10 Possible Movie Character Spin-Offs.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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


A Keanu 'Whoa'

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

NINE.

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

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

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

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

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


A Keanu 'Whoa'

THE PRINCESS AND THE FROG.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


A Keanu 'Whoa'

AVATAR.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Royale With Cheese

NINJA ASSASSIN.

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

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

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

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

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

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



A Keanu 'Whoa'

THE TWILIGHT SAGA: NEW MOON.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


A Keanu 'Whoa'

2012.

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

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

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

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

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

Stop Saying Okay! Okay.

THE BOX.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I Am McLovin!

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