R2D2 - Movies.

10 Possible Movie Character Spin-Offs.

2010-06-09T20:24:00.002-05:00

With the recent release of the Forgetting Sarah Marshall spin-off, Get Him To The Greek, we seem to have begun the new Hollywood Trend. Remakes might not be out the door immediately, but now we can add the "spin-off" to the list. It was recently announced that Tom Cruise's character from Tropic Thunder, Les Grossman, will be getting his own movie. While both of these characters were funny in their respective films, we wonder if they can hold their own movies (according to those who have seen Greek, at least one of them can, apparently). But this made me raise the following question: Who's next? Or, rather, who could have the potential for a spin-off, what would it be, and would it even be very good? I've put together a list of 10 possible character spin-offs that could be in the foreseeable future... whether we want them or not.

Character: Uncle Rico
Portrayed By: Jon Gries
Original Film: Napoleon Dynamite
Tentative Spin-Off Title: Over the Mountains
Other Possible Cast Members: Some popular football players and/or celebs
Spin-Off Synopsis: After getting back together with his girlfriend at the end of Napoleon Dynamite, Uncle Rico realizes he needs now, more than ever, to make enough money to support the both of them. After moving to the big city, Uncle Rico goes back to his old ways of trying to scam people out of their money. His newest scam, selling what is essentially a steroids equivalent, ends him up in the penthouse of whatever famous football player the movie can afford. The football player, impressed with the product, pimps out Uncle Rico to his team, where he tells all his glory day stories. And instead of taking money, Uncle Rico is given the option of playing for the team in exchange for his product. But how long will it be before his new companions realize his scams and that he cannot, after all, throw a football over the mountains?

Character: Elias
Portrayed By: Trevor Fehrman
Original Film: Clerks II
Tentative Spin-Off Title: Trip to the Bay
Other Possible Cast Members: Mostly major cameo appearances.
Spin-Off Synopsis: Working at the video store wasn't all that it was cracked up to be. With people constantly coming in requesting the likes of Transformers 2 because of how amazing they say it is, Elias is fed up with the people. So when he hears of the upcoming Transformers 3, he wants to do something about it. Fellow businessmen Jay and Silent Bob reiterate a time when they traveled to Hollywood to stop a movie they didn't want made, which sparks Elias' sense of adventure. Elias must find a way to travel all the way to L.A., whether via bus or hitchhiking, to find Michael Bay and stop him from destroying his much-loved franchise. In the process, much antics ensue, such as getting involved with a Live-Action Role Playing (LARP) game and arguing whether or not The Hobbit prequels will be better than the Star Wars prequels. Not to mention once he actually gets to L.A., will he be able to survive morally in a city so full of immoral people?

Character: Steve the Pirate
Portrayed By: Alan Tudyk
Original Film: Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story
Tentative Spin-Off Title: The Exciting Adventures of Steve the Pirate
Other Possible Cast Members: N/A
Spin-Off Synopsis: After discovering a map in the locker room of his much-loved gym, Steve the Pirate finds himself on a journey to find a secret treasure. But was this really fate, or was it a long-planned revenge from an old foe? (Yeah, this was my least thought-out one.)

Character: Brick Tamland
Portrayed By: Steve Carell
Original Film: Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy
Tentative Spin-Off Title: Anchorman Zero: The Rise of Brick
Other Possible Cast Members: Returning cast from Anchorman, sans Will Ferrell (maybe cameo at end)
Spin-Off Synopsis: The untold story of how Brick came to work at the famed San Diego news station and how he fared before the arrival of 70s celebrity Ron Burgundy. This includes many rivalries not only at his own station, but at other stations around town.

Character: Kuzzik
Portrayed By: Joe Lo Truglio
Original Film: Role Models
Tentative Spin-Off Title: No Place Like Foam
Other Possible Cast Members: Vincent Martella, Matt Walsh, Clark Duke
Spin-Off Synopsis: Kuzzik, who demands to be called Kuzzik at all times, gets fired from his job for constantly being late, being unproductive, and for just overall being weird. Because of this, he gets behind payment on his rent and worries that he'll end up homeless. But after seeing an online advertisement for a major L.A.I.R.E. (LARP) tournament in Canada with a hefty prize, Kuzzik and his fellow LARPers (Vincent Martella and Clark Duke) must take all the money they have left to make the trip, but that's not enough. Kuzzik must ask his enemy, Davith of Glencracken (Matt Walsh), to help. And he agrees... for mysterious reasons. So together they must all travel all the way to Canada with nothing but their fake weapons and the costumes on their backs. But tempers start to rise as the friends start getting tired of each other on top of the insanity of the reactions they get everywhere they go. Can they make it to Canada without beating each other senseless with foam swords? (Note: Potential tie-in with Clerks II Elias spin-off.)

Character: Fogell/McLovin
Portrayed By: Christopher Mintz-Plasse
Original Film: Superbad
Tentative Spin-Off Title: McLovin!
Other Possible Cast Members: Bill Hader, Seth Rogen, Danny Trejo, Rick Gonzalez
Spin-Off Synopsis: Officers Slater and Michaels have been working heavily to lessen gang violence in their city. But when a Gang Lord (Danny Trejo) sees the officers hanging around Fogell, the gang (including member Rick Gonzalez) targets him as a way to get to get to the men attempting to bring them down. But Fogell, not being home at the time, lucks out... for now. But the gang finds his old driver's license in his room and uses it to hunt him down, just knowing his picture and his supposed name--McLovin.

Character: Jedediah & Octavius
Portrayed By: Owen Wilson & Steve Coogan (respectively)
Original Film: Night at the Museum (both)
Tentative Spin-Off Title: Jedediah & Octavius' Big Adventure

Other Possible Cast Members: Jonah Hill (perhaps reprising his role from NatM2)
Spin-Off Synopsis: After Larry Daley calls in sick, the museum curator must call in a last-minute replacement guard (Jonah Hill) from the day shift, who also happens to be new, and who doesn't exactly know the craziness of the night shift. After the museum comes to life, everything comes to life, but things go wrong. After a bird snatches up the two figurine buddies and flies them out, they end up in the middle of the big city. Now, Jedediah and Octavius must battle the dangers of the night and make it back to the museum before the sun rises, or else both of them will turn to dust.

Character: Dr. Kuni
Portrayed By: Ken Jeong
Original Film: Knocked Up
Tentative Spin-Off Title: Mixed-Up
Other Possible Cast Members: Whoever can pull off rich families... and J.K. Simmons
Spin-Off Synopsis: Dr. Kuni is under a lot of pressure. He's in charge of two major baby deliveries in one day, both for very rich and powerful families who just so happen to be business rivals. And when it's time for the kids to go home, Dr. Kuni gets the paperwork mixed up and the wrong babies go home with the wrong families. And after Dr. Kuni realizes his mistake, he knows he has to do something about it, but he can't do anything about it straight-up. Why? Because the hospital director (J.K. Simmons) tells him that one more big issue for the hospital could cause the hospital to lose major funding, and the reveal of the baby switch could also cause heavy repercussions between the families. Now Dr. Kuni must find a way to switch the babies without anybody finding out.

Character: Chazz Reinhold
Portrayed By: Will Ferrell
Original Film: Wedding Crashers
Tentative Spin-Off Title: Get Rich or Crash Trying
Other Possible Cast Members: Jay Baruchel
Spin-Off Synopsis: After Chazz gets arrested for funeral crashing, his whole life goes into a downward spiral. He realizes that he no longer found enjoyment out of wedding or funeral crashing. But while in jail, he meets a young man (Jay Baruchel) who is in much need of money to help his family. And when both get out, they devise a plan to amp up the game. Chazz can use his crashing experience to con rich families. He and his new protegee get involved with an elderly member of a rich family at the wedding of her grandchildren and try to get put in the Will... as the grandmother is close to death. But what Chazz didn't expect was fighting the moral obligations of his new protegee, as well as the friendships and relationships gained with the family.

Character: Gayle Sweeney
Portrayed By: Jane Lynch
Original Film: Role Models
Tentative Spin-Off Title: Saving Sturdy Wings
Other Possible Cast Members: A.D. Miles
Spin-Off Synopsis: The Sturdy Wings Program is in a lot of trouble. It's losing its funding due to increasingly difficult kids who can't keep their "Bigs." So now she must sink back into her old ways of drugs and sexual favors to find a way to get enough money to keep the program running. And she can't do this alone... she must also bring in the help of Sturdy Wings veteran Martin Gary (A.D. Miles), though can he handle the degradation and rough underworld that Gayle will pull him through?

So what are your thoughts on these potential spin-offs? Do you have any of your own you'd like to share? Let me know in the comments!

FROM PARIS WITH LOVE.

2010-02-06T21:00:00.005-06:00

As an avid Luc Besson fan, I've been pretty psyched for this movie since the first trailer I saw for it. I'm a Besson fan from his directorial best (Leon) to his simply produced fair (Transporter). The only movie that hasn't really made me happy was Arthur and the Invisibles... but everyone has their misses, right? Now, it's been a little while since Besson has done a tried-and-true action-comedy, the last I can recall being Wasabi, which was a lot of fun. And now he gives us this one.

James Reece (Jonathan Rhys Meyers) is like the grunt worker for the special ops--changing license plates for getaway cars or planting chips in government offices. He just tries to make it through the day with his girlfriend, Caroline (Kasia Smutniak), and hopes for a promotion to a full-out specials ops agent. Well, he gets his wish, but it's not exactly what he'd expected. He's teamed up with partner Charlie Wax (John Travolta) who has some strange methods in getting the job done. A bit gun crazy (or crazy in general), Wax walks a fine line between right and wrong, leaving Reece wondering whether their mission is legit or just some personal scheme of Wax's. But the deeper they get into the case, the more Reece discovers about both Wax and himself.

One thing that surprised me about this movie is its more intricate story. Besson, as of late, had seemed to give us pretty straight-forward plots: Taken--man fights to get his daughter back; Transporter--a driver stops bad criminals; District B13--parkour cops stop gangs; Angel-A--an angel helps a man pay back the thugs he owes. Don't get me wrong, I love these movies, but mysteries they aren't. You can pretty much figure out what's gonna happen in these films. From Paris With Love isn't super deep or anything, but it throws some twists and turns at you that you really don't expect. It zigs when you expect it to zag, in other words. It could have been your basic "buddy cop" movie, but it took it a step further.

Imagine if Training Day were an action-comedy instead of a crime thriller. Actually, there's a scene that's almost exactly from Training Day that clicked with me as it was happening (where Wax gives Reece an ultimatum--take drugs or get out of here and lose this newly appointed promotion). And speaking of other movie references, there's a great little Pulp Fiction reference about halfway in... not to mention Tarantino-esque dialogue about the grammatical use of mother-f***er, which introduces us to the character of Charlie Wax.

Wax himself is a great character. Sure, he's a one-note character. You don't really know much about him, and he doesn't really change throughout the movie. But he's freakin' fun and hilarious, and he's probably one of Travolta's best since Vince Vega (though that's probably not hard to do considering Travolta's roles since Vince Vega). I hope to see more of this character in the future, because listening to his quick talk, wit, and one-liners was the highlight of the movie.

The character of Reece was alright. Nothing exciting, especially juxtaposed with Wax, but he wasn't overly boring or anything. He was relatable enough to watch for an hour and a half. Though if I had any major negatives of the film, both would stem from this character. The first is that the first 15 minutes or however long it is before Wax is introduced is almost painfully slow. It's all necessary, but there's no action, no comedy (except maybe the gum/chip scene)... it's almost just a day or two in the life of this almost boring guy. The second is, well, a bit of a spoiler... so I really don't wanna get into it here. It deals with the major twist in the movie (which is a good one--there's just one aspect of it that irked me, coming from a comment made by Reece).

Anyway, overall, I really enjoyed the movie. It had good action, good comedy, and, albeit taking a few things from other movies, a good story. But the best part, hands down, was Travolta's turn as Charlie Wax. Now to get excited about Besson's next flick, one he actually wrote and directed (which he hasn't done since Angel-A... since I don't count the "Arthur" movies), and which literally looks like nothing he's ever done before. But for now, let's send some love for Paris.

A Keanu 'Whoa'

(P.S. Gotta love that poster).

LKMYNTS: Ink.

2010-01-31T22:06:00.004-06:00

I haven't done one of these for a while. I suppose it's because I've mostly watched more bigger name films than smaller as of late. But I'm always on the lookout for relatively unknown films with good-to-great reviews. Such was Ink. It's hard to describe this movie. The best I can say is MirrorMask meets What Dreams May Come meets Donnie Darko meets Dark City. In other words, it's stylish, deep, and only occasionally makes sense.

This movie introduces a new mythos, one where opposing forces fight over the subconscious realm. There are the storytellers, those who give the sleeping masses good dreams; on the other end, there are the Incubi, those who give nightmares. John (Christopher Soren Kelly) is a successful businessman on the verge of a major win. But things begin to spiral out of control when his 8-year-old daughter Emma (Quinn Hunchar) falls into a coma. Emma falls into a coma because Ink, a creature attempting to become an Incubi, kidnaps her spirit (or something like that) to sacrifice to those that want her. A group of storytellers must team up with Jacob (Jeremy Make), a blind Pathfinder, to find Emma and bring her back to the living realm before it's too late and her body dies.

The movie is so many things, it's incredibly hard to give my thoughts in a cohesive manner. Let's start with the negative: it moves a bit slow in its first half. It isn't until Jacob shows up that the movie really starts to pick up, but it's not until a little after that where it really grabs you and refuses to let go. You really have no idea what the heck is going on for what is essentially the majority of the movie, leaving you in this perpetual mind freak and confusion.

Granted, it all comes together nicely once they actually start giving you some viable dialogue, story, and character development. The characters are compelling, and the new mythos of this dream world is engaging and interesting. The visuals are magnificent, as well. They aren't as overt and strange as MirrorMask (except maybe the Incubi), but they're interesting enough to keep you intrigued. And even besides the visuals, the movie is stylish. From the fight scenes to the camera work, we're given some interesting choices. And the movie plays with light, making almost every scene seem dreamlike, whether it's the real world or the dream world.

So besides the movie all seeming dreamlike, it also plays out of order. Some scenes, especially those with the father, are shown more than once, sometimes from a different perspective. One of my favorite scenes is the "chain reaction" scene involving Jacob, in which he reveals what makes him so special (and it's a scene that is shown more than once in the movie). And speaking of Jacob, I wish there was more of him in the movie. He was by far the most interesting character. He was quirky and fun, while keeping just enough mystery to not get boring.

The ending threw me for a loop, and I had to do a bit of searching to figure out what the heck happened, but once I did, it all made perfect sense. It's a great ending (once you realize what it all means and that it isn't some strange paradox). Overall, this is one of those movies that, like MirrorMask, I think I'll grow to love even more the more I see it. It has a good story, good acting, great visuals, good action, and great imagination. And it's not just me. With a near 7-point score on imdb and a 90-something percent score on Rotten Tomatoes, I can pretty much say it's not just me loving this movie. So while I'm sure my score will go up upon future viewings, I'm going to score it for how my initial viewing left me.

A Keanu 'Whoa'

LEGION.

2010-01-22T22:04:00.005-06:00

I've been pretty psyched for Legion for a while. I just knew that, at the very least, it'd be a fun romp into the realm of cheesy B-horror. And what I got was... well... Michael (Paul Bettany) decides to come down to Earth and shed his wings to help the humans. But no, not just any humans. The most important of the humans: a pregnant girl named Charlie (Adrianne Palicki) who lives with a mechanic named Jeep (Lucas Black) and his diner-owning father, Bob (Dennis Quaid). Also 'round these parts is the cook, Percy (Charles S. Dutton); a lost traveler, Kyle (Tyrese Gibson); a father (Jon Tenney), mother (Kate Walsh), and their semi-slutty daughter, Audrey (Willa Holland). Of course, as we learn from the trailer, Charlie's unborn baby is going to save humanity... they just have to stay alive from the legion of angels that are bringing on the apocalypse by killing humanity and trying to get to Charlie. But what exactly is the baby going to do to save humanity? Why do the angels come off more as demons? What did he mean that the angels aren't necessarily the good guys? If God truly wanted to wipe humanity out completely, couldn't He have just thought it into happening or something? Why do the possessed dudes just kinda stand there near the end? Why is one specific character allowed to live so long if said character is just going to die a meaningless and unseen, off-screen death near the end of the movie? What's written in that angelic message? Who (and/or what) the fuck are the prophets? And did anybody else picture Jay and Silent Bob hopping over one of the cars with hockey sticks at that point? Stay tuned, because all of these questions (and more!) are never even remotely discussed, much less answered, in Legion!

At least the first 20 or so minutes of the movie feels like a running joke of "I'm trying waaay too hard." From the burning-cross hole in the side of the building to playing It's A Wonderful Life on the TV in the diner (which is named Paradise Falls, somewhere outside L.A., the "City of Angels," as it were). And so many other things in between. The rest of the movie plays like an ultimate collection of cliches, from character actions to the cheesy one-liner.

I know this has mostly felt like a negative review, but there is some positive. Paul Bettany and Kevin Durand are wonderful in their respective roles (albeit Kevin Durand having way too little screen time prior to the climax of the movie). And Willa Holland is hot (and she is 18, so I can say that). There is some pretty decent comedy, too. There's also some good action--mostly once Kevin Durand comes into the picture, because before that, it's mostly just an endless stream of bullets. And it's always nice to see Doug Jones, although his Ice Cream Man role (which is a good chunk of the trailers) is pretty much just what you see in the trailers. He's on screen for maybe a minute tops.

There's also some good camera angles and cinematography. Despite having a shaky script, there actually was some good direction. It kept the movie fresh, and the visuals (in those respects) certainly weren't boring. The CGI was a bit dodgy in places, but there wasn't much of it, so that's good.

But I'd say the movie's biggest downfall is its script. Besides the aforementioned issues with almost nothing being explained, there's some iffy dialogue, as well as a feel that they tried to flesh out every character, but never could quite make it past the surface with each. There's also a "twist" at one point that... well... shouldn't really be a twist. It's treated as one, but when you hear it (and when the characters are reacting all 'wtf mate'), all I'm thinking is "yeah... OK, didn't we already know this? I mean, he never said it directly, but taking what he did tell us, I'm pretty sure you could figure it out by association. Literally." Their reactions were just a bit too... nonsensical for the timing. Or something like that.

Anywho, I didn't hate the movie. I just didn't particularly love it. It'd be a good one for a rifftrax of some sort, I'm sure. I suppose I'm just easily entertained and not easily perturbed as others are. The little things usually don't bother me, and it takes a lot for a movie to get one of my lower scores. If there's any semblance of entertainment (and, again, easily happens to me), it gets some points. So... yeah.

Stop Saying Okay! Okay.

(P.S. Why, if they lived in California, did Mr. Tokyo Drift have a southern accent... and why didn't his father?)

THE BOOK OF ELI.

2010-01-16T15:57:00.006-06:00

Warning: Potential mild spoilers.

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

This movie is not for everyone (obviously, considering the mixed reviews). But was it for me? The movie takes place in a post-apocalyptic near-future, where water is scarce, there's no soap, and the majority of the population can't even read. It centers around Eli (Denzel Washington), a wanderer with a book in his possession that he must get to the west. But along the way, he comes across a little town run by a man named Carnegie (Gary Oldman) who is searching for the very book that Eli possesses. And he will do anything to get it. Eli eventually teams up with a young woman named Solara (Mila Kunis), as well, whose mother is being held by Carnegie.

That's about it. It's no real elaborate plot or anything. And I honestly can't see what all the negative fuss is about the movie... that is, unless you're a close-minded religious zealot. Sure, it's a slow movie, but it's not that slow. The religion isn't even shoved down your throat. Yes, the whole movie is about it, but it doesn't say "this is the right way" or "this is the wrong way." In fact, that's one of the things I loved most about the movie. The way it treated the subject was just like anything else: in the wrong hands, it can be devastating and used for the wrong reasons... but in the right hands, it's precious and good. I read one review that said something along the lines of them not being sure, after leaving the movie, whether or not the movie's purpose wanted them to embrace or condemn religion. I say the movie had no such agenda, but instead showed us that, really, it's up to the individual to decide between what is right and what is wrong. And right and wrong isn't always black and white.

Outside of the story, the visuals are amazing. The post-apoc look is great, and the cinematography is excellent. There were two reason I really wanted to see the movie: 1) The cinematography looked excellent and 2) the action looked great. I was right on both counts. The action is, while typically short, is a ton of fun. One of my favorite action scenes, purely from a camera angle (no pun intended), was the "house" scene near the end of the second act. The way the camera swooped in and out of the house in what appeared to be an impossible single take was outstanding.

On the acting front, Denzel Washington is good, but there really isn't a heck of a lot for him to work with. But he's good enough. I always felt from the trailers that Mila Kunis seemed out of place. After seeing the movie, I'm a bit torn on that thought. Part of me still sides with that thought, but the other part of me thought she did a pretty decent job. The best part, though, was Gary Oldman being Gary Oldman. I love that man in whatever he does, and he can sure play crazy pretty well.

I also wanted to make note that, at one point, I thought we had become Harry Potter and the Book of Eli. Besides Gary Oldman (who played Sirius Black in the movies), we had the random appearances of Frances de la Tour (who played Madame Maxime in Goblet of Fire) and Michael Gambon (Dumbledore since the third). Though I have to be honest, seeing Dumbledore and Madame Maxime go all Rambo on Sirius Black was totally fun. And, Harry Potter aside, what is it with Malcolm McDowell and the apocalypse? Just from recent memory, he's been in this, Doomsday, and the guy who wanted to bring the end of the world in the first season of Heroes. And, according to imdb, he does a character voice in the show Metalocalypse.

All in all, it was a pretty good movie. I actually really enjoyed it, but I like post-apocalyptic stories, great visuals, fun action, Denzel Washington, Gary Oldman, and almost anything to do with theology... so I guess you can say it was going to be hard for me not to like this movie. (Despite its incredibly weak and open-ended V-For-Vendetta-cheap-rip-off ending).

A Keanu 'Whoa'

(P.S. I didn't even mention the freakin' awesome twist near the end of the movie... that I won't spoil. I totally wanna see it again, just so I can see it with the new mindset).

UP IN THE AIR.

2010-01-10T16:06:00.003-06:00

Well, "the best movie of 2009" finally came to my town, so of course I had to check it out. I know I'm a bit late to the game, but I usually am when it comes to the big Oscar-type films. Up in the Air is Jason Reitman's follow up to the Oscar-winning Juno. And it's a whole different type of film. The movie follows Ryan Bingham (George Clooney), a man who goes around the country to fire people for a living. He's a bit of a loner and feels more at home at an airport than he does at his own home. He doesn't like having relationships tie him down, either, so when he meets a flighty (no pun intended) woman named Alex (Vera Farmiga) who is just as elitist as he is, he is enthralled. So it doesn't sit well with him when he's threatened with being grounded by his boss (Jason Bateman), who, in order to save money, is taking a more technological approach to the process as invented by a young up-and-comer named Natalie (Anna Kendrick). But she's too naive and doesn't know the ropes, so Ryan is forced to take Natalie around the country to show her what it really takes to fire people.

While I don't think it was the best film of 2009, I still think it was up there (again... no pun intended). Though it was really distracting that, while watching the movie, I'm staring at Anna Kendrick going "where the hell have I seen you before?" And after I get home, I had to imdb it... and it was very much to my surprise that she's one of Bella's friend in the Twilight movies. I just have to say this... I'm not sure if she has a good or bad agent... because she went from the bottom tier of films right to the top without any transition in between. But it also adds more proof to my theory that the female actresses of the Twilight films can actually act, whether or not they show the ability in those films.

Anyway, on to the movie. Personally, I thought the first act (before Natalie is introduced) was a bit too slow, and it actually reminded me somewhat of the non-killer parts of American Psycho. Just the conversations between Ryan and Alex about their elite statuses and the types of cards they carry really took me back. The second act (the part where Ryan and Natalie travel the nation) is the best part of the movie. It kept me engaged and entertained and was really fun. But then the third act came in (starting with the wedding stuff), and it felt like a completely different movie. For some reason, it just didn't meld well with me. But then it gets back to what I consider the movie... and seems to rush it. I think the closure with Natalie could have been better, like there was this elaborate setup for the events at the end that are mostly glanced over. And all three acts have three completely different tones. The first is more dry humor... the second, I suppose, is a more straight-forward humor... and the third act is mostly drama.

I know it seems like I'm panning the movie, but I'm not. I really did enjoy it quite a bit. George Clooney and Anna Kendrick were wonderful in it. Kendrick's character has a good transition from naive, ambitious, young woman right out of school to a more mature, experienced young woman. On the other hand, Clooney's Ryan goes from elitist loner to a more warm and human man. It also had some great cameos, such as Zach Galifianakis, J.K. Simmons, and Sam Elliot. It was also cool to see Danny McBride in a slightly more serious role.

The movie was stylish and fun and had some really good jokes, most of which came from Anna Kendrick's Natalie. There's really not much else to say. While I don't agree it was the best film of 2009, it was really good and I'd love to see it again.

A Keanu 'Whoa'

DAYBREAKERS.

2010-01-09T18:16:00.003-06:00

This is probably the longest wait I've given before writing a review for a movie I saw in theater. I went to see this last night (Friday), and I guess I've just been preoccupied with other things to write a review. But let's get to it before I forget the movie. I've been interested in this movie since I saw the first trailer, as I thought it was a unique spin on the (no pun intended) dead-to-dying vampire genre.

The movie takes place in the near future where the majority of the human population has been turned into vampires. But the human race is nearly extinct, and the vampires are running out of blood. They're driven to either starve or feed off other vampires (or, worse, themselves), both paths turning them into bat-like monsters called Subsiders. The film focuses on (sigh) Edward (Ethan Hawke), a hematologist looking for a blood substitute. Unlike most vampires, though--such as his brother Frankie (Michael Dorman) or his boss, Charles (Sam Neill)--Edward refuses to feed off humans. He ends up meeting an underground band of humans including Lionel "Elvis" Cormac (Willem Dafoe)--a human who was once a vampire and somehow turned back. So now Edward must work with the humans and stay out of the government's grips long enough to figure out how to replicate the cure.

The first thing I noticed about the movie were its painful similarities to Twilight--a vampire named Edward who refuses to feed off humans, vampires having golden eyes that get darker the hungrier they get--but then the movie really started off and I was able to put those aside (except for the "Edward" thing. Every time Sam Neill said "Edward" all dramatically, I think I died a little inside).

From the trailer, the one thing I was worried about was that the movie would be all action and no substance, and I really wanted a vampire movie with a hearty balance of action and substance, which isn't very common (not even you, Let The Right One In. I think the only other one I can think of at the moment is Chan-wook Park's Thirst). And thankfully, I was treated to just that. It isn't the non-stop bloody action film that the trailer suggests. Yes, there's action and yes, there's blood, but it isn't the whole movie.

However, there were a couple things that I think could have been cut because they tried to add substance and, in the end, just added pointlessness. For instance, the subplot about Sam Neill's daughter really had no relevance to the overall plot except for an important taunt at the end. And one character's "backstabbing" moment at the end has no rationale behind it. It just felt like an attempt at one more bit of suspense. And maybe had they fixed those things, they could have figured out a better ending. It's like... the climax happens and the writers are like "Oh... uh... I guess we should end it now? OK, yeah. Cue pointless voiceover and one last scare attempt."

Those are really my biggest issues, though. The best part of the movie is its attention to detail. The golden eyes, the bite marks on the neck, the "blood creamer" for coffee, a random shot of a vampire character not having a reflection in the mirror... just things like that. It even goes into details of how vampires travel in the daylight if they need/want to.

The visuals are outstanding, for the most part. The bluish hues that tint the film add a coldness or deadness to its feel (while the human scenes have more orange/sunlight or life colors). The only visuals I didn't like were the ones of the vampires burning in sunlight. That was such terrible CGI, which is completely uncalled for in this day and age. There were those parts that reminded me of I Am Legend-level bad for CGI, but they were few and far between, thankfully.

And speaking of I Am Legend, who are you to be scared of when everybody is a vampire? In the aforementioned story, it's the remaining human. In this, it's the Subsiders. The Subsiders were an interesting twist and rationale behind why they needed to drink human blood. And some of the slow changes or different stages of transformation reminded me of District 9's gradual alien transformation.

As for the action, there was enough and it was great. Was it bloody? Oh yeah, especially the climax of the film. It's not the goriest stuff ever, though, for those of you who get bothered by that. There's just quite a bit of it--again, the climax is the heaviest part. The vampires don't really have super strength or anything (nothing explicit, anyway). The only 'super-strong' moment was with a Subsider. But as I said earlier, the movie was more about its characters than its action.

Finally, the acting was good, which is to be expected from the likes of Ethan Hawke and Willem Dafoe. And Willem Dafoe was actually pretty funny in the movie. I really enjoyed his character, who added some much needed humor to what's an otherwise dark movie.

Overall, it's a really good vampire movie with a good balance of action and drama. Good acting, mostly great visuals, and a creative and unique twist on an old story. So if you want to see a vampire movie that actually pays attention to the details, one that isn't just the same old thing, I recommend this movie. It isn't perfect, but it's good enough.

I Am McLovin!

SHERLOCK HOLMES.

2009-12-28T18:23:00.004-06:00

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.

2009-12-27T21:12:00.006-06:00

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.

2009-12-22T21:12:00.003-06:00

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.

2009-12-19T21:00:00.003-06:00

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.

2009-11-25T13:50:00.005-06:00

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.

2009-11-22T21:58:00.008-06:00

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.

2009-11-15T19:47:00.003-06:00

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.

2009-11-11T16:09:00.004-06:00

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.

2009-11-08T21:36:00.007-06:00

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.

2009-11-07T19:27:00.006-06:00

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.

2009-10-25T18:43:00.002-05:00

(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.

2009-10-23T21:09:00.005-05:00

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.

2009-10-18T18:05:00.002-05:00

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.

2009-10-16T22:07:00.004-05:00

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.

2009-10-09T21:18:00.004-05:00

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.

2009-10-02T20:59:00.004-05:00

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.

2009-09-25T21:37:00.003-05:00

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.

2009-09-18T22:13:00.004-05:00

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).

9.

2009-09-12T19:10:00.005-05:00

I've been psyched for this movie since the first trailer hit at the end of last year. I loved the look of it, and I love post-apocalyptic stories. I also loved the idea of "StitchPunk." The movie takes place in a future where machines and humans have gone to war and destroyed the planet. The machines are no longer functional, except for "The Beast," and the last human (a scientist) gives his life to create 9 little rag dolls that will help continue life on the planet. 9 (Elijah Wood) wakes up in this strange world and is found by the elderly 2 (Martin Landau). But when 2 is taken by The Beast, 9 is then found by the other remaining rag dolls, including friendly 5 (John C. Reilly); the leader, 1 (Christopher Plummer); the bodyguard, 8 (Fred Tatasciore); and the crazy one, 6 (Crispin Glover). They also eventually find (or are found by) 7 (Jennifer Connelly) and 3 and 4 (no voices). And after 9 accidentally awakens a machine while going on a rescue mission for 2, they must find a way to defeat it or be destroyed themselves.

This movie has so much going for it, but it also has one major flaw. Let's talk about the good first. The animation is gorgeous. From the character design to the atmosphere created by the scenery and locations, I absolutely adored the visuals of this movie. It also had a ton of great and imaginative action sequences. 7 was a total badass.

I also picked up on a lot of underlying themes of religion and a hint of religion versus science/alchemy. For instance, the sanctuary--as 1 sees it--is a church, but he rebels against the safe haven of the library full of books about science and whatnot. Of course, there's the more obvious of matchup of machines (soulless AKA science) versus souls (religious). And the movie seems to be about merging the two--not in a scientology kind of way, but more in a "let's work together" kind of way. Or maybe I'm just crazy and reading too much into it, but that's how I saw it all.

The major flaw of the movie, however, was its incredibly short running time. The movie is barely over an hour long without credits (all together, it's 79 minutes). This greatly hinders the movie's potential. I found its biggest problems stemmed from this, such as not taking enough time to develop the characters and know enough about them and their backstories. The most we really get is how 5 lost one of his eyes, which is shown just minutes after you meet him. Sure, you eventually gained sympathy for them (primarily 3, 4, 5, and 7). It was hard not to like the cute 3 and 4. 5 is made purely for sympathetic reasons, and 7 is just an awesome character. But it would have been so much better had they all had more backstory. They were each unique, yes, but beyond the masks and personality traits, there was (ironically) nothing more than an empty shell/doll.

Another issue brought on by the short time span was a lack of plot explanation. I understood what was going on throughout the movie, but then the ending came, and I was like "...huh? Did I miss something?" In an attempt not to spoil things, let me say this as vaguely as possible (though there are probably mild spoilers anyway). What was the whole purpose of the amulet? It seemed circular in logic to me. It was there to release taken souls, but souls wouldn't have been taken without its existence. I was waiting for some higher purpose that never came.

Overall, though, I was highly entertained. It had beautiful animation and great action. There were some fun characters, too, but I just wish there was more depth given to them. The movie desperately needed to be longer and more fleshed out. But otherwise, it was a fun flick. And I'm scoring it based on entertainment value rather than "what it could have been" (I guess that makes me a glass half full kinda guy?).

A Keanu 'Whoa'

GAMER.

2009-09-04T21:17:00.004-05:00

I'd wanted to see this movie from the first time I saw the first trailer. I totally loved the concept, and it looked like excellent fun. But did it live up to its potential? Well, let's start off with the story. In the near future, a man named Ken Castle (Michael C. Hall) invents Nanex, a collection of nanobytes that are injected into your brain and allow others to control you. It first spawns a game called Society, the ultimate Sims (kind of like a real-life iLife). But then it extended into the prison program for death row inmates, to where if they can win 30 games, they're set free. It's called Slayers. Kable (Gerard Butler), with his player Simon (Logan Lerman), is the closest person to get to the 30 wins, and all he wants to do is get home to his wife (Amber Valleta) and daughter. But Castle won't have it, though he has to contend with a group of hackers (Ludacris, Aaron Yoo, and Alison Lohman). And then there's the media woman, Gina (Kyra Sedgwyk). And... hell, there's a whole lot of stuff going on, with little actually happening. The movie also includes John Leguizamo, Zoe Bell, and Milo Ventimiglia.

The movie is completely style over substance, though it tries to throw in some substance in the latter half of the film (I'll get to that later). But its stylistic nature is still pretty cool. However, I'm not sure that the Slayers stuff was done to its fullest potential, and it's really only in the first half of the film. And because the movie is more style than substance, it brings us to the film's biggest downfall: it's chaotic feel.

Especially the first half of the film, we get a whole lot of nothing. There's literally almost no story, as well as any character development or... well, anything but violence and style. Eventually, we start getting some semblance of a story, but then it doesn't really take it all to its fullest potential, either. I saw so many great places the story could have gone, but it didn't. It stayed at about as basic of a level as possible story-wise (though I suppose the bad guy motivations revealed at the end are pretty cool).

I would also have liked more out of the characters. They're all so one-dimensional, it's--dare I say--ludicrous (sorry, I couldn't help myself). The acting is fine, of course, and Michael C. Hall gives one heck of a performance for a character that could have been so boring otherwise. Though Terry Crews' Hackman was way over-the-top, though that was probably purposeful. Anyway, some characters were just a complete waste, like John Leguizamo's. He didn't really have much of a point except to extend on one portion (or type of character) of "Slayers" that is hardly mentioned or expanded on to begin with. Milo Ventimiglia must have just been desperate for a paycheck, because he just has some weird-ass role for only a couple minutes of screen time. And Kyra Sedgwick, while a key player, basically walks around cussing the whole time. There was no background to any character, no home lives, no anything. I would have liked to at least see maybe Simon's character delved into a little more, maybe add some psychology or something to it. It was just all so... flat.

Don't get me wrong, though. The movie is still quite a bit of fun. I especially like it around the middle of the movie where, essentially, Slayers meets Society. I really don't have too much to say about the movie. It was total style over substance, but a little more substance would have made the film so much better. It's entertaining for what it is, and the premise is still great (as are the last few twists of the story... which I still feel could have been delved into deeper). Oh, and be warned those of you who have a dislike for shaky cam. There's a good bit of it in the movie... and unfortunately, a lot of it during the Slayers bits, so you can hardly see what's going on half the time, anyway (those scenes should have decreased some shaky cam and added more time to make them longer and more fun). Overall, it was fun, but it could have been better.

I Am McLovin!

THE FINAL DESTINATION 3D.

2009-08-29T15:15:00.003-05:00

I've been a fan of the Final Destination series since the beginning. I maintain that the first one is still the best, but the sequels are entertaining enough. The second movie added an interesting twist to the story, and some say it's better than the original. Then came the third, where it dropped some of the darkness and started to cliche and camp it up. The fourth follows the same path.

The story is basically the same for each film (the second's is slightly altered due to the twist, but is nonetheless the same). This time around, the film starts off at a Nascar race, where a series of events unfolds until a lot of people--including the main characters--die. However, one of them, this time a young man named Nick (Bobby Campo), foresees it in a vision and warns everybody to leave ASAP. So the friends, as well as some others that are dragged into the mix, leave right before the accident occurs. These include friends Lori (Shantel VanSanten), Hunt (Nick Zano), and Janet (Haley Webb), as well as a security guard (Mykelti Williamson), a racist (Justin Welborn), a mechanic (Andrew Fiscella), and a mother (Krista Allen). But what they soon realize is that they were never supposed to survive, and Death comes after them in the order they were supposed to die, killing them off in unique and imaginative ways.

I had a few problems with this film that I didn't really have with the others (even the third). In the past films, the clues about how the next person was going to die was reality-based and simple. This time, the main character has full-out (though vague) visions of exactly how the next person is going to die. My problem is that this takes away some of the mystery... not to mention it gives us some pretty campy CGI.

Though the deaths were still creative, and there are plenty of fake-outs (you think it'll be one thing, and it's another). One particularly suspenseful scene is the beauty salon scene. I was cringing the entire time, as it sets up about a dozen different ways she can go. Of course, it goes with the least interesting. On a similar note, practically all the deaths are given away in the trailer, which took away a lot of the suspense (there is one pleasant surprise... one that doesn't actually happen, but I won't give away which one). And the climax is pretty suspenseful, I'll give it that.

However, another issue is that while they were creative, they weren't nearly as creative as some of the previous films. The previous movies sometimes acted more like a Rube Goldberg machine, which is totally interesting. And you see that used in these, but mostly as fake-outs, while the real deaths are a little more lame (not always, but sometimes). Also, a lot of the deaths were mainly caused by the stupidity of workers. At least half, if not more, of the deaths could have been prevented if everybody in that town who had a job was actually competent. Seriously, there should be a lot of people getting fired.

I also saw the film in 3D, and the 3D was definitely utilized. Things flew at you left and right during the death scenes. So if you go to see this in 3D, you won't be disappointed.

The one thing I absolutely loved about the movie, though, were all the allusions and homages to the first film. You can still see 180 all over the place. The main guy has a picture of the Eiffel Tower in his house. The name of the swimming pool place is "Clear Rivers." If you look closely on the TV at one point, I believe it says the name of the racist is "Carter." And just a whole other slew of things that, if you pay attention, you'll see. There's at least one in every scene (or just about).

There really isn't much more to say. There's some decent humor in the movie. There's a particularly funny scene with a talk about suicide (I know not a happy subject, but in context, it's funny). But otherwise, it's just a movie to see if you're a fan of the series. You don't really feel anything for the characters, and the acting is pretty bad. But you came to see the movie for creative deaths, and on that front, the movie delivers. In almost all respects, the movie isn't all that great, but it's still strangely entertaining. Though I totally miss the Tony Todd character from the first two films. He was awesome.

Stop Saying Okay! Okay.

Short Review: Attack The Gas Station!

2009-08-22T11:45:00.006-05:00

Premise: Four friends with troubled pasts rob a gas station. A little bit later, just out of pure boredom, they decide to rob it again. But since the station only has a little money, they decide to take everyone hostage and run the gas station themselves and rip off the customers... which just continues to escalate, and nobody (including the cops) is ever the wiser.

Starring: Sung-jae Lee, Oh-seong Yu, Seong-jin Kang, Ji-tae Yu, Yeong-gyu Park, Jun Jeong, and Yu-won Lee.

My Reaction: I'm always on the lookout for a good heist movie. With a high score on imdb and a great premise, this one was promising. And "promising" is about where it stays. I have a feeling that the movie is primarily for South Korean audiences, and some things were missing in translation. There were some fun or funny bits, but they were too few and far between. I didn't care for any of the characters. The movie is entirely too long (about the 45 minute mark, I thought it had to be about over. But there was still over an hour to go). The movie is often slapstick, and sometimes just strange, though mostly unrealistic. Though the acting is good, and it has a good climax. There are bits of the story that I would have liked to see delved into more, but which weren't. I honestly believe (and I felt this way while watching the movie) that, if handled right, with just the right things cut/changed/added, it would make a good American remake. As it is, the movie has a good stylistic eye, but there aren't enough "that's cool" moments to win the style over substance fight. It should have been more thrilling in the suspense moments. It should have been funnier in the comedy moments (though that's probably where a lot of the 'lost in translation' comes in). But for the most part, it just feel a bit too muddled and overlong. It's not a bad movie by any means. I just don't think it lived up to its promise, or the bits of inspiration it showed at times during the film.

Stop Saying Okay! Okay.

DISTRICT 9.

2009-08-15T21:29:00.003-05:00

Not everybody will "get" this movie. I'd place bets that at least half the people who see it will probably not like it. I wager that based on, as I walk out of the theater, I hear a redneck on his cell phone telling somebody not to bother seeing the movie because it sucked. Seconds later, I hear some teen girls talking about how cool the weapons were.

There are three types of "good" movies, in my mind. The first is the "entertaining" movie. This can be anything from a cheap B-movie to a brainless Hollywood blockbuster. As long as it's entertaining and fun, it's all good. Then there is the "respectable" movie. These movies aren't entertaining, per se, but they're respectable in what they pull off. In other words, these are mostly your Oscar-bait films. And then there's the most difficult to pull off, the "respectable and entertaining" film. These can be deep in theme and purpose, high class films... but they're still entertaining and fun to watch. They aren't your run-of-the-mill depressing Oscar-bait film. District 9 tries to pull off this third type. Does it do it? Yes and no.

The movie is an alternate history movie, wherein aliens landed over Johannesburg, Africa in the 80s. They're subjected to slums, poor treatment, and basic apartheid behavior. And now the government agency in charge of controlling them (as well as their weapons, which only the aliens can operate) is wanting to move them into what is essentially a concentration camp. Enter Wikus (Sharlto Copley), a young man who just doesn't know any better and is promoted to the in-charge position of this eviction and transfer mission. But something happens on this trip, and it starts to change him... inside and out. Wikus starts becoming one of these aliens and goes on the run, learning more what it's like to be on the other side, while continuing to try and recover his old life.

I said before that the movie tries to be both respectable and entertaining. And it succeeds at both... for the most part. I knew while watching the movie that I was seeing something special. This is a highly respectable film in many ways, from its apartheid themes and symbolisms all the way to its stunning visual effects. And its visuals are oh-so-stunning.

And the movie is entertaining, as well. All the action/suspense scenes, primarily anything where alien weaponry is used, is amazingly awesome. Those are truly the best parts of the film. But what takes it all away for me, what ultimately stops the film--in my opinion--from being totally outstanding, is its main character. Wikus is likable at times, but I found him to be a mostly unlikable character. The majority of what he did was wrong or selfish, and I couldn't latch on to him. Moreso than him being unlikable (because really, I didn't hate the guy), he just didn't make me care about him. I cared more about Christopher and his son (the two main aliens) than Wikus. Now those two characters were incredibly likable. But unfortunately, the film focuses more on Wikus.

Another issue was that the beginning "documentary" bits went on way too long. I felt those could have been trimmed down a bit. I know it was adding realism and setting up the movie, but it felt like 30 minutes of exposition... and the worst kind, too, where the characters are actually talking to you, right into the camera. I started wondering if it was ever going to end, or if the whole movie was gonna be like that. Thankfully it stopped, but it could have stopped sooner (it does come back to it from time to time, but I didn't mind, as there was plenty of "movie" bits in between, if that makes sense).

Anyway, I really do respect what the movie did and what it represents. And I also think the movie was rather entertaining, primarily the action bits with the alien weaponry. I also enjoyed the realism of the film, as well as how seamless the CGI and other visuals were with the rest of the movie. But it still had some issues. Besides what I already said, there is still something I can't put my finger on. But it was just something about the film itself that makes me not enjoy it as much as I want to. After all, I went into this movie with average expectations, so I really didn't go in with any reason to be let down. And on one level I wasn't, but on some strange level, I was. Still, the movie is respectable and entertaining... I just wish it could have solved a few of the aforementioned issues.

A Keanu 'Whoa'

A PERFECT GETAWAY.

2009-08-10T12:01:00.002-05:00

I wasn't sure from the trailers if I wanted to see it or not (I like Steve Zahn, Milla Jovovich, and Timothy Olyphant), but then I found out it was written and directed by David Twohy, who also wrote/directed one of my favorite horror films, Pitch Black (and later The Chronicles of Riddick). It bumped up much higher on my list. And then I started reading really good reviews for it, which bumped it up more. So I finally went and saw this yesterday.

A Perfect Getaway (double entendre and all) is about newlywed couple Cliff (Steve Zahn) and Cydney (Milla Jovovich), honeymooning in Hawaii. Along the way they meet creepy hitchhikers, Kale (Chris Hemsworth) and Cleo (Marley Shelton). And not long after that, they meet the slightly strange, but mostly endearing couple Nick (Timothy Olyphant) and Gina (Kiele Sanchez). But then they discover that on the neighboring island of Oahu, there was a murder, and the police are looking for a man and woman couple as suspects. And with all three couples having been on Oahu on the day of the murder, it could have been any of them... though nobody's about to come out and point fingers.

The movie isn't the horror/slasher flick that the trailer makes it out to be. This film is more of a slow-burn paranoid thriller with the action picking up in the third act. And although it does make you second guess yourself on who you think the killer is, your first instinct is probably right. I figured it out just by watching the trailer... but that doesn't necessarily ruin a movie for me. I did the same thing for the film Identity, and I still really liked that movie. Though, while you might guess the whodunit, you might not figure out the whydunit. I felt that really helped bring it up a few notches to save it from overall predictability. The writing of the film was so detailed and great that everything is kept ambiguous and out in the open to keep you second guessing yourself, only to figure out later how all of those second guessing moments fit together with the plot. And, again, the WHY was so much more interesting than the WHO (I'd actually go out on a limb and say that David Twohy knew this from the start and focused on the story more than relying on the whodunit twist).

As for the actors, they all did a pretty good job. Milla Jovovich has some good moments, and Steve Zahn really does a bang-up job. The other couple (Marley Shelton and Chris Hemsworth) aren't really in the movie all that much, but they do an all-around decent job of being creepy. But the true scene stealer is Timothy Olyphant. Seriously, this guy really stole the show. He was charismatic, interesting, and sometimes a little strange. But he really pulls it off and becomes the real star of the movie.

Something else I really liked about the movie was its meta-qualities. It's a movie that talks about movies, as Zahn's character is a screenwriter. And, of course, like in Scream, there are things that are discussed about the genre at hand that must always happen (red herrings, the second-act twist).

As I said before, the movie is a slow-burner. It builds up the suspense and paranoia (and the clues) until the third act. And then, after the red herrings and the second-act twist, the movie really shifts into gear. And it really changes in all respects. The action in non-stop, keeping the adrenaline pumping until the end. Even the gore--as before this point, there really isn't any at all--picks up. It's not overwhelming for people who can't handle gore; it's not Saw-level or anything. The film also becomes rather stylish. There are some flashback moments that explain scenes earlier in the film, and then there are some other flashback moments that take us before that to do a bit of character building and other explanations. And all of these moments are done in a silvery overtone that looks pretty cool. Then, when the chasing starts, there's an awesome bit where the screen keeps shifting in these wipe-kinda things that looks really cool and was a great little bit of editing. And then the overall use of the camera in general.

Overall, the movie was very good. It had beautiful shots of the island, great camera and editing work, good-to-great acting, some really fun characters, and great writing with a surprisingly intriguing story (once it all comes to light). The only things I could point out as negative were that it is a slow-burn and therefore has moments that almost drag before picking up again, as well as that the movie is a bit predictable. But again, I think the movie and story was good enough to trump the predictability. So really, it was another good job by Mr. Twohy.

A Keanu 'Whoa'

DVD Review: Dakota Skye.

2009-08-08T15:01:00.000-05:00

This movie is equally brilliant as it is aggravating. Dakota Skye (Eileen Boylan) has a superpower: she can tell when people are lying and know exactly what they really mean. And because of this, her life has made her very cynical and grumpy to the point where she even hates being around her best friend. Her boyfriend, Kevin (J.B. Ghuman Jr.), is an older guy, in a band, and is part time nice guy, part time daft jerk. But then his best friend in the world, Jonah (Ian Nelson), comes to visit from New York, and he turns Dakota's world upside down. How? Apparently, he never lies, which intrigues her immensely. He's like her arch-nemesis. The problem is... what happens when they fall for each other, especially since that leaves Kevin's emotions at play.

The movie is witty, clever, and--at times--genius. Seriously, there are some amazingly written (and acted) moments in this film--for instance, the "I can't tell you" scene with Jonah, or Dakota's internal monologue at the movie theater. The movie has some great ideas, as well. The problem is that the movie falls short at times of what it could have been with some of the ideas it presents. For every brilliantly written or acted scene, there seems to be a mediocre one (OK, so maybe the ratio is a little closer to the brilliant side). Though I did really like the main quirk of the film: whenever somebody said a lie, there would be a subtitle of what was really meant, which we knew Dakota knew, as well.

But my biggest issue falls with Dakota herself. While the actress who plays her is hot (or at least more than the "medium-cute" as she describes herself), she's a completely and utterly unlikable character. I know most of that is the point, but something could have been done to make her more likable, or at least shown some kind of change earlier in the film. Instead, the movie has her play with people's emotions and makes her that much more unlikable. Parts of her actually reminded me of Bella from the Twilight series (I don't think she's that bad, though). She has quite a bit of voice-over narration, especially toward the beginning, and most of that is really good--especially for voice-over narration. But it's the way she acts in person. In other words, she's totally Emo.

Part of the problem could also be due to the writing of boyfriend Kevin. At times, the character is presented as a douche (though unintentional on his part) who treats Dakota like crap. But other times, he was a pretty decent person, and I felt bad for him for how Dakota was treating him. If he was written as more of a total jerk, maybe her transition to Jonah wouldn't have made her look as bad as I felt it did.

But at the same time, these things fall under one of the movie's strengths: its realism. From the dialogue down to the character's actions, the movie felt like it could be real (despite the magical realism of her 'superpower'). There was just enough cussing or just enough teen angst to make the dialogue (or sometimes lack thereof) seem absolutely real. It was never really overdone at all. The movie was quirky, but not too quirky to where--with something like Juno--it seems made-up. And the characters aren't your typical Hollywood cardboard cutouts (the jerk boyfriend, the faultless lead female). The characters had depth and ranges of emotions. But I'm just not sure whether or not it worked for this film and with what it was trying to accomplish. As I said, it made the main character come off as completely unlikable and unsympathetic.

As such, this is a very strange movie to review. Part of me wants to give it a really high score due to these streaks of brilliance. But the other part of me is fighting that urge for any or all of the aforementioned reasons. I can compare a handful of things about it to Twilight, which isn't remotely a good thing. At least the writing and dialogue is better. The cinematography was really good; the movie looked great. And the music was decent. I suppose, overall, I'm gonna go, as usual, with entertainment value over more technical aspects (writing, etc.). So with that said...

I Am McLovin!

G.I. JOE: THE RISE OF COBRA.

2009-08-07T18:32:00.006-05:00

Before I get into this review, I want to--yet again--discuss a theater experience during this film. First, I wasn't even excited to see this movie, to say straight away. I never played with GI Joe's, never knew any of the characters or any of their stories. But the movie looked to be one of those "so bad it's good" films. I just kinda went to the theater on a whim while I was in the area, and it was between this and The Perfect Getaway, but by the time I got there, the next showing for Perfect Getaway wasn't for a while, and GI Joe started in about 15 minutes. That being said, let me go into the actual theater experience.

There were really only two things this time around. The first was highly annoying, and the second had to be the strangest theater experience yet. The first was a little boy, maybe 2 or 3 years old, who sat behind me. And he literally (no hyperbole here) never shut up, not even for 1 second. If he wasn't talking or rambling or asking the same question 5 times in a row without giving anybody time to answer, he was singing or making incoherent noises. And all of this he was doing loud enough for the entire theater to hear him. And the most the mother (or whomever) would tell him was "shh." I'm a relatively laid back person and I'm not really easy to anger. I never tell off anybody in the theater (or otherwise, really). But this had to be the closest I'd ever come to cussing out both a toddler and his mother in public without care of consequence (again, keeping in mind that I didn't even care about this movie... that's how annoying it was).

Now, the second thing was just strange. Two seats to my right there was a little girl, maybe 9 or 10 years old (at the most). There was an empty seat between us. Let me briefly describe her film-going experience. During the entire previews portion, she had her head turned toward me, which I could easily see out the corner of my eye. I'd look at her, and she's staring up at the far wall (maybe a light fixture)... just... staring. Her body doesn't move an inch, nor does her head. She just stares. The movie starts and she faces forward... but only for a couple minutes. Then she does something with her phone before getting up and leaving for about 15 minutes. When she comes back, she sits back down and, yet again, I can see her face staring in my general direction. I look over again, and her eyes are closes, and her hands go from pressed to folded. And then she makes the sign of the cross. She was praying. So she goes to watch the film for a few minutes before I see her staring in my direction again. Then she gets up and leaves for another 10-15 minutes. When she comes back... yes, you guessed it... more staring. Eventually, she leans forward with her head between her legs and starts playing with a pile of spilled popcorn that's on the floor, and I'm sitting there wondering if she's found Jesus' face in it or something. Once she's done with that, again, turned toward me, though I believe she was sleeping this time. And it wasn't long after that when the movie ended.

So, with the peripheral distraction and the kid I wanted to smack in a movie I was only minimally intrigued in at best... I give you my review of GI Joe. The movie is about Duke (Channing Tatum) and Ripcord (Marlon Wayans), who find themselves involved with a special ops departement called GI Joe, run by General Hawk (Dennis Quaid). Other members include Snake Eyes (Ray Park), Heavy Duty (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje), Scarlett (Rachel Nichols), and Breaker (Said Taghmaoui). They're fighting against a group of baddies run by McCullen (Christopher Eccleston) and The Doctor (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), but also include Ana (Sienna Miller), Storm Shadow (Byung-hun Lee), and Zartan (Arnold Vosloo). The baddies are after some bio-chemical weapons that, well, they made in the first place. And each side has super-enhancement weapons and whatnot.

Honestly, story-wise, the movie both does and doesn't make sense. It has its share of logic or plot holes. One of the most annoying being that the Neo-Vipers (or whatever they're called) are stated toward the beginning to not feel pain or have emotions, but they sure do show both when they're being killed. But really, it isn't about the story.

The only redeeming factor in this movie is its action. I have to say, honestly, this movie does have some pretty cool action. The CGI is hit or miss, but the action is pretty dang good. The only real disappointment in the action department was that (and especially with Ray Park involved) the fight scenes between Snake Eyes and Storm Shadow could have been so much cooler (and longer) than they were. But for the most part, the action scenes were inventive, fun, and overall entertaining.

The acting isn't the greatest, either, really. In fact, it's pretty spotty. Stephen Sommers actually brings in a few of his Mummy alums for various roles, such as the mummy himself, Arnold Vosloo. And there are a couple interesting though mostly wasted cameos, like Brendan Fraser and Kevin J. O'Connor. Casting Marlon Wayans was mostly a waste, as well, because the writing of the movie tried too hard to be funny and fell flat on its face. There's maybe one good joke, and it's not good enough to get more than a weak chuckle.

As I said, the CGI is hit or miss. Some of it is really good. Some of it is really bad. Parts of it are mostly unnecessary. And the rest of it looks like Watchmen leftovers--very comic book-ish. Luckily, most of the spotty CGI isn't in the action scenes, so that was good, at least.

Overall, despite all the distractions I had, I was still mildly entertained by the action pieces of the film. I also have to say, for the film's credit, the ending was a pretty interesting surprise (though I wonder if it would have been had I not been as distracted as I was). But this is a movie to see for the action. Otherwise, it's really not worth it, at least from a non-fan's perspective.

Stop Saying Okay! Okay.

DVD Review: Chalk.

2009-08-04T22:23:00.004-05:00

So guess what? Today I got a teaching job! I'll be teaching high school freshmen English. And in complete irony, I got this movie in Netflix today, as well (I put it on my queue ages ago). So in honor of my new job, I did the stupidest thing possible and actually watched this. Here is my review.

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

Chalk is a mockumentary (in a style similar to The Office) about 4 new-to-newish high school educators in Texas. Mr. Lowrey (Troy Schremmer) is a first year history teacher, very nervous and shy, which causes many classroom management issues. Mr. Stroope (Chris Mass) is more comfortable in the classroom, as it's his third year, and he's hoping to win the Teacher of the Year award this time... at any cost. Coach Webb (Jannelle Schremmer) is a second year female coach accused of being gay and rather pushy. And Mrs. Reddell (Shannon Haragan) has moved up from being a teacher to being a first year Assistant Principal... though without realizing how much work it would be and how much strain it would put on her personal life.

To me, Mr. Lowrey is the true main character of the movie. He has the biggest character development and overall story arch. He was the most identifiable. When he was awkward, you felt awkward. When he succeeded, you cheered. When he screwed up, you groaned and cried "why why why?" Mrs. Reddell is the next best character, I suppose, and has the next best development of the group. I didn't care for her as much as I did Lowrey, but you do want her to succeed. And when she finally blows up on Coach Webb, you're like "about time!"

And speaking of Coach Webb, she starts off OK, an then it goes downhill fast. The same could be said for Mr. Stroope. Both seem to be, at least at first, good teachers. But then everything comes crumbling down. Coach Webb falls apart outside the classroom, while Stroope falls apart within. Webb is just a crazy lady, attacking teachers for not writing up students who were 2 seconds late (and subsequently asking them if they wanted to join her exercise group) and getting pissed when people didn't recycle their water bottles. Stroope, on the other hand, tries to be funny, but half the time at the expense of his students. He tells one student using too big of words to stop doing that because he doesn't understand them and tells another girl who knows more history than him to dumb it down a little so that he looks better (on both counts). He then gets all his students to help campaign for him for the Teacher of the Year and... let's just say it doesn't end pretty.

But Lowrey was the real inspiration of the film. You have no idea how connected I felt to his role, even in the social scenes when he's hanging out with the other teachers or whatever. Granted, I don't think I ever came close to his level of nervousness during my student teaching, but I certainly did experience some of the same classroom management issues (and with a class about three times the size).

Which brings us to one minor quibble. These classes were super tiny, especially for a school that seemed as big as it was (at one point, they mention that the whole school has 80-something phones on campus alone). But there were maybe 7-12 kids per class (or thereabouts). Maybe it's just my personal experience, but small classes usually don't get as rowdy as some of those did. But then again, at the beginning, Mr. Lowrey was pretty awful.

The only other real issue is a dream sequence about halfway into the movie. The movie is documentary-style, so any dream sequence is automatically against the style. I learned afterward that the scene was actually filmed as a joke, but they ended up putting it in the film anyway. I'm not sure that was the best decision.

Overall, the movie was a pretty good representation of the life of a high school teacher. Outside of the Assistant Principal, though, they really didn't get much into how it affected home life. They also didn't address the TAKS test, which I think was a mistake if they were going for realism. Hell, they probably could have done a whole movie about teacher strife in accordance with that thing. But the closest they came to even mentioning it was during a song by the AP where she mentions "no child left behind."

Otherwise, it was close (some things were too over-the-top, and other things could have been more hardcore... there wasn't enough violence, no gang violence at all, no pregnant girls or people having sex on staircases... no sex talk whatsoever, actually. But I suppose this was more of a movie about teacher hardships and not about realism of student life, so it didn't bother me too much). Some of the things they showed, I experienced (from cell phone issues, student arguments, and even students asking me to free-style rap). Not to mention teachers complaining about other teachers all the time. My biggest problem? With my new news, this movie was too real for me right now, so I probably didn't enjoy it as much as I would have in another year or so. However, it did a great job for the most part--especially the students themselves, who weren't really acting, but being themselves--and I commend it for that.

I Am McLovin!

FUNNY PEOPLE.

2009-08-02T20:06:00.006-05:00

I went in to Funny People with low-to-mid expectations, only really going because it was Judd Apatow (and actually Apatow, not just him producing). The trailers did nothing for me but make me feel depressed. They didn't make me laugh at all. But then I hear all these reviews from people saying the movie is hilarious, and I'm taken aback. But still, I go in with low-to-mid expectations, and my expectations were met. Nothing more. Nothing less.

George Simmons (Adam Sandler) is a famous actor/comedian who suddenly gains the knowledge that he's dying of a rare blood disease. Ira (Seth Rogen) is a wannabe comic who lives with his friends Leo (Jonah Hill) and Mark (Jason Schwartzman), another up-and-comer who is somewhat famous due to starring in a crappy sitcom. George is a loner and a loser who still pines for his almost-wife, Laura (Leslie Mann), who is married to an Australian businessman, Clarke (Eric Bana). Ira just has a major crush on a fellow comedian, Daisy (Aubrey Plaza), but Mark is only giving him 10 days to make him move or he's making his own. But after an awkward stand-up session, George notices Ira and ends up hiring him on as his assistant to write his jokes and do chores and whatnot for him. And... well, there really isn't much of a plot. It's just these people interacting with each other and how they deal with George's sickness.

And for a movie with not a hell-of-a-lot happening, it really has no reason to be 2 and a half hours long. The movie tries to do too many things, I think, and one idea seems to be pushed to the side for another idea, only then Apatow realizes he should probably wrap up that previous idea, so he has to come back to that.

Is the movie funny? Sometimes. There were no real big belly laughs. It was only a chuckle every now and then, some longer than others, but not much more than that. And after a promising opening, it takes quite a while to get even to that point. But I know what you're saying, "this isn't supposed to be a comedy. It's supposed to be a look into the serious side of comics." Because, really, funny people always have the most depressing lives, it seems. And the movie shows that. Similarly, earlier this year we had Adventureland, another movie marketed as a comedy when it wasn't really. The difference? I think Adventureland worked better as a dramedy and didn't seem to try nearly as hard as Funny People.

I think the best thing about the movie was its cameos. The best scene in the whole movie, ironically, was the one with a non-comedian: Eminem (okay, so Ray Romano was in the scene, too, which led to the best line in the movie). I also loved Bo Burnham, as small of a role as he had. They should have given him more to do. That kid's hilarious (watch either his YouTube stuff or his Comedy Central stand-up).

As for the main cast, they actually acted their respective parts incredibly well. Honestly, everybody did a great acting job. But everybody was a freaking a-hole. In fact, the only characters I full-out liked (besides Seth Rogen's sympathetic everyman) were the two characters who were supposed to be the a-holes of the movie: Jason Schwartzman and Eric Bana. I think those two had the best roles in the movie, particularly Schwartzman. Oh, and I think I have a new celeb crush on Aubrey Plaza. She looked amazing in this movie... and she acted well, too, of course. But seriously, besides a couple characters, everybody is near hatable, including Sandler's George, who is the worst of the bunch on the hate-o-meter. I don't think I once felt sympathy for his character, and the ending seemed a bit forced in trying to get you to like him before the credits rolled.

All-in-all, I might enjoy it more after another watch, though it might be a while before that happens. It is a good movie. I liked it. But my biggest fault with Apatow's Knocked Up was that it was way too serious (and probably, if it weren't for Ken Jeong at the end, I don't think I would have liked it too much). Not to mention that movie was also filled with unlikable characters. Apatow did the opposite of what I would have liked. He amped up the drama and the unlikable characters and decreased the funny to the point where the movie mostly feels unbalanced. At least the a-holes in 40-Year-Old-Virgin were charming and funny, mostly due to the wit of the film. The only other thing I can say about this film is that, surprisingly, the cinematography/camera work was really good. It was really different than the other two films. It was more experimental and cinematic, I think. Anyway, my score is probably surprising due to my negative comments, but I honestly did enjoy the film for what it was.

I Am McLovin!

Short Review: The Protector.

2009-07-28T10:58:00.004-05:00

Premise: After an elephant is stolen, a fighter/protector must travel to Australia to retrieve it and fight anybody who gets in his way (including a very Cruella Deville-type villain).

Starring: Tony Jaa.

My Reaction: This movie is beyond ridiculous. Looking at that premise, you have to think "Is this a parody/comedy?" But it isn't. It takes itself very seriously. The worst part about the movie was its awful editing. It would jump from one thing to the next without any transition. And then even within scenes, it bounced around. It was so distracting and terrible. I've never seen a worse editing job in a movie. And then you have the weird subbing/dubbing issue. A third of the time, characters are speaking their natural language and the movie is subtitled. Fine. Another third of the time, you have white characters speaking English as per usual. Also fine. But then the other third of the time, you have the Thai characters speaking English, but their voices have been dubbed over. And not that they were speaking English and they just got a different voice. But you can clearly tell they were speaking their native tongue and somebody dubbed over in English. It's so freaking weird, mostly because the movie already relies on subtitles and also already has English-speaking actors, so to dub over others is mind boggling. Now, I've also seen Tony Jaa's Ong-Bak, which I felt was also disappointing, but not to this degree. Though it had a lot of technical issues as well. But the two share one thing in common: they both have some pretty great action. And that's the only thing that helps it. Does it save it? No. The editing is too awful for even the action to save it. If it weren't for the editing, I could have looked at it like a really crappy B-action movie with a ridiculous story and bad dubbing/subbing issues. But I can't. I fell asleep about halfway through and didn't care enough to finish it this morning before sending it back to Netflix. And I should have figured as much when the credits start and I see "Quentin Tarantino Presents..." Outside of maybe Jet Li's Hero, any movie he "presents" is awful. If you were gonna watch this movie for anything, it would be the action. Otherwise, just... skip it.

The Zed Word

Short Review: Nothing.

2009-07-20T00:01:00.002-05:00

Premise: Two friends whose lives are falling apart very quickly suddenly wish it would all go away. And then it does. Literally.

Starring: David Hewlett and Andrew Miller.

My Reaction: As a huge fan of Vincenzo Natali's Cube, I had to see this. Directed yet again by Natali and starring two of the actors from Cube, I figured I was in for something special. Well... I suppose you could call it special. This is probably the exact opposite of Cube in every way imaginable. Whereas Cube was claustrophobic and dark, Nothing is very spacious and light (because, well, it's a comedy). And I do mean spacious. The two guys end up in just a blank white space of nothingness with just their house and pet turtle. Getting straight to it, I felt the movie had so much potential that mostly went down the drain. It had some fun moments here and there, especially once they figure out what caused things to disappear (at about the halfway point of the film). But how do you end a movie like this? There's no plot. It's basically a character study of how these two guys would react to such a situation. I feel the way they did go about ending it was just too... weird. It turns from strange comedy into a cartoonish farce in the blink of an eye, much so that this could have easily become an entry in "WTF Did I Just Watch?" The movie isn't bad by any means... it just falls short of my expectations and isn't really outstanding based on the amazing premise.

Stop Saying Okay! Okay.

Manic Movie Madness Spectacular Bam Wow!

2009-07-18T15:25:00.005-05:00

The Title: Paprika.

The Skinny: After so much hype, I was expecting something mind-blowing. Instead, it's just relatively weird, confusing, sometimes pretty, but mostly strange.

The Score:

Feed Me, Seymour!

The Title: Kamikaze Girls.

The Skinny: Think what would happen if you mixed Amelie with Ghost World (with a tone closer to the former). It's humorous, though not laugh-out-loud funny. There are some good visuals, though nothing mind-blowing. The movie is more character-driven than plot-driven. It lost my attention around the 2/3s mark, but got it back soon thereafter. Overall, a pretty good movie.

The Score:

I Am McLovin!

The Title: RocknRolla.

The Skinny: It's Guy Ritchie... what do you expect? It's fast-paced and sometimes difficult to follow. Though sometimes it felt like Burn After Reading with the pointlessness of it all. Or maybe I just wasn't grabbing the plot very well, which is likely (I had some difficulties following Ritchie's Snatch, as well).

The Score:

I Am McLovin!

The Title: Heathers.

The Skinny: Incredibly dated, but still a really good movie. The acting between Winona Ryder and Christian Slater (especially Slater) is fantastic, though Slater does drift into Jack Nicholson territory from time to time. Though the movie has one of the coolest (albeit a bit unrealistic) endings ever. My only major gripe is that the editing of the film felt choppy and rushed at times, and half the time I expected something to be a dream sequence, but it wasn't (which, to me, isn't a good thing). But still a really fun movie.

The Score:

A Keanu 'Whoa'

The Title: Mind Hunters.

The Skinny: I've been wanting to see this film for a few years now, though now I'm not sure why. The idea is a good one, but it just doesn't pull itself off in my opinion. There are a couple fun scenes, but the others are negated by the fact that the characters are supposed to be these smart profilers, yet act like some horror movie idiots. Not to mention the ending makes no sense whatsoever. They try to pull a double-twist that totally backfires because it's completely illogical in its execution.

The Score:

Feed Me, Seymour!

The Title: The Onion Movie.

The Skinny: Some funny moments, some 'okay then...' moments. The movie is basically long string of skits, about half of which involve running gags throughout. And then that half culminates together for a pretty fun ending. Otherwise, it's just a pretty decent comedy movie (if you can really call it a movie).

The Score:

I Am McLovin!

The Title: Midnight Movie.

The Skinny: Besides the fact that this movie had a useless appearance by the actress who played Daphne on Heroes, the movie was pretty much a waste of time. Most horror movies, even ones with 'unkillable killers' (Jason, Freddy), have rules to follow where the good guys can still win or get an upper hand. This one keeps making rules, changing them, and refusing to make up its mind on how the killer works. And in the end, they really do make an 'unkillable killer', which is pretty lame when it comes to horror movies. Oh, and of course, you don't really care about any of the characters... and it's likely that the one you want to die because of annoyances is the one who actually lives.

The Score:

The Zed Word

The Title: Beowulf.

The Skinny: In a movie with monsters, dragons, and a naked Angelina Jolie, you wouldn't expect to be so bored. The first half of the movie was drug out unnecessarily. And the random use of Old English was just weird. I like Crispin Glover, but I hated this movie's portrayal of Grendel. Totally unmenacing, and even marginally annoying. Grendel's mother was better, though, thankfully. And the dragon bit was really cool, though the way Beowulf takes it down doesn't make any sense (Spoiler: If he couldn't reach the heart with the extended reach of a sword, how the hell does he reach it with his bare hand?). Brendan Gleeson's Wiglaf was the best performance in the film, I thought. And his animation seemed to be the best. While on the subject, sometimes the animation was really good, and sometimes it just looked like crap. Oh, and "I. Am. BEOWULF." is equally as stupid in the context of the movie as it was in the trailers.

The Score:

Feed Me, Seymour!

The Title: Knowing.

The Skinny: Not Nic Cage's best film, but certainly not his worst. It had some good suspenseful moments and some decent CGI (some better than others, though). The 3 minute long shot is pretty cool, too. Though the son's need of a hearing aide was pointless, as he could still hear and speak just as well without it as he did with it. I'm not sure if I liked the ending, though. I went into the movie expecting a supernatural thriller, and only in the final act do you realize it's an apocalypse film... which totally changes the mood of the whole thing. It just kinda leaves you with a "well... that was pointless" feeling at the end. Still, the majority of it is entertaining enough.

The Score:

I Am McLovin!

The Title: Fanboys.

The Skinny: Mildly entertaining, though never really laugh-out-loud funny. Kristen Bell is hot, though, even as a brunette. Some fun Star Wars parallels. Decent acting all around. Though the film relies a bit too much on dramatic irony (where the audience knows something the characters don't), specifically that Episode 1 is bad.

The Score:

I Am McLovin!

HARRY POTTER AND THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE.

2009-07-15T17:28:00.007-05:00

Half-Blood Prince is my favorite of the 7 books. I've been looking forward to this film for so long, and after everything I've heard recently, my expectations were super high. So I finally saw Half-Blood Prince at midnight last night. I went straight to bed after I got home (as I had to be at work in the morning), so I've had plenty of time to let things sink in. But you know what? My feelings are exactly the same as last night: This movie is brilliant and blows all the others out of the water.

The movie picks up pretty much where the last one left off, and Harry (Dan Radcliffe) is about to begin his 6th year at Hogwarts. But Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) shows up and takes him on a bit of a side-journey to have a talk with an old professor of Hogwarts, Horace Slughorn (Jim Broadbent), to try and get him to come back. Later, Harry and friends Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson) notice Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton) up to something strange, beginning a bit of an obsession from Harry toward Draco. And then there's Professor Snape (Alan Rickman) who makes an Unbreakable Vow with Draco's mother, Narcissa (Helen McCrory) and Bellatrix Lestrange (Helena Bonham Carter) to help Draco out in his mission that Voldemort has set him. And this is all before they even get to Hogwarts. Once back at school, emotions run high as everybody is feeling romance in the air, including Lavender Brown (Jessie Cave), who has an enormous crush on Ron, and Hermione, who is starting to realize her feelings toward Ron, as well. And then there's Harry's growing crush on Ron's sister Ginny (Bonnie Wright). But not all is light within the school. As Draco continues his secret mission, Dumbledore puts Harry up to the task to get buddy-buddy with Slughorn for a very important reason.

I am a fan of the books and the films, so I'm going to try and make this as fair of a review as possible. I will try to review it both as a film and as an adaptation. Let's start with the actors.

Jim Broadbent's Slughorn, while looking nothing as described in the books, plays him perfectly. His acting, shifting between whimsical and serious, is spot on. Of course, we also have some of the more background players moving to the foreground, such as Draco, Ginny, and Snape (not a background player in the books, per se, but definitely has been given a smaller role in the films as of late). Tom Felton, though with few words, shows us Draco's internal struggle to do the task he has been given, and it's brilliantly played when push comes to shove and the moment finally comes. Ginny, as well, while having almost no lines in the previous films, really shows us that she can play Ginny just fine when asked.

But then we have Snape. Oh, Alan Rickman, how great you are. You've been the perfect casting choice of the entire series, and you still claim that throne. Although Snape appears to come to the foreground even in the book, he's honestly not in it as much as you probably think he is. In fact, I had a discussion just today that the person felt Snape wasn't in it as much as the book, but as huge of a role he plays in the book, he's actually not in it as much as it seems. It's kind of a "Jaws" effect. He's always around, and most things seem to center around him, but he's not always there. Is that to say he's not in the movie a lot? Absolutely not. He has a large role in the film, as well, and plays it to perfection as usual.

Then there's the Trio: Harry, Ron, and Hermione. This movie is downright hilarious, and most of it is thanks to these three (and Lavender, who was obsessively brilliant). But for the first time in a long time, I felt Emma Watson really captured Hermione again. When her hand shot up excitedly in the air to answer a question, I grinned wide. And there's even a fun bit where her hair gets all frizzy and bushy, which had to be a nudge to the fans. I also loved "drunk" Hermione (too much Butterbeer!). Then you have Rupert Grint who also, finally, found a great balance between comedy and loyalty. And then you have Dan Radcliffe, who had some exceptional moments, particularly the Cave scene and the Felix Felicis scene (which is just hilarious).

But the top bill... and I can't believe I'm actually saying this... has to go to Michael Gambon, who--for the first time--acted Dumbledore perfectly. Like Slughorn, there was a perfect mix of whimsy and serious. But the kicker? I think for the first time, I actually saw Michael Gambon smile. And boy, does that make all the difference.

Of course, there are other, smaller characters that did well, too, like Luna (who is great as always). And funnily enough, after my Flitwick complaint recently, he was actually given some dialogue in this film (although one of those dialogue moments was to mention choir practice... oh well). And McGonagall actually gets some decent screen time for once, as well.

Overall, on all the actors' parts, the movie was a great film of expressions. I mean, a lot of the parts (seriousness, heartbreak, fear, comedy) were expressed purely through facial expression, and expressed well, which really says something.

As an adaptation, besides the characters being acted perfectly, the movie does very well. Total purists might not like it for things cut out, but I felt what was cut out wasn't purely necessary to begin with (as long as they're able to include the missing information somehow in the final film, as some was important). For instance, there were three important aspects from the book that were declared cut that had some fans up in arms. These scenes were half the memories, the 'Battle', and the funeral. Let's take these one at a time.

In the book, there are about 6 or so memories into Voldemort's past. In the film, there are 3 (one being a completed version of another). These memories are important in figuring out what Harry has to go after in the final story to help defeat Voldemort. With the memories cut from the film, Harry doesn't exactly know specifics on what to go after... but it works fine. Harry knows what he's supposed to be doing, and in the final book, there really wasn't too much of a need for Harry to know specifics. And if we're lucky, the Trio will just figure it out themselves, making them look much smarter and more important in this mission (because, as we know from the book, that didn't happen too often).

And then we have the cut 'Battle', removed because David Yates felt it might become repetitious due to the battle in the final film. And I agree. There didn't need to be a battle in this one, and the way they did it was just fine. There's still destruction (and one Auror does actually get blasted), but the stealth mode worked, and it will make the final battle that much more epic. As for the funeral, again, unnecessary. In the book, Harry pretty much pays little attention to it anyway, and it's over before you know it. And there's still a nicely done gesture anyway. The movie ends pretty much exactly the same as the book... the Trio talking about what to do next. Actually, I think this is the first time in the movies that the movie has actually ended exactly how the book did. And if the movie seems to just stop, that's because the book did the exact same thing. The movie, like the book, is basically just a setup to the final installment(s).

And speaking of setup, I loved the little nudges the film gave for those who had read the final book (especially the Harry snake-head thing when he touches the ring). And I'm also glad they didn't muck things up (Luna didn't actually see Harry with her SpectreSpecs... and expelliarmus is cast at the end of the movie (which I started getting worried about when it didn't happen immediately)). And there were also some fun in-jokes for those who are knowledgeable of the earlier books/films (Like when Slughorn asks if Aragog had a family, and the tone in Harry's voice when he goes "Oh yeah" is just great).

If I had any complaint about this film, it would be the downplay of the Half-Blood Prince subplot. The potions book really is downplayed in the film, but it was never really that important in the grand scheme of things even in the book, so it's not like it really mattered. It did what it was meant to do (and by God, the Sectumsempra scene was even better than I could have hoped). Draco's mission also became much more obvious in the film than in the book (though I'm not really sure I could say that since I had the book spoiled for me before I read it). But it was still incredibly obvious what he was trying to do. Though in the realm of cinema versus books, I'm not sure that's a bad thing, really.

Some might complain about all the romance, but the book was the same way... and I thought it worked particularly well (in fact, some of it I thought was better than the book, mostly because the book couldn't do the brilliant facial expressions like the film could, not to mention some brilliant lines not in the book). The romance is rarely at the forefront of any scene, but it's a part of a many of them. I even liked how they got around one of my only annoyances of the book, Tonks' moping about mysteriously, later for us to discover is about Lupin. The film? Just puts them right together and gets it over with. Smart move, I say. But if you complain about the love and relationships in Harry Potter, you're missing the point of the series completely. As is said at the end of the Half-Blood Prince book (paraphrasing), one should be proud to see a little more love in the world... because remember, in Harry Potter, love is the most powerful magic. And what better episode to center around love than the one where Dumbledore comes to the forefront? Plus... they're teenagers.

I know this is an incredibly long review, but how could I not talk about the music and cinematography? Nicholas Hooper's score is just beautiful. I gave it a listen before the film came out, and it's just as great in the film as it is out. And the cinematography by Bruno Belbonnel (Amelie and Across the Universe) made an outstandingly gorgeous film. Every shot was so beautiful, it really set this film apart from all the others in visuals, including Prisoner of Azkaban. I really can't stress enough how gorgeous the film is.

Overall, the film was near perfect for a Harry Potter film (Deathly Hallows might trump it simply because it has 2 films to tell its story). It was gorgeous. The music was beautiful. The acting was completely, by everyone, spot on. The movie was hilarious (much funnier than anticipated). There was a perfect balance of dark and light (and when it was dark, it was pretty dark, so I'm really surprised this movie got a PG rated... I'm still not sure how). As an adaptation, there were things cut out and some things added in, and a few things changed, but everything seemed to work. What most adaptations try to do is either be like the first two films and try to put every detail in or be like Goblet of Fire and try to be true, but make it really choppy due to things cut out. For the first time, I've really felt that a Harry Potter movie took the essence of the book and made it into its own creature--staying true to the story and the book, but doing other things of its own volition that separated the book and film and letting it work on a cinematic level. I could go on endlessly about this film, but I'll spare you. Let's just say I can't wait to see it again and again.

Royale With Cheese

(P.S. Did anybody else's heart skip a beat and/or breath get caught in their throat at that final "...Please." right before the occurrence?)

LKMYNTS: 10 Items Or Less.

2009-07-02T19:14:00.001-05:00

I bought this movie on a whim a year or two ago at a Hollywood Video closeout sale. It seemed interesting and had Morgan Freeman in it, so why not? When I first watched it, I wasn't underwhelmed, but I wasn't overwhelmed, either. I suppose I was just whelmed. I enjoyed it, but I didn't love it, in other words. However, I just rewatched it for the first time since then last night, and I have to say... I really liked it this time around.

The movie is about an image-obsessed, out-of-work actor (Morgan Freeman) who has been out of the game for 4 years. But now he has the chance to star in a low budget indie film by a young, first time director. He'd be playing a grocery store manager, and being the method actor he is, he wants to visit the same kinda store he'd be in for the movie and research the part. But while he's there, he takes more of a liking to one of the cashiers, Scarlet (Paz Vega), a young woman with a short temper and her own problems to deal with. But when his ride doesn't come back to pick him up, and he forgets his recently changed phone number, he's forced to ask Scarlet for a ride home. But in the process, he forms a friendship with the young woman that he'll never forget.

First, the movie is riddled with great actors, and I'm so surprised it didn't get a bigger release. Of course there's Morgan Freeman and the incredibly underrated Paz Vega. But there's also a fun cameo by Jonah Hill at the beginning as the guy who gives Morgan Freeman a ride to the store. And then there's a blink-and-you'll-miss-it appearance by Leonardo Nam (AKA the best thing in 2004's Breakfast Club heist film, The Perfect Score... as well as a few other films). There's another brief though funny cameo by Danny DeVito and his wife Rhea Perlman.

But really, Freeman and Vega are the heart and soul of this film. Paz Vega, especially, is magnificent. She takes to the role with such a raw emotionality that you really feel for her and her life struggles. Morgan Freeman, of course, is Morgan Freeman. He's awesome. But the humor he adds to the role with his little notes on how people act everyday, or anytime he talks about looks, either his or others. His fascination with the lower- and middle-class world is almost reminiscent of, say, Arthur Weasley's fascination with muggle inventions. Walking into your neighborhood Target is an adventure. And if you were shocked by Freeman's F-bomb in Wanted, you'll be speechless in this film. His language isn't gratuitous at all (not like Travolta's recent turn in Pelham 123). It's all very natural, a rarity with cussing in films.

And that's a really good thing about this film. It's very natural. The story feels like it could happen. While you might not get a visit from an A-list actor wanting to follow you around anytime soon, the characters felt real--again, especially Paz Vega's Scarlet. And the strangest thing about all of this is that it's written and directed by the same guy (Brad Silberling) who directed such films as Casper, Lemony Snicket, and the very recent Land of the Lost. It's like this film doesn't even fall into the same realm as those movies... in story, acting, quality, you name it. I haven't seen all of his films, but I don't think I would be remiss to say this one is his diamond in the rough.

The only thing about this film is its length. The movie is a short 82 minutes, but I think it works... for the most part. I wouldn't have minded seeing more of these characters, but then I feel it could have gone on too long for no reason. The point of the film is the relationship between its two stars, and the relationship does span its course. It has a beginning, middle, and end point. Though the end is simultaneously depressing and heartwarming, which is strange. But on the whole, it worked.

The only other thing to mention that I liked about the film was its meta qualities. If you pay attention, you'll notice that anything Morgan Freeman says about acting or characters or any of that almost always correlates with what's happening in the movie. So it's almost like he's talking about films in general while the film he's in is doing exactly that. And, to me, that's something pretty smart I didn't catch the first time (there was also a lot of humor I didn't catch the first time). It's all very subtle, though.

So I recommend going out and at least giving this a rent and see what you think. The acting in it is brilliant, and the comedy should get a few chuckles out of you. I have no idea why this didn't do better or why Paz Vega isn't a bigger actress (at least in America). It's not like she's ugly. She's like the (lesbian?) lovechild of Salma Hayek and Penelope Cruz... on that note, I, uh... gotta go.

A Keanu 'Whoa'

Short Review: Yes Man.

2009-06-27T18:46:00.003-05:00

Premise: An overly negative and lonely man who says No to everything is talked into going to a seminar where he makes a pact to instead say Yes to every option given to him... or else bad things might happen. And if he does, his life will immediately turn around for the better.

Starring: Jim Carrey, Zooey Deschanel, Bradley Cooper, Rhys Darby, Danny Masterson, and Terence Stamp.

My Reaction: It's not laugh-out-loud comedy, but it's more of a feel-good comedy. Sometimes the situations make Jim Carrey act like... well... Jim Carrey, which is a bit over-the-top for the character. Otherwise, the acting was decent. The only major thing that bugged me was how every little thing he says "yes" to comes back with some higher purpose (for better or for worse). It turns the whole first half of the movie into a Chekov's Gun: "Oh, I wonder how that's gonna come back later?" Nevertheless, I liked the characters and the situations, and I even sympathized with Carrey's character a bit (though not in the aggressive ways he took with his "no"s). Though I particularly liked Rhys Darby's character of Norman, but probably only because he threw a Harry Potter costume party. Overall, an entertaining movie.

I Am McLovin!

TRANSFORMERS: REVENGE OF THE FALLEN.

2009-06-26T16:36:00.004-05:00

This is my personal opinion, but I think the haters are hating too much, but the lovers might also be loving a bit too much, as well. The sequel picks up two years after the last, and Sam (Shia LaBeouf) is going off to college. His girlfriend Mikaela (Megan Fox) doesn't like being so far away, but Sam will find ways to keep in touch. And Sam's personal guardian transformer, Bumblebee, just feels left out. But after Sam finds a piece of the Allspark, he starts seeing a bunch of weird symbols that link to this... machine thingy... that there was this civil war over forever ago between the Autobot and Decepticon ancients. So The Fallen wants to use it, but can't because there's a Prime on the Earth? And... okay, I'm just gonna stop there.

I really have no f**king idea what the plot of this movie is. Hell, the characters even beg for a plot at one point in the movie (courtesy of John Turturro). Literally. He yells at one of the transformers to just lay out the plot already because nothing makes sense. And even afterwards, it still doesn't make sense. I don't know if it was just because I missed it or it was explained poorly, but I didn't even know what the big machine thing was supposed to do until the end of the film. And even after it's explained, I was still left with "um... okay... because that makes sense" thoughts. There are quite a few non-sensical things (or things with just poor reasonings behind them) in this movie. And it takes at least half the movie (and it's a long movie) before anything remotely plot-related occurs.

Much like the first film, entire scenes or even characters could have been removed completely. The "twins" were pretty unnecessary (and oftentimes annoying), and Leo, when not reminding me of a younger Kevin Corrigan, was just there for comic relief. However, despite his overall pointlessness, he was still an entertaining character, so he really didn't bother me at all.

Another place this movie "falls" is in character development. Outside Shia and Megan's characters, everybody else (including returning characters), are more like set pieces. Bumblebee and Optimus Prime are really the only returning Autobots that actually do anything for any portion of the movie (or are built-up, rather). The others are just kinda there. And the new ones hardly get enough screen time to matter (even those that do--the twins--you wish you had less of). Every character outside Shia and Megan's are so flat they'd almost be pointless if their story 'archs' (if you can call them that) weren't necessary to the 'plot' (if you can call it that).

The acting is decent, though... except from Megan Fox, who is just there for the T&A. And what lovely T&A it is (there's even a slow-mo Baywatch-esque running sequence).

I know this sounds like hating, but despite all of that negativity, I still enjoyed myself. Why? Because the action and special effects were good. The haters hate the movie because of the aforementioned things, of course. But what they also don't realize is that they're going in to a Transformers movie... as directed by Michael Bay. It's basically Robots & Explosions: The Movie. But I knew that going in. So knowing that, and still seeing it, I wasn't really disappointed. I didn't go in expecting Oscar-worthy plots and characters. I saw giant robots fighting each other and blowing crap up. That's what I went to see, and the movie delivered. Case closed.

Still, is it a good movie? Not really. But is it entertaining (even on a braindead level)? Heck yeah. So taking all things into consideration, including the outstanding visual effects (though even those had a few hiccups), I think I can give it a pretty fair score as a non-biased, knows-what-he's-getting-into source.

I Am McLovin!

Short Review: Following.

2009-06-22T23:27:00.000-05:00

Premise: A tri-split narrative tells the story of a young man who likes to follow people who meets another guy who likes to burgle homes just to see how people really are... and the blonde woman between them.

Starring: Jeremy Theobald, Alex Haw, and Lucy Russell.

My Reaction: This was Christopher Nolan's first feature-length film. It's really low budget and black-and-white. It's about the same budget as Kevin Smith's Clerks., though the black-and-white is much darker here. The acting and dialogue is excellent. The movie is very reminiscent of Memento, though to me, not as good. Though this is also the kind of movie one would have to watch more than once to grasp completely. Early on (like, the first 20-30 minutes), I was horribly confused as to what the heck was going on. I think it was mostly due to not realizing at first the split narrative was the same story at different points in time (which was mostly due to not recognizing the main actor's face once he's cleaned up a bit). The split narrative works much better in Memento, mostly because this use of it seems a bit forced. It's just the one story told parallel to each other from different points in time (though the DVD does have the option of watching it chronologically). The movie is barely over an hour long, so taking half the movie to get used to what's going on is too much. However, all that being said, the ending is freaking fantastic. That's pretty much the only reason I gave the movie as high of a score as I did (based solely on a single viewing). It was tough to score already, but the ending was so great, I'm not sure why it isn't talked about more (especially with Nolan's rising popularity). It's not exactly a heist film, but it's a conman film, which follows similar territories... kinda like Lucky Number Slevin. If you're a fan of Memento, I really recommend it, although it's much slower in pace.

A Keanu 'Whoa'

2 In 1: Wasabi And District B13.

2009-06-21T00:20:00.000-05:00

I haven't done a 2 In 1 in a while, and I figured since I had two movies that could be themed together, I might as well. Both of these films are written by one of my favorite writer/director/producers, Luc Besson. The first is an action/comedy, while the second gets more into the action/dystopian scene. So let's get into it, shall we?

Wasabi.

The tagline for this movie really says it all: "Quite Possibly The Greatest French-Language, English-Subtitled, Japanese Action-Comedy Of All Time." Luc Besson likes to mix and match cultures in the films he's involved with. And this one is the epitome of that. Wasabi is about Hubert (Jean Reno), a cop who uses unorthodox and illegal moves on the criminals he's after, mostly due to his history with special services. But he's also stuck in the past, having 19 years ago fallen in love with a Japanese woman who mysteriously left him 8 months later. After being suspended from his police position for 2 months for accidentally assaulting the chief's son, Hubert receives a call from Japan stating that his old lady-friend is dead, and has left him as sole recipiant of everything in the will. But he also discovers something else--he has a daughter, 19-going-on-20-year-old Yumi (Ryoko Hirosue). Noticing that Yumi's mother's death is more than it seems, Hubert teams up with his old partner Momo (Michel Muller) to figure out what happened... all while trying to keep the fact that he's her father away from Yumi, who is under the impression her mother had been raped and abandoned and wants nothing more than to see her father dead.

This movie is very entertaining. It's not as serious and in-depth as Leon, but it's not as plotless and action-packed as The Transporter. Its tone is probably somewhere around Lethal Weapon (not a Besson film, of course, but as close of a comparison as I can make). The story is a good one, and it keeps you questioning what's going on. And I actually did laugh out loud once or twice (like Lethal Weapon, it's not all 'ha ha' funny, but 'amusing' funny, if that makes sense). Though seeing Jean Reno try to play Dance Dance Revolution is awfully 'amusing'. I also liked a particularly liked a scene where Momo is trying to show Hubert a bunch of weapons, while Yumi comes in and out of the room for a 'fashion show', so they keep having to hide everything when she steps from the room with a new outfit.

The action is interspersed throughout the film, so it's not one thing after the other. Though when there is action, it is somewhat reminiscent of the over-the-top fun type that you might see in The Transporter, which was coincidentally made a year later. Notably is the 'fight' in the shopping center while trying to stay inconspicuous to Yumi, as well as the 'golf' fight later on.

The acting is well done. It was fun seeing Jean Reno in a action/comedy role. And Michel Muller as Momo stole the show as the dopey/excitable sidekick, having most of the comedy once in Japan. Then there's Yumi, who I can't say how good or bad of an actress she is, because I was too busy seeing how hot she was anytime she was on screen. Seriously, though, she played the stereotypical Japanese teen girl well.

If I had any complaint, it would be the things that Hubert was left in the will. Hubert keeps saying how everything in the box was a clue to solving the mystery, and that would have been a really cool concept to go with. But only two of the things ever came into play. I think if they were going to say the box of items were all clues, they should have made them all clues instead of just picking two of the things. Also, they broke the Chekov's Gun rule... which is a tough thing to do. I'm mostly just upset about this because I wanted to see a bazooka or heat seeking missiles fired or something. But they introduce all these cool weapons (during the aforementioned 'fashion show' scene), but only use one of the guns and a grenade (for no real reason other than to use a grenade). And the action of the climax scene could have been played out a just a little more (I thought it was a bit too short).

But otherwise, this was a fun movie. If you're a fan of Luc Besson or Jean Reno, or you like a good action/comedy, check this out. It's pretty entertaining.

A Keanu 'Whoa'

District B13.

Also known as Parkour: The Movie. For those who don't know, Parkour (sometimes referred to, though--as I've heard--incorrectly, as Free Running) is a new-age sport... movement... thing where you run/climb/jump wherever the heck you want. It makes you look like a ninja.

Anyway, this movie takes place in the distant future of 2010 where the ghettos of Paris have been fenced off for safety reasons. The most dangerous of these ghettos is District B13. Born and raised in this ghetto is Leito (David Belle, creator of Parkour) and his sister Lola (Dany Verissimo, beauty incarnate). Leito gets caught up with drug and gang lord, and basic overseer of all of District B13, Taha (Bibi Naceri), and his right-hand lacky K2 (Tony D'Amario). But when Leito gets screwed over, Lola ends up in Taha's hands, and Leito ends up in prison. Enter all-around supercop, Captain Damien Tomaso (Cyril Raffaelli). Damien is hired to enter B13, as Taha has also gotten his hands on a bomb that will blow up most of the city, and he needs to input the code to deactivate it... with only a few hours to do so. So Damien gets teamed up with Leito, who knows the lay of the land and the rules of the trade like the back of his hand. And they must work together--for better or worse--if they're going to get through this alive, deactivate the bomb, and save Lola.

The story isn't deep or anything, so don't come in expecting a masterpiece of storytelling. I also can't really comment on the acting job, either, because the subtitles for this film were ridiculous. Rarely has it been this difficult to watch a foreign film in its original language. They spoke so fast, that sometimes I didn't even finish reading the subtitle before it moved on to the next one. I now sympathize with those who had to watch Gilmore Girls closed captioned. As such, my eyes were on the bottom of the screen for the majority of any dialogue-fueled scene. But again, as the story isn't super deep or anything, it's not like I was really missing much.

The reason to see this movie is for the action. The movie was directed by Pierre Morel, the same guy who directed the recent Liam Neeson flick Taken, and also did the cinematography for such films as The Transporter and Unleashed. In other words, he's no newbie to action films (well, I suppose he could have been at the time, since this came out in 2004, and the only one of those films he had under his belt was The Transporter. Unleashed came out the following year, and Taken, 5 years later. But I digress). The action is superb, dare I say better than even The Transporter. Everything is based around Parkour, with a mix of martial arts flair. So it's kinda like watching a super-gymnast ninja... and a bit of Jason Statham. It's very fluid, fast, and stylish, yet simultaneously hard hitting and rough. It's pure candy for the eyes and adrenaline-fueled mind.

Really, outside the action, there's nothing to talk about with this movie. It moves fast and doesn't even feel like an hour and a half (or a little less than that, really). The only real thing that bugged me (outside the insane subtitles) was Lola's actions near the end of the movie. They really made no sense outside the realm of "hey, let's add more suspense to this scene." But hey, it gave more excuses to show her... which was nice (hell, even Luc Besson wrote the role specifically for her to be in this movie). But on the level of "I just want to see some awesome action," this movie is pretty high up there. So if that's what you're in the mood for, definitely check this out. I would have given it a higher score, but the action and good visuals are really all the movie has going for it. Will I buy it? Probably not. Would I watch it again if I saw it on TV or something? Most definitely.

I Am McLovin!

THE PROPOSAL.

2009-06-19T20:15:00.004-05:00

As some of you may know, I'm quite the large fan of one Mr. Ryan Reynolds. I'll see pretty much anything he's involved in. Sandra Bullock? I can take her or leave her (I liked her in Speed). So I tucked away my shame and went to a RomCom. Alone. In the middle of the day. Because I liked the male actor. Um... anyway...

The movie focuses on Margaret Tate (Sandra Bullock), a biotch boss of a publishing firm in New York. Her assistant, Andrew (Ryan Reynolds), has swallowed his pride for the last three years and gone along with whatever she wanted, all in the hopes of securing an Editor promotion. But one day, Margaret gets called in to her boss's office. Apparently, her green card was rejected, and she's going to be deported back to Canada, which means she can't work at her job... and the guy she just fired get it instead. In desperation, Margaret reels in Andrew and tells her boss they're engaged, and later threatens to blackmail him if he doesn't go along with it. But it doesn't go down as well at the immigrants' office, where they automatically smell the scam. Unless they can prove that they know each other inside and out and prove that they aren't committing fraud, Andrew will owe a huge fine and go to jail, while Margaret will get deported anyway. So they go up to Sitka, Alaska, to visit Andrew's family for the weekend, as it's Grandma Annie's (Betty White) 90th birthday. His mom (Mary Steenburgen) is surprised at first, but goes along with it, while he and his dad (Craig T. Nelson) show Margaret that there's a bit more trouble to Andrew's life than she knew.

The movie doesn't waste time getting to the point. It introduces us to both characters quickly, and then puts us into the deportation situation. Before you know it, you're viewing beautiful Alaska for the majority of the movie. And boy did they capture its beauty. The film is gorgeous to watch. I've actually been to Alaska (actually, I've even been to Sitka, where the movie takes place), and it's like no matter where you look, it's stunning... pretty much like the film. And though I've been to Sitka, I didn't really recognize a damn thing outside the mountains, clear water, and fishing boats.

The movie is your run-of-the-mill RomCom. It's predictable. But in this case, that doesn't make it a bad thing. Ryan Reynolds and Sandra Bullock bring an incredible charm to their roles, and the chemistry between them is fantastic. I personally think Reynolds was underused in the movie, but when he was on screen, he stole the show. I really couldn't help but be taken in by the movie and worry about these characters. Betty White also has a fun role as Grandma Annie.

The one thing RomComs often do, however, is focus the story on the relationship building (the "they're falling for each other!" moments) and forget, mostly, about the comedy. This movie doesn't. This movie is really funny, and I laughed at this about as much as I did with The Hangover. Though this is a much different style of comedy (outside, perhaps, the Ramone character, which is more similar to The Hangover's comedy). And when I wasn't laughing, I was smiling and enjoying the film.

There were a couple scenes that could have been trimmed down a bit, though. For instance, Ramone's introduction and the 'chant' scene. With both, the funnier parts were toward the end of each respective scene, but it took too long to get to those parts. So a little better editing would have suited them well.

There's not much more to say about this movie. It's pretty to look at. The comedy is good. The chemistry between the characters is great. Ryan Reynolds is still doing well. I also enjoyed that they both work at a publishing firm considering my interest in writing and being published, so that was a plus in the entertainment factor. Yes, it's the RomCom formula, but it's charm pulls the wool over your eyes where you just don't care. Not to mention it's the rare RomCom where it ends up the woman's fault... but I digress.

A Keanu 'Whoa'

Manic Movie Madness Spectacular Bam Wow!

2009-06-17T15:56:00.011-05:00

Because I waited too long after seeing most of these movies to write a review, I really can't remember many details about them (or I just don't have much to say about them in the first place). Therefore, I'm gonna get them all out of the way all together as... Manic Movie Madness Spectacular Bam Wow!

The Title: The Rocky Horror Picture Show.

The Skinny: I finally got around to just sitting down and watching this. They say you have to not only go in open minded, but have an acquired taste for it. I'm about as open-minded as they come, I love musicals, and I do love me some camp... but apparently I don't have the acquired taste. Tim Curry was excellent. But I didn't care for the music at all, with the exception of "Time Warp." Repo! The Genetic Opera is compared a lot to this film, but I suppose only in that it's a musical that one must be open minded about. And it has a cult following. Needless to say, I much prefer the quite excellent Repo! over this (nothing against you fans out there! Don't hate me).

The Score:

The Zed Word

The Title: Interstella 5555.

The Skinny: It's only an hour long, but feels longer. It's basically a long music video for Daft Punk. Because of this, there's no dialogue, as the whole movie is a string of their songs put together one story. It's a great concept. If you like Daft Punk, I'd suggest at least one viewing. I like Daft Punk, but apparently not enough to want to watch this again. The animation was decent, though the story was hard to follow at times. And it did get a bit boring after a while.

The Score:

Stop Saying Okay! Okay.

The Title: Film Geek.

The Skinny: This movie had so much potential, but ultimately falls flat. The movie is about an uber-film geek who gets fired from his rental store job for being annoying. He ends up meeting a girl who apparently likes movies on his own level, but not in his obsessed way. Of course, he gets obsessed over her and basically stalks her. There were some really funny moments, especially in the first act before he's fired. But there's no redemption to the character. This movie tries to be Napoleon Dynamite for film buffs, but the one liners aren't funny half the time. And you mostly find yourself as annoyed with the main character as the supporting cast does. And as I said, there's no redemption. The movie goes nowhere. Nobody learns any lessons. It's just... over.

The Score:

Feed Me, Seymour!

The Title: Gray Matters.

The Skinny: I really like Tom Cavanaugh, and I think he's vastly underrated. Unfortunately, this movie hardly focuses on him. Instead, it focuses on Heather Graham's character, Gray, who realizes she's falling in love with her brother's (Cavanaugh) new wife. This movie tries so hard to be quirky and original, and it shows. It tries too hard, and I think that's why it fails. There's one scene I really liked, but otherwise, the movie as a whole is rather 'bleh'. It's a romantic comedy without the romance. Or the comedy.

The Score:

Feed Me, Seymour!

The Title: Howl's Moving Castle.

The Skinny: Yet another Miyazaki. It came on IFC (or some similar channel), so while it was uncut and without commercial interruptions, it was the dubbed version. Luckily, one of the voice actors is Christian Bale, and another is Billy Crystal, so it's really not that bad. The beginning drags a bit up until Howl is shown to us for the first time, though unknowingly. The movie plays with a lot of great ideas, probably coming from the book it's based on. Though it does have its flaws. First, it seems like (due to Miyazaki's involvement) the movie is British-based with some strange Japanese influences (like the book is British, but Miyazaki tries to alter it for the anime). It feels strange at times. And it's never explained why the main character is constantly shifting in age throughout the film (there are quite a few things not explained). For the majority of the movie, though, I was at least enjoying it... until the ending. The ending is so rushed and awful, it's like they ran out of budget and realized they still needed to resolve every single character in the film, so they had to do it all within a 3 minute time frame. It was such a piss-poor way of doing it, that it made me really dislike the rest of the film (of which I was already only slightly above-average' on). I've seen better from Miyazaki, though I've seen worse.

The Score:

Stop Saying Okay! Okay.

The Title: The Gamers.

The Skinny: This is the original short film that the recently reviewed The Gamers: Dorkness Rising is a spin-off from. While there are a few who liked this short film better than Dorkness, the vast majority saw Dorkness as a vast improvement. I'm with the latter. The idea is very similar to Dorkness, though. The Gamers takes place almost entirely in the fantasy world and doesn't focus much on the outside lives. Overall, I didn't really laugh much (maybe once) at this one. It just seemed to fall flat for me. There were some good ideas, but they weren't executed very well, in my opinion. Most of my issues stemmed from the characters over-explaining everything, as if they were afraid their audience wouldn't get it. One idea I do wish they would have expanded on and done again in Dorkness (though done it a bit better than in this) was the idea of what to do with a character whose gamer isn't present. I liked how, in the fantasy world, the character just stood there until the guy would show up. And then the idea of the DM taking over the character, etc. If done right, it would have been a hilarious bit. But alas, I didn't really care much for this one. Still, check out Dorkness. You won't regret it.

The Score:

Feed Me, Seymour!

The Title: The Happiness of the Katakuris.

The Skinny: This movie is f**king weird. I'm tempted to leave my review at that, but I'll explain. This movie is a dark comedy musical directed by Takashi Miike. Let me explain that for those who don't realize what I just said. Takashi Miike is known for making some of the most brutual horror films in Japan (Audition, for instance). This is a (darkly) comedic musical. This would be the equivalent of having Clive Barker directing Mary Poppins or Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. There is so much strangeness surrounding this movie, it would take me ages to discuss. In fact, I almost wrote a "WTF Did I Just Watch?" for this movie, but it's so sporadic and bat-shit crazy that I wouldn't have been able to talk about it in any linear fashion. I think an entire movie made up of the "bowling daydream" from The Big Lebowski would have made more sense.

The Score: Are you kidding me? I can't score this.

Short Review: Paul Blart: Mall Cop.

2009-06-15T22:25:00.007-05:00

Premise: A loser mall cop tries to get a girlfriend, but in the process ends up having to save the mall from a major heist on Black Friday.

Starring: Kevin James, Keir O'Donnell, and Jayma Mays.

My Reaction: When I first saw trailers for this, I thought it was going to be bad. It looked pretty awful to me. Now, I like Kevin James. His "Sweat the Small Stuff" stand-up special is hilarious. But even he didn't look like he could save this movie. Therefore, I skipped it in theater. But then I wondered if I had thought incorrectly, seeing it was getting some good reviews and staying #1 at the box office for so long (but then again, so did Beverly Hills Chihuahua... the box office part, anyway). But I Netflix'd it to check it out. I went in with an open mind. 5 minutes in, I'm like "Okay, this is painfully unfunny." 10 minutes in, I'm like "Okay, this is still painfully unfunny." 20 minutes in, I'm like "Maybe it's one of those comedies that waits for its premise to start before it gets, you know, good." By the time the premise (heist) actually starts--at 45 minutes in--I'm dying from non-laughter. Granted, the action/suspense aspect did amp it up a bit, but the film was still painfully unfunny. I was actually super surprised when I actually laughed at one bit... the only laugh in the whole movie (when he attempts to break down the door to the card/Hallmark store the first time). The movie wasn't fully incompetant, though. I thought there was a major plot hole in how the bad guys were going to manage to logically escape, but it actually worked in an decent explanation. Granted, it came out of f**king nowhere and didn't make any sense, but it was there. So, long story short--painfully unfunny throughout, decent 'family comedy-level' action, horrible acting, no chemistry for the 'girlfriend' sub-plot, poor script, though bizarrely (very) mildly entertaining (mostly due to the second half of the film). Epic fail on a comedy level, though.

The Zed Word

(P.S. While watching the movie, I planned on giving it a 'Feed Me', but while writing the review, I decided to lower it. Though I'd say if there's a level between the two, this would fit there. It's not unwatchable, but I wouldn't go out of my way to see it again... maybe if it's on TV and I'm super bored and there's nothing else on... and it's already into the second half of the movie, because at least that part has Free Runners, which everyone knows are cool).

(P.P.S. Though... does anybody else really want a Segue after watching this movie?).

LKMYNTS: The Gamers: Dorkness Rising.

2009-06-13T11:59:00.005-05:00

This is one of those movies you're either going to love or hate. And that all depends on how open minded you are. If you have to have Michael Bay-level special effects and action... you'll probably hate this. But, say, if one of your favorite parts to Role Models was the live-action RPG scenes, you'll love it. This movie is about as low-budget as they get (Napoleon Dynamite looks big budget in comparison). And those are most of the reasons people seem to dislike it... but I'm getting ahead of myself.

Kevin Lodge (Nathan Rice) and his friends love Pencil & Paper Role Playing Games (RPGs), especially Dungeons & Dragons. Lodge is the resident Dungeon Master (the one who runs the games), and he's come up with his own world and campaign that tends to... play with the rules a bit. This really ticks off the other gamers, including Cass (Brian Lewis), Gary (Christian Doyle), and Leo (Scott C. Brown). Cass, especially, can't deal with Lodge's rule bending, as it keeps getting everybody killed... and he refuses to not win a campaign. So the group goes out to recruit new members to help before they try the campaign again--for the third time--though all they can get is not only a "female," but a complete newbie, Joanna (Carol Roscoe). And she also happens to be Cass' ex-girlfriend. So now that they have all the players, they decide to make up new characters to get through the campaign (without using "player knowledge"). Cass plays a "Western" Monk; Gary plays a chaotic "neutral" female wizard, and keeps forgetting he's a woman, so the character is shown as both the normal actor and another (Jennifer Page); Leo decides to forgo his warrior types and try out a Bard (how different could they be?); Joanna creates her own warrior woman... with high charisma and speed and low Hit Points and strength; and Lodge goes with a holy Paladin, who all the others see as a "babysitter" so they can't do anything wrong or whatever Lodge doesn't want them doing. But the trick is... can they get through the campaign without wanting to kill each other in real life, too?

I know all that sounds really nerdy, but outside any random MST3K episode, I haven't laughed this hard in a long time. I laughed harder at this than I did at The Hangover, which itself was a very funny movie. Actually, I started off really worried with the opening scene thinking "what have I gotten myself into?" However, thankfully, you grasp what's going on pretty soon, and the movie picks up considerably after the opening scene. But here's the question: do you need to be a gamer or have knowledge of the gaming community to "get" this movie? I don't think so. Especially because of Joanna's character, the movie is very "newbie" friendly. Rules are explained clearly, so you'll get most if not all of the jokes. Sure it helps if you've played (or at least watched somebody else play) at least one game of D&D. It gives you some perspective on the film that adds a whole other level of comedy to it (because you can relate so much easier to these people).

I got so many flashbacks watching this movie, it was great. Guys playing females and forgetting what gender they were... guys always wanting to seduce other characters... characters who are one orientation ("chaotic neutral"), but act another ("chaotic evil")... DM's using paladins as babysitters... rule nazis... rolling epic fails (1)... and so much more. This is a movie made by gamers for gamers (or previous gamers), but non-gamers will enjoy it just the same, much like viewers enjoyed the world of live-action role playing in Role Models, learning rules through the eyes of Paul Rudd's character.

Though there are so many more jokes in this film. And unlike other movies where D&D nerds are portrayed as, well, nerds... where they're seen in a negative light... this film honors them and really shows how much fun they have. I was laughing almost non-stop, and I've also experienced something very rare: the after-laugh. Just thinking about certain scenes of the film the next day is making me laugh. How could you not laugh at a wizard resurrecting a cooked chicken just for the hell of it, and having the chicken go ballistic on the characters (which ends in something so classic that I don't want to spoil it). Or at characters rolling charisma to distract the paladin while they torture another character for information?

If you couldn't figure it out, the film bounces back and forth between the "real world" and the "fantasy world." Of course, the "real world" actors play their "fantasy world" counterparts, except that Luster (the female wizard) goes back-and-forth between a male and female actor/actress, depending on if he remembers to stay in character or not. The fantasy world stuff is much funnier than the real world stuff, though I suppose the real world stuff is necessary for character development (no pun intended). But the best thing is when they mix the two. You can hear the rolling of die over the fantasy world scenes at times, or there's one scene where the Bard has to use his "Bardic knowledge" about information the Dungeon Master knows, so you see a hand pop from off-screen and hand him a cue-card to read from. And then, of course, the occasional "real world" discussion as they try to figure out what to do (most times it'll flip back to real world altogether here, but there's times where it just sticks in the fantasy world). Everything just adds to the awesomeness of the film.

So obviously the script is solid. What about other things? I wouldn't say the acting is as bad as the haters make it out to be. There's one actor who is obviously bad, but he's such a small character and only in the film for maybe a total of 2 minutes. The main people are all decent. They won't be winning any Oscars, but that's not the point of the movie. I loved what the director told them in the behind-the-scenes: just pretend this is real life; if you feel that you're acting, stop and start over. The guy who plays Cass was the best of the group, and I wouldn't be surprised if he broke out into mainstream films. But the thing is, while I could easily see this film made by the Apatow gang (for instance, Leo being Seth Rogen and Cass being Paul Rudd), I think it would take away the charm of the film. I think these particular actors bring something to these characters that those others wouldn't be able to--the heart of an experienced gamer.

But what got to me more than anything else, and what tends to get to the haters, are the special effects. They're pretty bad. Like... "I made this on my home laptop" bad. It makes Sci-Fi channel visuals look great. Thankfully, they just use visuals for powers and such, and not monsters or anything (the closest it gets, which is arguably the most cringeworthy of the bunch, is a ton of flies coming from an injured demon). However, this is how I think of it: this movie is an exploration of the imagination and comedy. Why wouldn't the special effects be cheesy? Part of me believes that the cheesiness of the special effects adds to the feel of the film, while part of me just wants more superb visuals anyway. Thankfully, the movie isn't too reliant on these effects, so it's not really distracting (or detracting).

And you know every comedy has the big 'fall out' moment where something happens between the main characters, and one or more have to come crawling back with an apology. Most movies usually go for some melodramatic speech with the apology... this touching, heart-felt moment. I have to say that this film handles it much more realistically (and more hilariously)... and it takes only two lines of dialogue between characters. Okay, so there's a mini-speech with one character, but the one to another character is better.

This movie can really only be found via Netflix or Amazon, it seems... but as soon as I finished watching it (at about 1 in the morning), I went right to Amazon and placed an order. It almost immediately became one of my favorite movies, bad special effects or not. This movie is truly the heart of extreme low-budget films. It's original, hilarious, well-written, and done to the best of everybody's ability. If you go to check it out, make sure you're getting Dorkness Rising and not the original, The Gamers, as this is apparently a spin-off of that short film. If super low-budget films don't bother you, I highly recommend this film, especially if you have any knowledge of Dungeons & Dragons or P&P role playing (first or second hand). And even if you don't, check it out anyway. I swear, you will find yourself laughing. Great, great movie.

Royale With Cheese

THE TAKING OF PELHAM 123.

2009-06-12T14:41:00.005-05:00

I've been excited for this movie since I first saw the trailer. As some of you know, I'm a big fan of heist films. There's no bank involved here, but it's a hostage film, which falls in the same category for me. In the end, it all comes down to "how are they going to get away with it?" This one is about Walter Garber (Denzel Washington), a subway dispatcher with a shaky past, who starts seeing something going on with one of the trains, Pelham 123. Turns out that the train is hijacked by Ryder (John Travolta) and his crew (Luis Guzman being the biggest name). They want 10 million dollars in one hour, or Ryder will kill a hostage every minute they're late. They bring in the hostage negotiator, Camonetti (John Turturro), and they contact the mayor (James Gandolfini). I'm sure you know the drill from there.

Is the movie exciting? Yes. Does it have action and suspense? More suspense than action, but yes. Is there comedy? A bit. All in all, the movie is very entertaining. It's no Inside Man, but it's very good. In fact, I think for the first time in my life, I'm actually agreeing with Roger Ebert: “Nobody gets terrifically worked up, except the special-effects people. Oh, John Travolta is angry and Denzel Washington is determined, but you don't sense passion in the performances.” It's just another character that Denzel has done a hundred times. He does it well because he should be used to it by now. I did like Travolta, too. It's like a more over-the-top and angry version of Vince Vega. The movie isn't all action as the trailers make it out to be. A lot of it is vocal interaction and relationship building between Denzel and Travolta, which is the greatest strength of the film.

You'll probably be hearing a lot about the cinematography of the film, which can best be described as frenetic. The movie is very stylistic as it plays with the speed of movement (no abusive slo-mo... it works more with blurry). For the most part it works. There were only one or two times when I really thought "Okay, was doing it right here necessary?"

There's really not much to hate or even dislike about the film. It's done well, overall. Two of my three biggest issues are similarly related. One deals with a possible plot hole (that they bring up in the film, actually) about why they had to get cars to deliver the money all the way across New York. Why? Well, to have a car driving sequence. And this is the second issue. That had to be one of the lamest attempts at a car-fueled adrenaline rush ever. You know all those car crashes and whatnot from the trailers? It's not really during any car chase. It's basically from a couple stupid drivers getting in the way after the street should already have been cleared by police. It's like "Now that we have them driving the money across the city, how can we make it more exciting? I know, toss in some cars that shouldn't be there."

The third biggest issue is the ending, which was a bit too cheesy for my tastes, especially for a "heist" film. Heist films are supposed to be cool, not cheesy. I can't really say what it is, as that's spoiler territory, but I'll leave it at that.

This is a lot of negative, but I honestly really liked the movie. These things are only small portions of the film. The actors aren't exactly phoning in their performances (especially Travolta). The story is good, though there wasn't that last big POW! that most heist films like to give, which I think is part of what brings it down a notch or two. There's no real twist. Everything that should be a surprise, you see coming a mile away. And when it's all said and done, it (being whatever big plot device occurs) never really amounts to a whole lot. In other words, the movie had the potential of a 5, but instead falls at about a 4.

A Keanu 'Whoa'

THE HANGOVER.

2009-06-06T14:56:00.004-05:00

The plot to this movie is simple. It's basically a more adult version of Dude, Where's My Car? And without the aliens. In fact, they could have retitled it Dude, Where's My Friend? (Or even Dude, Where's My Doug). Doug (Justin Bartha) is getting married in two days. But his friends Phil (Bradley Cooper) and Stu (Ed Helms), along with his soon-to-be brother-in-law Alan (Zach Galifianakis), take him for the ultimate bachelor party in Las Vegas. Unfortunately, they wake up the next morning not remembering a thing. All they know is that Doug is missing, the place is a wreck, Stu's missing a tooth, a baby's in the closet, and a tiger's in the bathroom. So now they must try to find Doug, taking them through a night of events they don't remember, and crossing paths with a hooker, Jade (Heather Graham); Mike Tyson; a couple cops (Rob Riggle and Cleo King); and Chinese gangsters led by Mr. Chow (Ken Jeong). And they need to find Doug and get home--alive, if at all possible--before the wedding.

However, don't get caught up on the similarities. It's not a rip-off. The adventure is different, and much more adult-oriented. And the movie is honestly funny. Now, I've been reading things saying that this is the funniest movie in the history of man. I disagree there. I did laugh out loud on numerous occassions, though when I wasn't, I was at least smiling the entire time. The rest of the theater was laughing pretty much non-stop, though. Don't take this as I didn't enjoy the film. I enjoyed it immensely. Just because I don't laugh non-stop doesn't mean I don't think it's fun or funny (It's difficult for movies to make me laugh a ton).

I must say that Ken Jeong is still in form, though I would have preferred not to see him fully naked. His roles are always some of my favorites. But the best jokes of the film came from Zach Galifianakis. In fact, I think all the times I laughed out loud were at jokes centered on his character. And certainly the only times I laughed in the first act (before the memory loss starts) were at his character. The movie does have a bit of a slow start, I felt.

However, it's only slow in jokes. The movie has to set up its characters, which I feel it does well. Like many good comedies these days, the makers make sure that the characters are real and relatable. Bradley Cooper's teacher persona might seem over-the-top, but I've actually known teachers who would tell a student not to bother them on the weekend and to get out before any of them ask any more questions. The characters weren't just silly. They were developed.

And even if the comedy doesn't work for you at times, the mystery will. I swear, I'm a sucker for a good mystery. I like trying to piece them together and figure it out before it's revealed. So I had a lot of fun trying to do just that, laughing or not. And I love how they eventually show what happened overnight. That was a brilliant way to end the movie.

If I were to give mention to any part of the movie that bugged me, I really couldn't without spoiling, as it's at a crucial part of the film. Let's just say it's the gambling scene. The movie was obviously larger than life. However, this scene really seemed to push the limits of realism. I just had a hard time believing its possibilities. Was it still fun? Yes. But almost too far-fetched even in the realm of the film. But since it was still enjoyable, I didn't really care a whole lot.

But for the most part, the movie was incredible fun and was really funny. It is one of the funnier movies to come out recently; I agree with that. I would definitely recommend it if you're a fan of comedies (believe it or not, there are people out there who don't care for them!) or just need a good laugh. It was well thought out and is good entertainment. Though as I said at the beginning, it is more on the adult side (heavy language, nudity, and crude humor), so beware bringing little kids (as I saw in my own theater). Otherwise, have fun.

A Keanu 'Whoa'

(P.S. Super hard to rate. Again, this is a very strong 'Whoa'. Like a 4.5 out of 5).

Short Review: Once.

2009-06-04T00:03:00.003-05:00

Premise: A loser who lives with his dad above a vacuum cleaner repair shop and writes songs of woe for his lost girlfriend meets a Czech immigrant. They fall in love as they sing and record songs together.

Starring: Glen Hansgard and Marketa Irglova.

My Reaction: Above average (and sometimes even beautiful) songs. The movie was very documentary-esque in its filming style, adding to more of a realism. But I'm lost as to how people call this a feel-good movie. I thought the movie was so beyond depressing that even Hot Topic emo kids would be like 'get the eff over it already'. All the songs made me want to cut myself or something. There's even a scene where everybody is having fun, throwing a frisbee on the beach, and one of the songs is playing over it, and the scene is thus made sad and depressing. The movie is basically Lost in Translation as a musical, while replacing Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson with unknowns. Seriously, I saw so many parallels it was ridiculous. Both characters are in other pseudo-relationships that they want to make work, yet they fall in love with each other by hanging out around town. There's even a part where one of them tells the other something, and the audience (unless you speak Czech) has no idea what they said. Also, I actually had to watch this movie with subtitles. The movie was in English, and I needed subtitles. I could hardly understand a word that was said in this movie (mostly from the female lead, though). It also drags a bit (probably because it takes itself too seriously)--the movie isn't even 90 minutes, and by the time it was over, I felt I'd been watching for two hours. Overall a beautiful movie, but probably not one I'd watch again. Though I might listen to the main song of the film (the one that won the Oscar), as that's a very good song and did deserve that Oscar.

I Am McLovin!

UP.

2009-05-31T20:07:00.006-05:00

Why was this movie so sad? Up is about Carl Fredricksen (Ed Asner). As a young boy, he idolized adventurer Charles Muntz (Christopher Plummer), as did Ellie (Elie Docter), a young girl who lived nearby. The two form a friendship and make a bond that they'll follow Muntz to South America one day and have the adventure of a lifetime. They grow up, get married, and have a wonderful life. But as life goes on, the adventure never happens. And one day, once Carl and Ellie are old and gray, Ellie dies, leaving Carl to his house and all the memories the come with it. Unfortunately, the house is in the middle of a reconstruction zone, and one event after another finds Carl forced to move away from the only thing he has left. So what does he do? He straps hundreds of balloons to his house and lifts off to go live on a waterfall cliffside in South America like he always promised his wife. But he's not alone. Enter Russell (Jordan Nagai), a young boy in the scouts who needs one more badge to bump up to a senior scout. The badge? Assist the elderly. He just didn't expect to be accidentally dragged to South America to do it. Once there, they discover a large bird and a dog with a collar that allows him to talk. And both are somehow connected Charles Muntz. So Carl and Russell enter the adventure of a lifetime, Carl trying to get his home where he promised his wife, and Russell just trying to do what's right.

Obviously, this movie is a bit complicated. Well, at least until you really get into it. As such, the whole beginning is a massive setup for the better part of the movie later. At the beginning, I wasn't sure what I was getting into, and I kept telling myself I knew it was going to take off and become superb once the house is in the air. And boy was I right. I'm not saying the beginning is bad. It's very good, sometimes funny, sometimes depressingly sad. But it really is just a whole ton of setup for the true heart of the film.

Once they get into the air and make for South America, the movie really shines. It becomes twice as funny, twice as thrilling, and twice as beautiful. Really, the movie is gorgeous. Like WALL*E, the scenery and atmosphere is so much better than the animation of the people. Again, there's nothing wrong with the animation of the people, and it fits in with the urban world. But once they hit the jungle... as Aladdin says, it's a whole new world.

I saw the film in 3D, as well. And while I don't think this movie needs to necessarily be seen in 3D, I wouldn't pass it up. It would be like watching WALL*E in 3D. There aren't too many 'at your face' moments, but it's best because it brings the atmosphere and surroundings of the film to you. It was clear this movie wasn't filmed to be in 3D originally, as they had none of the usual 3D tricks. There were maybe 2-3 things that ever come flying out at you. But like I said, this movie would be good to see in 3D to bring the beautiful atmosphere around you.

The voice acting is good, though as a fun side-note... the whole time I was trying to figure out Carl's voice. I knew I had heard it somewhere before. And for some strange reason, I kept wanting to say JK Simmons, even though I knew it wasn't him. When I finally came home and looked up Ed Asner (Carl's voice), I realized where I recognized him from: He did the voice of J. Jonah Jameson in the old 90s Spider-Man cartoon. And, for those of you who live under a rock, JK Simmons played J. Jonah Jameson in the live action versions. So I thought that was funny how my brain was trying to make that connection.

There's really not a whole lot to say about the film. I keep wanting to compare this movie to WALL*E. Not in themes or story or anything, but in the beauty of the animation, the great music, or in how the film pulls you through so many emotions. I seriously nearly cried at least 3-4 times in this movie. But I also laughed, felt suspense... it's all there. And while I feel WALL*E is still the superior film, this one is great in its own right. By the time it had ended, I was feeling really good, and I had a big smile on my face.

A Keanu 'Whoa'

(P.S. Like the recently reviewed Drag Me To Hell, this is a very strong 'Whoa'. In fact, I damn near gave it a 'Royale with Cheese'. But the somewhat slow beginning, especially in comparison to the rest of the film, really notched it down just slightly. Think of this as a 4.5 out of 5).

(P.P.S. For clarification, as I've already gotten one comment snipping at me, by 'slow beginning', I didn't mean the incredibly beautiful and moving montage. I meant the sequence after the montage and prior to the house taking off. I felt it could have been paced just slightly better).