how craptastic that movie is. So, yes, I wasn't really psyched about it.

But the reviews kept coming. Of course there were the naysayers who went with my thoughts that the advertisement was just full of lies and propaganda to get people to see a lame movie. However, even these reviews were vastly overshadowed by the glowing reviews of scariness. So I caved. It came to my town this weekend, and I figured what the heck? At least I could leave the theater and be able to say that I'd seen the movie. In other words, I went into the movie with almost the lowest possible expectations (though there was that want to be proven wrong).

So... what'd I think? Was it the scariest movie in the world? No. But was it scary? Yes. I was actually pleasantly surprised with the movie. Sure, there were some really stupid/lame moments (the 'staring at him sleeping' bit, for instance). But for the most part, the 'night' scenes were actually really creepy. Of course, they start off as nothing and as the movie progresses, it gets crazier and crazier. And by the time it gets to, say, Night 15 or whatever, you're going "Oh God, what next?" (in a good way, not a sarcastic way). However, am I gonna be scared to go to sleep tonight? Does the movie leave me with what I like to call the "after-scare"? I don't think so.

On a horror movie level, it's very old school. It works with shadows, footsteps, and lights, and slamming doors. It really isn't until the end when things start getting physical. And it's all done to really good effect. The handy-cam really added to it all. It was a good use of it. However, it also goes through every horror movie cliche in the book. Cocky boyfriend? Check. Scared lead female? Check. Look in the attic where the demon leads you? Check. Don't get in touch with the authorities that you should be getting in touch with? Check. Do exactly what the authority you did talk to tells you specifically not to do? Check. The list goes on.

The movie also had a surprising amount of humor, though, too. Pretty much all of it came from the boyfriend. My theater was laughing every time he went to go pick up the camera to document whatever terrible thing was going on. Or just a lot of things he said, too. I was almost surprised during the "attic" scene. I thought they were gonna break the cliche when he says a really funny line, but of course they don't. Still, the line was funny (albeit ultimately pointless).

Overall, it was a surprisingly good movie. Maybe it's because my expectations were so low. I don't know how I would have liked it had I bought into all the hype beforehand. I'm not too easy to scare (to be honest, this movie was more creepy than scary. I'd say there were only a handful of truly scary moments. Most of the time, I was just really creeped out). But a lot of people these days are scared easily. Half of my theater was screaming its lungs out at any little thing (like a shadow on the door, or the ceiling tile being slanted to lead into the attic). So who knows?

I Am McLovin!

SAW VI.

Warning: While there are no major spoilers for this installation, there are some mild spoilers for the previous 5 films in this review.

---------------

Anybody who keeps up with this blog knows I'm a fan of the Saw films. I'm one of the few dedicated fans who has yet to give up on the series (and also one of the fans still waiting for the return of Dr. Gordon). I've seen every Saw film on opening night, so I couldn't break the tradition now. I'm honestly not going to bother with a plot description or actor/actress notification, because 1) you should know the general formula of a Saw film by now, 2) if you've been keeping up with the previous films, you'll know where the story currently stands, and 3) the only recognizable actor (outside of the returners) is Family Matters' Darius McCrary, who really only has about less than 5 minutes of screen time anyway.

The last movie got slammed for being too slow. There weren't enough traps. It was too much backstory and too few thrills. So I guess that makes this one the yin to Saw V's yang. If anything, this movie didn't have enough downtime. For the most part, it was trap after trap after trap and very little breathing time. Is that a bad thing? Yes and no. One of the things I love about these movies is the continuing character development and brilliant continuity. Are there flashbacks that continue to show Jigsaw's past and how all the movies are connected? Of course. And actually, you get a better sense of why things happened the way they did through this film. I know you were curious what was in that letter to Amanda in Saw 3... or the box in Saw 5. Well, you find out both in this movie. And so much more. As an end to a second trilogy, this movie could have ended the series. It's not going to, but it could have. It did tie up a lot of loose ends, which was nice to finally have done. Though I'm sorry Gordon fans, he's not back yet. However, they are keeping him in the story by bringing him back up, which continues to make me think they're just keeping his memory fresh for the next film.

Anyway, on to the next subject: the traps. I have to be honest, these were some really inventive traps. The opening one is brutal. Two people separated by a cage with a scale in between them must offer up a certain amount of flesh or else the devices on their heads will drill into their skulls. There's also (my names for the traps) the "Hold Your Breath" trap, the "Hangman" trap, the "Steam Maze" trap, and the "Carousel" trap. And the big mystery trap, the "Acid Cage" trap. I don't think I missed any (besides a special one at the end), but still... they're pretty inventive and suspenseful.

Along with the traps, we gotta talk about gore. Yes, there is blood and guts. The heaviest bits are at the beginning and end, but there is some blood in the middle... just not as full-out as the other two parts. But gore-hounds will love it for sure.

And what's a Saw movie without the twist(s)? The first movie almost literally floored me with its ending. The second one started the multi-twist trend, where one or two twists are obvious, but they're mostly distractions for the "real" twist. The third one was the same as the second (one I figured out, one I didn't). The fourth just confused the heck out of me. And the fifth had a lame ending... because there was no twist. But this sixth one totally comes back in action. I'm not gonna spoil it, but let's just say one is so obvious you can't believe it's a twist, but I think it was really just a distraction for the other one... because that one actually caught me off guard. And I love it when that happens.

The overall movie is pretty good. The acting is average at best, mediocre at worst (with the exception of Tobin Bell, who continues to be outstandingly brilliant). The movie could have used with a bit of slowing down bits, too, to let us breath for a couple minutes. The whole thing had a very chaotic feel to it. One minute, we're seeing this, the next we're seeing something else, and it all zips and zooms around each other that, especially if you're not overly familiar with the previous films, you'll be utterly lost (at least in my opinion). But to me, none of that mattered come the ending. The ending completely made sense of everything, made me realize "oh, so that's what that was about." It's not just chaos for the sake of chaos. There's reason to the madness, which I guess is the theme of the movie. You learn a lot about why Jigsaw is doing what he's doing and why he chose certain people for certain things. Oh, and not to mention there's a really cool ending to it that breaks away from the norm just slightly (and also sets it up for the next movie). I'd say of the second trilogy, it's easily the best of the films (I actually might go as far as to say it's in the top 3 of all 6 films thus far). So my verdict? If the fifth one turned you away from the series, I'd say give the sixth a chance and see if it can pull you back in... at least a little.

A Keanu 'Whoa'

LAW ABIDING CITIZEN.

I was always interested in seeing this movie, but when I found out it was written by Kurt Wimmer (Equilibrium), my attention was caught even more. And on top of the good reviews its been getting, I knew I had to see this sooner than later. Clyde Shelton (Gerard Butler) is a good, law abiding citizen. Then his wife and young daughter are brutally murdered. Now a broken man, Clyde puts everything into the case to put the two men who broke into his house in the lethal injection chair. But instead of taking any risks, Clyde's lawyer, Nick Rice (Jamie Foxx), makes a deal with the one who actually did the killings that would get him out in about 4 years, but put the more innocent of the two on death row. And after 10 years, when it's time for the one to die, something goes wrong, which starts a string of events that lands Clyde in jail. But that's not the end of the murders. Somehow, Clyde is still killing people from inside the high security prison, and it's up to Nick to see through the mind games and figure out how to stop him before it's too late.

This movie is intense. In the first 3 or so minutes, we're already witness to a brutal slaying. And it only gets crazier from there. But it's not all dark and gritty. There's a surprising amount of humor to be found, albeit dark humor. But it was interesting to find yourself cringing and laughing in the same scenes at times.

Another interesting note about the movie is that there really isn't a good guy or bad guy. Both Butler and Foxx play both roles. At times, you feel Butler's pain and wonder if he'll get away with it. At other times, you're like "this dude's insane." On the other hand, you can see Foxx's corruptness, while also seeing his softer family/friend side. It's one of those rare instances where you're not sure which guy you want to win or lose, or if you really want both to win in some form or fashion.

There's really not much to say about the movie. Outside of the premise, which the movie pulls off well, it's your basic (though pretty imaginative) thriller, so you know what you're in for going in. It kept me on the edge of my seat and guessing, which is more than I can say for a lot of other thrillers these days. I do admit to, at one point, having thought I figured it out, only for minutes later to be disproved.

The acting is good, the writing is good... it's all good. The cinematography isn't anything to cry out in the streets about, though there is a particularly beautiful (short) sequence in the climax involving fire that I thought was brilliantly shot. But yeah, if you're into thrillers, and don't mind a bit of brutality here and there, I really recommend it.

A Keanu 'Whoa' 

WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE.

If I could summarize my feelings on this movie in 4 words, it would be: I blame Dave Eggers. To get it out of the way, I haven't read this beloved children's book, so I'm not familiar with the source material. That being said, let's get into the movie. Max (Max Records) has a crappy life with a mother (Catherine Keener) who loves him and a teenage sister who acts like a teenage sister with friends who apologize when they accidentally upset him. This, of course, is all reason for Max to go ape-s*** and be as rude as possible, including demanding fresh food, biting, and immediately running away when told he's acting out of control. Finding a strange boat, Max travels to a far-away island where he finds giant creatures, including the angry Carol (James Gandolfini); his partner, Douglas (Chris Cooper); the paranoid downer, Judith (Catherine O'Hara); her partner, Ira (Forest Whitaker); the bullied one, Alex (Paul Dano); the shy bull (Michael Berry Jr.); and the outcast, KW (Lauren Ambrose). Max pretends to be their king so they won't eat him, and, in the process, destroys their relationships further. Sounds like a grand time to me!

Before I can explain why I blame Dave Eggers, I must divulge the positive. The movie has wonderful visuals. Between the creatures (a mix of animatronics and CGI), the cinematography, the locations, and just anything to look at in general, it was gorgeous and gorgeously shot. Especially once Max gets to the island, it really does seem like a world unto itself.

There is also the great acting (and voice acting). Max Records does a brilliant job holding the whole movie on his shoulders. He's essentially the only human actor in the majority of the film. And for a child actor (hell, even in the realm of adult actors), he does one hell of a job. I also felt that the voice actors fit very well with their roles (the only awkward one was Lauren Ambrose as KW. I don't know why, but the voice seemed too young or light or something to me).

There's even the good soundtrack to match with the film. Now, outside the film, would I love the quirky soundtrack (like I did for, say, Juno)? I'm not sure. But it sure felt good and natural in the context of the film.

All that being said, with my liking of just about everything of the movie... why does the film leave me so... blah? I figured it out as soon as the credits started rolling and I saw the film was co-written by one Dave Eggers. And then it all clicked. I pondered the tone early on in the film, but I was sure of the issue as soon as I saw the name. You see, a while back, I attempted to read Eggers' memoir, A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius. With a promising title like that, plus ecstatic reviews talking about the humor, plus a really promising introduction in the book, I expected a lot from it. Then I started reading chapter one. It was one of the most depressing things ever. Sure, he tried to mix in some humor here and there, and sometimes it worked, but for the most part, it was just uncomfortable and awkward. There were some major tonal problems that made it hard to keep reading (which I didn't).

I feel the same issues followed him here. Again, I'm not sure how the original source was, but this didn't feel like any beloved children's book to me. It was too dark and adult to be for kids, but too--how can I put this--crazy and adolescent for adults. It's hard to describe. In particular the crumbling relationships between the "wild things" made it very adult with some deep undertones. Not to mention the beginning of the third act is essentially a horror movie.

It doesn't help that I was never sure who to root for or who to hate. There is no good guy or bad guy, essentially. But it was really hard to buy Max's dilemmas and empathize with him, because he mainly came off like a selfish brat. And Carol wasn't much better (granted, I'm aware they're mirrored characters... actually, I'm aware all the Wild Things are mirrors to Max's emotions, but still). When you don't really have any full-out likable characters, it's hard to enjoy a movie. And that's even worse for a supposedly children's movie.

There's also a strange transition between worlds. The beginning (which takes almost too long to get going) tries to set everything up as reality. Then it's just like BAM, we're in the boat heading for the island. Is it a dream? Is it real? Who knows? Then, when the ending comes (which isn't nearly happy enough for a children's movie), it isn't much better.

Overall, the visuals (in every aspect, including creature effects)? Oscar-worthy. The acting? Brilliant. The music? Good. So I blame the writing, mostly. The tone is too out of whack. I didn't really care about much, and I found myself constantly looking at my watch. I've read reviews saying that the magic of the book has been removed, and I could see how that's possible. I've also seen reviews saying themes from the book have been ignored, which I can also see possible. For such a beloved children's book, I know something had to be lost in translation. Because on all the technical levels, the film works outstandingly. But on a story/writing level, it really needed some polish. At least that's my opinion.

I Am McLovin! 

(P.S. Confused by my scoring? Don't be. While the review was a bit negative, I did enjoy things about it. It's just that the two sides balance out and bring it down to this level).

SURROGATES.

I finally got around to seeing this movie... but because pretty much everything you really cared to know has been said about it already (and partly because I'm about as lazy as the people in the movie), I'm not gonna do a full review. Instead, I'll just pretend that I'm a surrogate for one of the "Haiku Review" blogs out there. If you want a review in one line, it would be: "I should have gone with my gut and seen Zombieland again." Otherwise, here's a review in 5-7-5:

Acting was awkward

It was too predictable

Good idea, bad script

Stop Saying Okay! Okay.

(P.S. And anyone else totally confused by the entirety of the third act?)

ZOMBIELAND.

From the moment I first saw the first trailer, I was hooked. I've been anticipating this movie for so long, I can't even say. Any of my more ardent readers might be able to tell you that Shaun of the Dead is basically my favorite movie. And as this is supposed to be what is essentially its American cousin, it was a no brainer (no pun intended) that I would be going to this. In other words, I had expectations so terribly high that I was setting myself up for the ultimate disappointment. Fortunately, the movie met my unbelievable expectations... and then some.

The earth has been taken over by a zombie virus, turning it into what the main characters call Zombieland. And each of the main characters are (essentially) named after where the characters are headed (or from). Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg) is a worrisome rule-follower, having a whole set of rules that have apparently kept him alive in Zombieland thus far. But when the meek Columbus meets the badass Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson), they form an unlikely friendship. Columbus is on his way to, well, Columbus, Ohio to see if his family is still alive. Tallahassee, on the other hand, is just enjoying the little things in life and searching for Earth's last twinkie (trust me, in context, it's not as ridiculous as it sound). Then the two men stumble upon a couple of con artist sisters, Wichita (Emma Stone) and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin), on their way to Hollywood to visit a theme park so Little Rock can enjoy the little bit of childhood she has left.

And that's about it. The movie is more about the characters than the plot, really. Eisenberg plays his Columbus in his usual Michael Cera-esque nervousness. Emma Stone is just really freakin' hot (and sassy). Abigail isn't Little Miss Sunshine anymore, and has pulled in a bit of spunk. And the fact that Emma Stone and Abigail Breslin play con artists was just the icing on the cake, as (again) my readers should know how much I like con artist/heist films. And Woody Harrelson was born for the role of Tallahassee. Seriously, that man stole every scene he was in, which is a lot of them (though I was disappointed that the movie left out the line "I love the *beep* out of this song" from the trailer). I think the only times he was one-upped was during the much discussed extended cameo scene of a specific actor who anybody who knows anything about this movie, or has just looked at imdb, already knows about (but which I will not spoil for those who don't/haven't).

One aspect of this type of film that a lot in this genre (horror/comedy) have trouble with is finding a perfect blend of horror and comedy. Either they focus too much on the horror and the comedy feels off-putting (or they use the wrong kind of humor and it backfires), or they focus too much on the humor and the horror feels almost out of place. This movie found that balance. One of my favorite bits was the running gag of the rules for survival, as any zombie fanatic (like myself) just likes to come up with their own survival rules from time to time... or has read Max Brooks' Zombie Survival Guide.

But the suspense is there, too. Occasionally, they'll stop at a store or something like that, and they'll have to fight a zombie or two. But the best bits? Towards the beginning and at the end. The beginning bits with Columbus (both in his introduction and in the flashback sequence) is both funny and frightening. But then you have the climax, which has to be one of the coolest zombie action scenes ever... not to mention one of the best uses of a set-piece ever. They really did not waste any inch of that theme park during the climax. It was suspenseful and all-around brilliant. However, I do want to warn the squeamish, this movie does have a lot of blood and gore in it. Sometimes they pull away, but sometimes they don't pull away at all and you see every hit or bite. It's not torture porn-level or anything. It didn't make me queasy. But a lot of people have weaker stomachs than me, so just a head's up. On the upside, they mix in a ton of humor around the times of gore, so the grossness is often offset by the comedy (if that helps at all).

I really don't know what else to say about the movie. Not only is it both funny and suspenseful (and acted well), but it's shot stylishly, too. There's great use of editing, camera, and a bit of funny slow-mo in the opening credits (which are great in and of themselves). It's currently rivaling Shaun, though I'm not sure if it'll surpass it; I'll have to see Zombieland a few more times to make sure. And I will, too. Definitely. But it is now one of my favorite movies. I strongly recommend it.

Royale With Cheese

(P.S. There's a scene after the credits that's kind of an outtake between Harrelson and the aforementioned cameo star... so don't leave too soon!)

PANDORUM.

When I first saw the teaser trailer for this movie a while back, I was immediately excited for one reason: Ben Foster in a leading role. I've been a big fan of Foster's since I saw him in a little known (but brilliant) film entitled Bang Bang You're Dead, which, had it been a major studio film and not just a Showtime Original, should have won some awards (and given Foster some kind of Oscar nod). But since then, he's been getting some wasted roles, like Angel in X-Men 3, the Stranger in 30 Days of Night, or the crazy outlaw guy from 3:10 to Yuma. But, for the first time since BBYD, it seems he's been given something to work with once again, and I was excited.

Then I continued watching the rest of the teaser/trailer and realized how crazy awesome the film seemed with so little shown of it in said trailer. And from then on, I knew that if done right, this movie could be one of my favorite Sci-Fi films (or Sci-Fi/Horror). So how did it fare? Well, I'll get there in a minute.

The movie is a notable mix of familiar Sci-Fi (or horror) films, such as Aliens, Titan A.E., Sunshine, Event Horizon, The Descent, and a dash of Cube. And considering I only majorly disliked 1 of those films, those were some good odds. It's the future, and Earth is dying. So they send a space vessel, the Elysium, out into space to help (for reasons I don't want to spoil, though it's really not that hard to figure out). Next thing you know, we're watching Bower (Ben Foster) wake up from an extended cryo-sleep with loss of memory (which happens when you're in cryo-sleep for too long). After he orients himself, he is eventually joined by Lieutenant Payton (Dennis Quaid). The power is out, and the only door is locked shut. So Bower goes through the crawl space to get into another part of the ship and find a way to get the power back on. To do this, he must go through basically the entire ship to get to the power reactor thing while Payton stays behind to guide him via radio. But Bower soon realizes he's not alone. Among him are other survivors, including the badass foreign guy Manh (Cung Le), and a feisty woman named Nadia (Antje Traue). And then Payton soon discovers another, Gallo (Cam Gigandet), who seems a little crazed. But what exactly are they survivors from...?

Well, since I made a big deal of Ben Foster, I'll discuss acting first. Although Dennis Quaid gets top billing, Ben Foster is the main character. But is he able to show off his acting chops? Somewhat. This isn't a role as challenging and emotionally deep as the one in BBYD, but he does a pretty good job with it nonetheless. I was happy to see him given a good bit of stuff to do. Quaid, on the other hand, wasn't given much at all. He's basically locked in a room the entire movie asking if Foster's "Bower" is still there. He does do a few other things here and there, and the introduction of Gallo gives him some more interaction, but besides that, there isn't much.

And speaking of Gallo, one of my very few complaints is that I think it might have been better to introduce Gallo a little bit earlier in the movie. Not too early, but a little earlier than he was. And while we're on complaints, I just have a possible nitpick for a plot hole, but somebody correct me if I'm wrong. Throughout the movie, the characters are able to force open locked/shut doors to move around, yet there are other doors (such as the one out of the beginning room) that they can't. Are they just different types of doors or what?

I might need to see it again to get the full explanation of the "creatures," as it goes by really fast, but I liked what I gathered from it. It was original, and it wasn't some cop out "oh, aliens on board!" or anything like that (though there's a bit at the end that might make it moot anyway... who knows?). And speaking of really fast, those action scenes could have really been slowed down a bit. The action was crazy fast editing-wise. Not really shaky-cam, but just quick cuts. It was strange to go from slow, drawn-out frames of building tension to quick-cut action/suspense scenes. Though the action that you could make out was really freaking cool.

I really do think this is one great Sci-Fi flick to add to a list of what is a not-so-great genre. There are few films of this genre--Space Sci-Fi/Horror--that are actually really good (Alien/Aliens and Pitch Black off the top of my head). But I think this is in my Top 5 of the list now. It has a great mix of slow-building tension, suspense, fun action, a bit of humor, a couple scares, great atmosphere, and good writing and acting. Not to mention the special effects, which I haven't really mentioned yet. They're few and far between, but when you see them, they're really good. And the creature effects are decent. They're like a bigger, more humanoid version of the creatures from The Descent. So if you're a fan of the genre (or Ben Foster), I'd say give it a try. I found it highly entertaining, and I know I'll be getting it on DVD when it comes out.

Royale With Cheese

(P.S. Not perfect, as you saw in my review, but I loved it just the same, so I gave it my high score).

JENNIFER'S BODY.

Ever since I first saw trailers for this movie, I wondered how this movie couldn't be fun. It just seemed like, at least on some level, there was no way this movie could disappoint. And I'm glad to say I wasn't. Jennifer (Megan Fox) and Needy (Amanda Seyfried) have been BFFs since the sandbox, even though Jennifer is the super hot popular girl who goes after lead singers, while Needy is the dorky girl who gets the drummer--Chip (Johnny Simmons), to be exact, the only one of the bunch who hasn't liked Jennifer from the get-go. And when an up-and-coming band, guy-liner and all, come to their small town, Jennifer tries to sex up the lead singer, Nikolai (Adam Brody). But after a fire burns down the bar where they're playing, the band takes Jennifer away to "safety." But when she returns, something is different about her, guys start dying, and Needy is totally freaked out.

The movie is more like a comedy with horror qualities than straight-up horror. Yes, there's the dark atmosphere, the tense moments, the bloody kills, and the scary music. But in between all that (and sometimes at the same time as all that), there's the comedy and wit that only Diablo Cody could write. She still uses her made up lingo that no teenager would ever say, but it isn't as prevalent nor as indiscernible as it was in Juno. It's thankfully used sparingly this time around, and you can actually see them using some of these terms... at least in a "best friend code" kind of way (Needy and Jennifer are the only two to use them, and moreso Jennifer). Though of course, the humor is dark as night (a sex scene juxtaposed with a murder in a comic fashion, or Adam Brody's complete lack of caring for the exploding bar or people running around on fire).

The story is entertaining, too. There are things that, at first, don't make sense, but when things are explained, you're like "Oh, okay then." And the beginning is a bit too slow. If there was any major negative to the movie, it's that it takes way too long to get rolling. I'm assuming it's to set up the relationship between the characters before the pace picks up, but there were other littler things that they could have trimmed down on--I don't think we needed to hear about 2 full minutes of the band doing their song before the fire started, for instance. You can also easily tell Diablo Cody was inspired by watching The Exorcist at like 3 in the morning, but I don't think that's a bad thing.

I also liked the way the movie showed the bond between Needy and Jennifer. There was nothing ever specific said about this bond they had, but the times when Needy just knew what was happening with her friend or who she was with... which all leads up to a pretty cool and imaginative final battle sequence. I can also say I was pleasantly surprised at the ending. For a mostly predictable movie, the ending was a nice little bit that makes me want some kind of sequel or spin-off (television or otherwise). If she works it right, Diablo Cody could make up her own Buffy-esque universe with her witty humor, unique language, and demon mythology.

But what's a review about a movie with Megan Fox without bringing up the acting? Believe it or not, she did pretty decently in this one. I'd equate it to Paris Hilton's performance in Repo! The Genetic Opera: she's just playing an exaggerated, crazy form of herself. She's supposed to be the hot girl everybody wants... just add the whole "demon that eats flesh to survive" thing, and you've got it down. Amanda Seyfried was pretty good in her role, too, and she handled the voice-over narration nicely (voice-over narration can fail so easily with the wrong person). And Adam Brody was funny with his role. But I want to, of course, give a shout-out to the one actor I didn't list in my summary: J.K. Simmons. He plays what seems to be the only teacher in the school, and he's quirky to boot. But I don't think it's possible to hate a J.K. Simmons role.

Overall, it's a really entertaining movie, one that I wouldn't mind seeing again (and again after that). I do love a good horror/comedy, though it's hard for them to find a good balance. I think this one did. I would have liked to see some actual nudity considering the movie has strong sexual themes (which makes sense with the type of demon it deals with), though we get none from either lead actress (or anybody else). It was all tease. But mostly, I have no real over-arching problems with the film. It was fun, entertaining, funny, and spooky at times. And the first time Demon-Jennifer smiles with the bloody mouth, it's freaking creepy. So if you're a fan of horror/comedies, I do give this one a recommendation.

Royale With Cheese

(P.S. I know, I might get flak for such a high score for this movie, and I might dip in reputation... but hey, I score based on entertainment value and I was entertained, so I'm not apologizing).