Short Review: Following.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

DRAG ME TO HELL.

If you're a fan of Sam Raimi's Evil Dead trilogy, you'll know what to expect here. It's scary, funny (sometimes silly), gross, over-the-top, and no-holds-barred. Christine Brown (Alison Lohman) is a loan officer vying for assistant manager against Stu (Reggie Lee). And when her boss Mr. Jacks (David Paymer) tells her new guy Stu is doing well because of his persistent attitude, she tried to pick up a take-no-prisoners view herself. Unfortunately, the first customer to show up as soon as this happens is elderly Mrs. Ganush (Lorna Raver) who is about to be evicted from her home and has already pulled two loans. Christine tries to impress her boss and refuses to give the old woman the loan, which only results in a very upset old gypsy woman. Mrs. Ganush places a curse on Christine that spans three days, everyday getting stronger. And after the third day, the Lamia (a goat demon) will show and drag her to Hell for all eternity. So she must work together with her boyfriend Clay (Justin Long) and psychic Rham Jas (Dileep Rao) to try and stop it before the three days are up.

My first reaction? How the heck is this movie only PG13? It feels way too intense for that. With the exception of hard language, it's really up there with the Evil Dead trilogy. It has some of the serious horror and creepiness of the first, the slapstick of the second, and the gross-out of the third. Though sometimes it did take it a bit far. And I don't mean in the no-holds-barred way. But for instance, the "anvil" scene. That just didn't work for me. It's a great idea, and probably brilliant on paper, but I feel the execution is something that could have only worked in the 80s and with Bruce Campbell involved (it's something where the facial expressions or a snappy one-liner would have come in handy).

The beginning of the movie is slow, but not in a bad way. Though at this point, you're really not sure what you're getting into. At first, it really feels like a serious horror movie (despite the stupid laughing teenage girls in the back of the theater). And it really takes a bit to find its tone of horror/comedy. At first it eases the comedy into it, and it's sprinkled here and there. But as it goes on, it really mixes it in. And it's honestly a perfect mixture. This is not a horror movie to take 100% seriously. And if you've seen the Evil Dead films, you should already know that.

There's not really any gore. There's only one scene with blood that really sticks in my mind (a nosebleed scene that's so over-the-top, only Sam Raimi could pull it off). But there are plenty of other bodily fluids for a plethora of gross-out moments. In fact, Sam Raimi goes old school. Much like the first Evil Dead film, he attempts what others seem to forget: wind, shadows, and creaks can be much more terrifying than anything else. Scares are in the anticipation. Don't get me wrong, the movie has it's jump-scares, but they're equally balanced with the old school horror. I would go as far as saying that Raimi did what M. Night Shyamalan couldn't do recently: he made wind scary.

The movie is decently acted, as well. Lorna Raver plays a very creepy old woman very well. And Justin Long plays the sweetheart boyfriend very well. Dileep Rao is fun as the psychic, too. And it's always a joy to see David Paymer. But, of course, the real joy was (the gorgeous) Alison Lohman. She could play it serious, and she could play it funny. There were a few parts where it seemed she tried a bit hard to be a badass, which just made it funny than anything. But then again, that was probably the intention.

Otherwise, there were some questionable CGI effects, but I didn't really mind that much. The Evil Dead films were the same way (regardless of being made back in the day). And all of that, along with the cheesy/creepy music and the fill-up-the-screen title, I feel this was more of a throw back to classic horror than anything. The film isn't without its flaws, but they're few and far between. This is a horror/comedy for the books, and Sam Raimi is back at the top of his game.


A Keanu 'Whoa'

(P.S. This is a very strong 'Whoa').

Short Review: My Neighbor Totoro.

Premise: When a dad and his two daughters move to a country home to be closer to their hospitalized wife/mother, the girls begin to notice a few fantastical things in their midst. At the top of that list is a giant furry creature that the youngest daughter dubs Totoro (a troll).

Starring: It really depends on which version you see (different voice actors). The biggest names for the newest English translation are Dakota and Elle Fanning.

My Reaction: Yet another beautiful Miyazaki film. After losing some faith with Nausicaa, he pulled me back in with Totoro. The beginning is a bit slow, though you steadily realize it's more of a character/relationship piece than a fantasy piece. Totoro is in the whole movie about 4 times. I particularly liked the relationship between Satsuki and Kanta, though there wasn't a huge payoff at the end, which was disappointing. Overall, it's a beautiful film (in artistry and story), and probably one of my favorite Miyazaki films (though Spiritied Away still carries that title). Oh, and how cool are the parents (especially the dad) in this movie? He totally went with everything his daughters said without any doubt.


A Keanu 'Whoa'

NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM: BATTLE OF THE SMITHSONIAN.

I'm not sure what all the hatin' is for with this movie. It has its flaws, but it's still decent entertainment. The movie picks up a few years after the first, and Larry (Ben Stiller) has quit his night guard job to move on to 'bigger and better' things as an inventor. Dr. McPhee (Ricky Gervais) sells out with the museum, turning everything to the technology side of things. So that means quite a few of the exhibits have to go. And to where else? The stock room of the Smithsonian. But Larry gets a call from Jed (Owen Wilson) and Octavius (Steve Coogan) that all hell's broke loose, since the monkey stole the tablet of Ahkmenrah (Rami Malek), which was supposed to stay back at the previous museum. But now Ahkmenrah's older brother, Kahmunrah (Hank Azaria), wants to get a hold of the tablet, as it apparently has the power to bring back an army of the dead so that Kahmunrah can take over the world. So now Larry must team up with old friends and new, including Amelia Earhart (Amy Adams) and General Custer (an almost unrecognizable Bill Hader), to fight Kahmunrah and his new henchmen, including Al Capone (Jon Bernthal), Ivan the Terrible (Christopher Guest), and Napoleon (Alain Chabat). And, of course, there are a thousand other things/characters/people that show up in the process...

Honestly, the movie wasn't bad. It has an almost unbearably slow and unfunny beginning, though. And the movie tries way too hard at times, just resulting in awkward moments of unfunny. And the CGI isn't the greatest, and there's way too much of it. Not to mention a few logical issues (the tiny Museum of Natural History has night guards, but the multi-building Smithsonian doesn't have any?).

However, once you get to the first major cameo appearance of the film, Jonah Hill, the movie starts to pick up considerably. And the Jonah Hill scene really is funny. Ironically, one of the best jokes in the film is basically the exact same joke, but extended on later in the movie by Hank Azaria. And the movie has a few good cameos, including Craig Robinson and Jay Baruchel (as well as 'that guy' Clint Howard, though I don't think he counts). And make sure to stick during the beginning of the credits for a fun joke with Jay Baruchel.

And the movie is pretty funny, though, like I said, it does try too hard at times. One of the biggest issues is that it tries to do too much. There are too many characters. Not to mention you can tell how every little thing is going to be important at some point in the movie, as Larry's initial walkthrough of the Smithsonian is a virtual "Chekhov's Gun" scenario. There's a focus on every little figure that Larry walks by as if ensuring "hey, make sure to remember this for later on!" But some of the characters were rather pointless. Although he's there the majority of the time, Al Capone was wasted. And the scene with Darth Vader had no purpose other than to get a laugh from Star Wars fans (it's basically no more than what you see in the trailer... maybe a minute longer). Oh, and did the movie really need to include the Jonas Brothers (regardless of not even physically being there?). Though, intentional or not, they do get a good jab in at their singing.

But there is some fun action. There's a great spoof of 300 near the end with a funny payoff. And the final fight between Larry and Kahmunrah is epic, though the music of the scene really helped (I want to find that song). That had to be one of my favorite moments of the movie.

There's not really a lot to discuss. It's a fun family film. There's good comedy, good action, and overall good entertainment. Though they never explain what happened between Larry and the Carla Gugino character from the first film. She's just... not there. Anyway, if you liked the first one, you'll probably like this one. It ups the scales a lot, sometimes for the better, sometimes not. Though the real scene stealer? Amy Adams' butt.


I Am McLovin!

(P.S. Must the Judd Apatow gang be in everything these days?)

TERMINATOR SALVATION.

Terminator is the kind of movie you can't go in expecting realism. I went with a group of friends to see this latest installment. One of them (and her boyfriend) were like me and enjoyed it. Another would thought it was awful. And the last believed it was a plague on all mankind and made her want to destroy things because it angered her so much. But she was also mostly discussing negatives that came from a realism perspective. Keeping that in mind, let's get into the review.

Terminator Salvation brings the story to the future and tells it through the perspective of 3 characters: Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington) wakes up years after given the lethal injection having no idea what's going on, and he eventually comes across the next bunch. Kyle Reese (Anton Yelchin) is trying to keep safe with Star (Jadagrace) and do his part to help with the Resistance. And, of course, John Connor (Christian Bale) and wife Kate (Bryce Dallas Howard) are heading up the Resistance--or trying to, anyway. The upper echelon of the Resistance discovers a signal that could bring the downfall of the machines. By they also find a list of names of people who are to be assassinated within 4 days' time. At the top of the list are Kyle Reese and John Connor, and John must find Kyle and bring him to safety, as Kyle eventually becomes his father, so if Kyle dies, a crazy paradox happens and the future changes.

I've read plenty of reviews saying this is Sam Worthington's film, yada yada. And he does a pretty damn good job at his part. But the actor getting very little recognition, at least from what I've read, is Anton Yelchin as Kyle Reese. When I first heard that Yelchin was going to be in the movie, I raised an eyebrow. Then I heard he was Kyle Reese (much more recently, actually), and I started to really question. Don't get me wrong, I think the kid is a really good actor, but he didn't scream "badass action star" to me. However, I think he did a very great job in his role. He even managed to make his voice a little less nasally to help with the badassness.

I can go on and on about the really fun and mindless action of the movie, or any of the really well done CGI (even a particular CGI cameo looked loads better than, say, The Rock in The Mummy Returns). Even the camera shots and cinematography was excellent. But most other reviews have probably done those to death already.

The movie isn't without its flaws, but what Terminator movie is? None of the time travel stuff has ever made sense (the core of the story is paradoxical). Going into a film like this and then scoffing at the mindless action, the nonsensical occurrences, or the fanfare (like two specific lines, or the aforementioned CGI cameo) is to miss the entire point of this film and the ones that came before it. If I nitpicked, I could go on and on about issues with the movie, logical or not. Why would a metal android skid across water like that? How does the electronic device not short out in the lake? How can they do open surgery in the middle of the desert like that (Well, I suppose if LOST can do it...)? Not to mention issues that came with the surgery itself. And what was the point of the little mute black girl? She does one important thing in the movie, and that could easily have been done by Kyle instead. Was Moon Bloodgood's character necessary beyond a plot device? Why do the machines not recognize you-know-who as a machine earlier, but they do later once it's convenient? Was it really necessary to show the title twice within the opening credits? I could continue with logic issues, but I'm not.

I enjoyed the movie for what it was. It had great action, some good comedy, decent acting, and fun fanfare. I think it's a good addition to the series. Just don't go in with super high expectations or the need for realism. Take it for what it's meant to be and you'll enjoy it. For the record, the following score was really difficult to give. I wanted to give it higher (particularly for one of the ending revelations being pretty cool), but something was holding me back. Very enjoyable, though.


I Am McLovin!

LKMYNTS: Re-Cycle.

Man, I haven't done a Little Known Movies You Need To See in a long time. Anywho, I wasn't sure what exactly I was getting into when I started this movie. It had a synopsis similar to In The Mouth Of Madness and was directed by the typically hit-or-miss Pang Brothers. And even after the film started, I wasn't sure what I was getting into. I started it late last night and had to stop it about 30 minutes or so in because I was falling asleep (because of the time, not the movie), and I finished it this morning. And damn did I turn it off at the wrong (or right?) time last night.

The movie is about romance novelist Ting-Yin (Angelica Lee). After finishing a trilogy of best-selling romances, Ting-Yin wants to try her hand at horror/supernatural with her next book, Re-Cycle. But a mix of writer's block and her ex-boyfriend returning with news that he's getting a divorce with the woman he left her for originally keep her from really getting far with the book. But then, slowly, freaky things start happening to Ting-Yin as she comes to realize that the things she's writing, but then tossing away are coming back to haunt her. And soon she ends up in a completely different dimension full of "the abandoned" and needs to find a way home before this dimension destroys her completely. So she gets the help of a little girl and an old man to help her find her way to "the Transit," where she'll find her way home.

If you do research on this movie, one of the things you'll notice being said repeatedly is how it's so similar to 'such-and-such' movie/book. And that's true. But I also think that's one of the film's many brilliances. Whether intentional or not, the fact that the movie does feel so similar to other stories just ties in with the overall theme of abandoned (or 'recycled') things. Just in my personal opinion, and I've seen others agree, I felt the movie was most like the following: In The Mouth Of Madness, Silent Hill, Alice in Wonderland, MirrorMask, Dante's Inferno/What Dreams May Come (they're close enough to lump together), and Miyazaki's Spirited Away. Hell, I even found similarities to one of my own books, though I'm relatively sure they didn't take ideas from that.

Now I'm sure you're thinking "that's an odd mix of things." Well, it is. But it's because the movie is set up as one thing, but then twists into something else not too long after. The beginning starts off slow, building up as a supernatural horror movie. But around that 30/35 minute mark (right after I first turned it off to go to sleep), it changes completely. It still has some horror/scary elements, but it's more of a dark fantasy than a horror film. Ting-Yin's journey through the world of the abandoned is harrowing, scary, imaginative, and beautiful all at the same time. I loved all the little places she visits, but one of my favorite was like a live-action version of a scene from Spirited Away (though I'm sure it's from an Asian mythology). The little girl must guide Ting-Yin over a bridge riddled with the walking dead/spirits/abandoned/whatever, and Ting-Yin has to hold her breath as they slowly make their way across, or else she'll be noticed as an outsider... not a good thing.

Besides its obvious imagination, one of the best things about the movie is its beauty. And this movie is beautiful (in more ways than one). Visually, this film is utterly stunning. There are the more obvious stunning visuals that most will pick up on, but there's little nuances that the cinematically trained eye might pick up, as well. I just couldn't go on more about the film's visuals. Honestly, I was mostly afraid about the visuals (I saw a screencap on the back of the DVD box in the store... and out of context, it didn't strike me as stunning. In the film, however...). But, as I've said, they were amazing.

I can't say everything is positive about the film, though. It does have a few downsides. For instance, the first half of the movie is a bit slow and confusing. Even after Ting-Yin gets to the parallel world, it takes her a while before she meets anybody to tell her what's going on. So it's just kind of "throw in a scene, have a scare, she gets chased." Rinse, repeat. Though that really only goes on for about 10-15 minutes, I'd say. And it really only gets monotonous right before it stops doing it, so that's good. And although it does this, I still wished that there would have been more time spent in the fantasy world. I can't say the movie is poorly paced, but I would have liked it to have a few more 'down time' spots with some character/relationship building between Ting-Yin and the little girl. Instead, it kinda goes from major scene to major scene with maybe one brief interlude. Because as is, the ending of the film is the only place that really makes the characters a little more well-rounded. Otherwise, they're relatively flat.

Another issue for some people, though not me, is that the movie might become a bit too preachy. I don't want to say on what subject, because I think it should be a surprise, but I've seen plenty of things written about the film and how it's too preachy or whatever. Honestly, I don't think it is. I feel that the movie handled the subject very well, and people who get offended by it are too tightly wound to begin with. Don't get me wrong, it is a bit shocking at first, but it makes perfect sense in the realm of the story.

And even if you don't like that, how can you not love the ending? I don't want to touch on the ending too much, because I don't want to spoil anything, but I felt the ending was equally brilliant and ambiguous, leaving things up to interpretation.

Overall, the film isn't perfect (it could have used a bit better character development), but the Pang Brothers make a visual and atmospheric masterpiece. There really isn't that much of a story, but the film is more of an allegory, and allegories don't need to have fully coherent stories to be brilliant. I was going to give a literary example here, but then I realized that the example I was going to use deals with the exact same issue as the film, so any of you who knew the story could instantly pick up on the issue... I try to avoid major spoilers (for good films) at all costs. I really recommend the film.


A Keanu 'Whoa'

DVD Review: Zack And Miri Make A Porno.

I often find myself looking at other movie blogs to see how they feel about certain movies. I look because most blogs I frequent have similar tastes as myself so I have a good idea of what I'll think of a movie. But there are certain types of movies I can't do that with, because I usually have a varying opinion. Kevin Smith films are one of those. So when Zack And Miri Make A Porno only got lukewarm reviews (at best) not only from movie blogs I frequent, but from many reviewers in general, I decided to ignore all of them (for instance, I happen to like Jersey Girl. I don't care what you naysayers think). As such, Zack and Miri was placed on my Netflix queue for roughly 3 months in a status of "Very Long Wait." Well, the movie finally came, and I've finally see it. So now I'm objecting you to my opinion.

Zack (Seth Rogen) and Miri (Elizabeth Banks) have been best friends since first grade, and they even live together now as adults. They work together at a small coffee shop with Delaney (Craig Robinson), who constantly talks negatively about his wife (Tisha Campbell-Martin). But the coffee shop job isn't giving them enough money for rent or utilities, and they lose everything. But during a 10-year class reunion, they meet up with Miri's high school crush Bobby (Brandon Routh) and his new "friend," Brandon St. Randy (Justin Long)... who just happen to work in the porn industry. This inevitably leads to the idea of how to pay off their bills--make and sell a porno. So they get a cast and crew, including Lester (Jason Mewes), Deacon (Jeff Anderson), Bubbles (Traci Lords), Stacey (Katie Morgan), and Barry (Ricky Mabe). So now all Zack and Miri have to contend with are their sudden jealous streaks and hidden feelings for each other as they realize they must not only have sex with each other, but other people, as well.

Like any Kevin Smith movie (or porno), this is a movie to watch without your family and in your room in the middle of the night... which I did. What does that have to do with anything? Well, I laughed. A lot. Without the laughter of an audience to spark it (as is sometimes the case when watching something with others). So to me, that makes this movie genuinely funny. Though I do believe it went a little far at times, even for Kevin Smith (for instance, the occurence that is referenced by this line: "She frosted me like a fucking cake!"). One of my favorite jokes, though, was a LOST reference ("They're on the island, they're off the island... who the fuck can follow that show?" "I think they're in Hell!" "Shut up.").

As you might have noticed just from two quotes, there is quite a bit of adult language. Though if you know anything about Kevin Smith, you'd know this already. That, and what'd you expect from an R-Rated movie with "Porno" in the title? And it easily rivals the Clerks films (if not surpasses them) on sex talk/involvement. So like I said, this probably isn't a movie to watch with your mother. Do I think this is a bad thing, though? No. I think there's a limit on raunchy and too raunchy, and this movie definitely touches at that limit, but it doesn't surpass it.

The acting, primarily Seth Rogen and Elizabeth Banks, was very well done. I thought they were both heartfelt and had a genuine friendship. And you know, I did a post a while back about RomComs and how they always seem to blame the male and never the female. Amazingly, I think this is about as close as I've seen where it ends up moreso the female's fault than the male's (though they still find a way to turn it around on the male, at least partially). But that was a good turn-around.

Outside the two leads though, the next biggest character is Delaney, played by Craig Robinson, and he does a well enough job with his character. He's fun and likeable. The best character, though, had to be Justin Long's Brandon St. Randy, though he had way too little screen time. He's in basically one scene of the film, but it's a really good one. It's like Anti-Justin Long... he looked exactly the same as usual, but I still hardly recognized him because of how he acted the character. And it was hilarious. Jason Mewes and Jeff Anderson were on form, as well, though you can't help but like those guys (particularly Anderson).

However, if the movie did have one major downfall, I felt it was in these secondary characters (this doesn't include Craig Robinson). They're awfully flat and don't have any kind of major importance except to move the plot along. It's just like... they're there and that's it. I would have liked to see more depth with these characters than was given (which wouldn't be hard, as it was already next to none).

Overall, though, I thoroughly enjoyed the film. It was funny and it had heart. Yeah, it was basically like shoving Kevin Smith and Judd Apatow together, but who wouldn't want to see that? They're both very talented men with similar styles (raunch with heart), and they work. So yeah, I again disagree with a lot of those 'lukewarm' reviews. Kevin Smith remains on my list of 'films I can't look to others for opinions on'. If you haven't seen it already, I recommend it... just make sure your parents/kids/little siblings aren't around when you watch it.


A Keanu 'Whoa'