THE MEN WHO STARE AT GOATS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Royale With Cheese

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

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

PARANORMAL ACTIVITY.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I Am McLovin!

SAW VI.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Keanu 'Whoa'

LAW ABIDING CITIZEN.

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

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

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

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

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

A Keanu 'Whoa' 

WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I Am McLovin! 

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

SURROGATES.

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

Acting was awkward

It was too predictable

Good idea, bad script

Stop Saying Okay! Okay.

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

ZOMBIELAND.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Royale With Cheese

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

PANDORUM.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Royale With Cheese

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

JENNIFER'S BODY.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Royale With Cheese

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

9.

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Keanu 'Whoa'

GAMER.

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

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

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

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

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

I Am McLovin!

THE FINAL DESTINATION 3D.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stop Saying Okay! Okay.

Short Review: Attack The Gas Station!

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

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

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

Stop Saying Okay! Okay.

DISTRICT 9.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Keanu 'Whoa'

A PERFECT GETAWAY.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Keanu 'Whoa'

DVD Review: Dakota Skye.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I Am McLovin!