2.28.2009

STREET FIGHTER: THE LEGEND OF CHUN-LI.

Video game adaptations are known for being bad on the whole. The first Street Fighter film was no exception. Neither is this one. Honestly, I don’t even want to waste my time going into the plot details (partly because I’m still not sure what the plot was). But it stars Kristen Kreuk, Chris Klein, Neal McDonough, Moon Bloodgood, Michael Clarke Duncan, and Liu Kang—I mean, Robin Shou.


The acting was awful from everybody, though Chris Klein needs to be punched in the face for the performance he gave. The script and all of its dialogue was atrocious, including the voice over. You know how they say not to do voice over in movies because it acts as a cop-out? A visual telling over showing? Well, I’ve never understood that (because I’ve always seen voice over done well) until now. Most of it was so completely unnecessary, and the film would have been better if they’d have shown the struggles or whatever it was that was being narrated instead of just saying it happened. The story was all over the place; hence me not bothering to give a plot summary.


There were also so many different illogical happenings, so many different things that just didn’t make sense. I don’t even know where to start listing things… from thick, plastic bathroom stall doors that shatter like glass to a white baby growing up in Chinese slums and ending up with an Irish accent. Or of how a girl can be raised in China (looking less and less Asian as she gets older) and end up speaking perfect English with no accent and also fails to comprehend Chinese characters on a scroll (of course it’s explained as ancient Chinese, but still). And then there’s how the police are able to figure out name and complete backgrounds of somebody who they only have a blurry picture of when most cops can’t identify murder victims that they have the actual bodies of. Not to mention one of said cops and said person in the blurry picture suddenly find one another randomly having had no previous contact and act as if they’re old buddies (which they aren’t). The list just goes on and on.


The only two redeeming values (and they aren’t very redeeming) are the action sequences and Kristen Kreuk’s incredible hotness. But the only action scene that’s more than 30 seconds seems to be the climax battle, which includes one of the cheesiest and most poorly done special effects I’ve seen in a long time. With current technology, there was no need for it to look as awful as it did. But still, the action sequences were still, while not the best I've ever seen, rather entertaining. But the best part of the movie was when Chun-Li goes into a club and seduces another woman. It lasts all of 30 seconds or so, but it’s hot. However, everything is soon ruined when you realize the song in the background (or at least the background song that follows it… I wasn’t paying that close attention to the music at the time) is an almost beat-for-beat rip-off of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II “Ninja rap.” Seriously, it’s like they put “Go ninja go ninja go!” on repeat, but then exchanged the words for “Street Fighter!” It was so cheesy and lame that it was nearly laughable.


By the time the movie was over, I was literally so embarrassed that I had actually watched this movie in public by myself (with the intent of enjoyment, not making fun of it) that I didn’t want the lights to come on as the credits began to roll. However, I very generously give it the following score simply based on what was mentioned in the previous paragraph. But that’s all I’m gonna say on the matter.


Photobucket
The Zed Word

2.25.2009

Short Review: The Talented Mr. Ripley.

Premise: Closet homosexual and sociopath Tom Ripley gets a little too attached to a millionaire's son in Italy, leading to dangerous consequences.

Starring: Matt Damon, Jude Law, Gwyneth Paltrow, Cate Blanchett, and Philip Seymour Hoffman.

My Reaction: Stunning acting. Great writing. Astonishing camera work. Brilliant symbolic cinematography. However, a bit on the long side and dragged a bit in the first hour, as well as toward the end. But it had a great, powerful ending.

Photobucket
A Keanu 'Whoa'

2.20.2009

THE READER.

I went into this movie with low expectations already. So when I say that it was bad, I really rather mean it. Hanna Schmitz (Kate Winslet) is a mysterious woman who ends up having an affair with a teenager named Michael Berg (David Kross) during one summer. She has him read to her constantly when they’re not having sex. A few years later, Michael is in law school and goes to witness a court case for his seminar. The court case, however, is to convict a group of ex-Nazi guards at Auschwitz for some of the murders that occurred there. Unfortunately for Michael, Hanna turns out to be one of the main people on trial. The movie also stars Ralph Fiennes as an older Michael.


The movie nearly made me fall asleep. I was yawning half the time, checking my watch the other half. I felt absolutely nothing for any of the characters. That’s not to say the acting was bad (except for the beginning, which was just stiff… no innuendo intended). Winslet actually did a bang-up job in her role. But I actually liked the professor of the law school seminar better. At least he was intriguing.


Otherwise, the whole thing was a mess. The whole movie was like one long string of montages. The first hour of the movie itself was nothing but just big one sex montage. Hopefully they give the Oscar to Kate Winslet’s breasts instead, because they had more screen time than any other part of her. And while normally I might not mind this… it just got to be too much. The first half of the movie was like high-budget, high-quality, softcore Cinemax porn. It didn’t give any time for character development (or even time to get to know the characters to begin with), which led to me not caring whatsoever about the characters. At the start of the relationship, right before their first sexual encounter, I started wondering if somebody based the script on some cheap erotica fiction from the internet… it was that random and coincidental. “Oh… you’re a dirty, dirty boy. Take off your clothes, and I’ll draw you a bath.” “Kay.” *bow chicka bow wow*


There was no focus on any scene for more than a minute. There was even one moment where they show him go home for about 20 seconds, and his family is all disgruntled with him, alluding to him having run away from home or something. But there was no way of knowing that before this point because the last 45 minutes had been a giant reading/sex montage.


The second half of the movie wasn’t much better about the massive montage sequences. That only died down a couple times toward the end, but that’s about it. I can seriously only remember maybe one major scene in the entire movie that lasted more than 2 minutes and stood on its own.


And of course there's the whole bit where the movie attempts to make us feel sorry for a character that we don't even like... and backfires quite a bit. The movie attempts to say that because she's naive, she's more innocent. I actually think that because she was so blase about the whole thing... that just makes her even worse. Which doesn't help when it comes back to the film trying to make the audience side with her... which just doesn't work.


I’m not sure what else to say about this film. I knew it had gotten a lot of so-so reviews, but I didn’t expect to dislike it as much as I did. All that said, there were a couple things I did like, the main of which I can’t say for spoiler reasons. And I suppose I can understand why it was Oscar-nominated. Although the holocaust topic probably helps, we all know the formula is Time Period Piece + Kate Winslet’s Boobs = Oscar Nomination. After all, it worked for Titanic.


Photobucket
The Zed Word

(P.S. The most entertaining parts to me was the old man behind me saying random stuff like "Where was she when I was 15?" and "I'd like Kate Winslet to give me a bath.").

2.18.2009

What The F@#% Did I Just Watch?

Please allow me to interrupt your regularly scheduled programming for this special news bulletin:


I just finished watching Feast 3: The Happy Finish. Feast was a masterpiece of horror/comedy. I wanted to like Feast 2: Sloppy Seconds, and I might have even given it a decent review, but in hindsight... no, it was pretty bad. But none of that could have prepared me for what I could expect in Feast 3.



Spoiler warning now, because I'm not gonna hold back (though I encourage you to read anyway and not waste your time with the actual film... plus, it might be more entertaining this way).



So the movie picks up right where the second left off. Honey Pie goes to stand up after being kinda killed... and then gets attacked by a monster. Her head gets ripped off. Then the monster eats her head. Then you see the camera go down the internal tubing. And then, I kid you not, the movie takes about 30 seconds to show the monster crap out her head.

Then we pick back up where the other characters left off. The guy who got a pipe blown through his lower jaw and into his brain is still alive, as is the Mexican wrestling midget who was inside a trashcan with dynamite when it exploded. They run and stuff until they break into the jail where they tried to get into the last movie and then beat the shit out of the hobo that had locked himself inside (literally... they beat him until he shits himself. And yes, one of the characters does make that joke in the movie).

So a bunch of other completely irrelevant stuff happens for another 20-30 minutes until one of the monsters butt-rapes a character through a hole in a shed... who immediately gets pregnant with a little monster and explodes.

Not long after that, they get stuck in a bus when a mentally handicapped guy in a cult-cloak that makes him look like he's late for a Dungeons and Dragons session shows up and apparently has some kind of control over the monsters (which you soon figure out how on your own in an incredibly easy fashion... though the other characters are morons and don't figure it out until later). The up side of this is that the guy is played by comedian Josh Blue (he was the comedian with multiple sclerosis from Last Comic Standing).

So Josh Blue takes them into the sewers where a character farts. Then, not too long after that, a sexy, topless, lesbian biker chick is killed by a crazy woman and her posse who are apparently cannibalistic and blood-crazy because a monster puked on them (which is NOT what happened in the first film). But then a young guy hops down out of nowhere and goes all karate on them with knives on his wrists, killing the attackers. He's Jean-Claude Seagal (no... seriously). But he eventually gets both his arms ripped off (which leads to the only good line in the movie, delivered by Bartender, the only character from the first movie left: "You don't need arms to kick ass.").

During their time in the sewer, they come upon a random zombie rave including strobe light and have a bizarrely confusing (though kind of interesting) fight scene where you have no idea what's going on, but it looks cool. To me, that was the only good part of the film... and it wasn't even that good. Oh, and another part where somebody puts a bullet inside the pipe that sticking out of the one guy's head and hits the pipe with a hammer, which causes it to react like a gun and shoot out the opposite end.

Eventually, the majority of the cast dies, and they get up to the street again in a bigger city and find a dirt bike. One of the dying characters takes a pretty much dead monster on the bike with her and rides off into the streets to distract the other monsters so the last remaining 3 can survive or something.

So the three, including Clu Gulager's character Bartender (who is at least in his 80s), walk out into the street. So then out of nowhere, Bartender is like "We need to repopulate the Earth! We need to do it now!" and he rips off his shirt. But then a giant robot leg comes out of nowhere and steps on the other two survivors, crushing him. Bartender walks away, and a Mexican mariachi dressed like Elvis walks on screen and serenades the audience during the credits by summarizing the last 3 movies.

Yeah, I didn't make any of that last part up. I swear. I've never stared, speechless, mouth agape, at a screen like that before, asking myself "what the fuck did I just watch?" over and over in my head. And I'm still not sure.

My advice? Stick to the first Feast. It's a cult classic. The next two (which are, amazingly, made by the exact same writers and director) are... well, something else entirely.

You may now return to your regularly scheduled program.

2.14.2009

CORALINE.

Take some Alice in Wonderland and mash it up with some Stepford Wives. Then have the incredibly imaginative and batshit crazy Neil Gaiman (Stardust, MirrorMask) write it out into a story. After that, snatch the guy who did The Nightmare Before Christmas (Henry Selick, not Tim Burton) and have him make it into a movie with a similar style. What do you end up with? Coraline. And yes, it’s every bit as weird as you think it is. But that doesn’t mean it’s bad, either.


Coraline (Dakota Fanning) is a bored little girl whose parents (Teri Hatcher and John Hodgman) neglect her. All she really has is herself, a neighbor named Wybie (Robert Bailey Jr.) whom she can’t stand, and his cat (Keith David). She also has some other crazy neighbors, including the possibly drunk Russian, jumping-rat-circus ringmaster Mr. Bobinski (Ian McShane), as well as retired theatrics performers, Miss Spink (Jennifer Saunders) and Miss Forcible (Dawn French). But then Coraline discovers a doorway to an alternate universe where her Other Mother and Other Father are pretty awesome, everything is fun, and the food is great. The only catch? Everybody has buttons for eyes, and if Coraline wants to stay in this creepy Wonderland, she’ll have to sew some into her own eyes.


The movie doesn’t really have much of a plot, per se. It’s more of a character study… with a lot of bizarre characters. At times I felt as if the movie was a bit all over the place, but by the time the climax came, everything tied together nicely. It's a nice little fairy tale.


I really don’t have much to say on the film. It had beautiful visuals, interesting music, and a good voice cast. It was funny, suspenseful, and just plain weird at times (but in a fun way). I saw it in 3D, which was a bit disappointing. The film didn’t take full advantage of the effect. Sure it had its poke-out-into-the-audience moments, but they were very few and far between. And there were numerous moments that weren’t taken advantage of that could have been great in 3D. But my favorite use of it, by far, was the tunnel between realms. Every time I saw that, it felt like I was really in the tunnel with Coraline, traveling with her to another world, and that was awesome. But besides all of that, I honestly can’t think of anything else to say. It was a fun time that I wouldn’t mind revisiting.


Photobucket
I Am McLovin!

(P.S. This was a difficult rating to give. I honestly had no idea what to rate it. If anything, it's a very high 'McLovin'. But the film as a whole didn't resonate deep within me, if that makes sense. So I really liked it, almost loved it, but not quite. Or something like that).

2.07.2009

PUSH.

There was a moment while watching this movie, soon before it began to come to its climax, that I realized this was one of those movies where the ending was either going to really make or really break the whole film. Fortunately, it was the former. Nick (Chris Evans) is a second-generation Mover; in other words, he has telekinesis… and he sucks at it. Cassie (Dakota Fanning) is a second-generation Watcher; in other words, she can see the (ever-changing) future and draw it down… but she’s not the best at it. When Cassie forces her way into Nick’s life, she forces him to join her on a quest to locate a girl—Kira (Camilla Belle)—who has a case that could bring down the Division, a government agency that experiments on all types of people with extra abilities. Kira has been the sole survivor of a ‘power booster’ injection and has escaped the clutches of the Division, but has had her memory wiped. Now she, as well as Nick and Cassie, are being pursued by one of the elite members of Division, a Pusher (somebody who can make you believe and thus do anything) named Henry Carver (Djimon Hounsou).


Overall, it’s a pretty simple plot, but just very difficult to describe (mostly because there’s so many new terms introduced in the film). But first let me tackle the comparisons that have been made to such things like last year’s Jumper or the TV show Heroes. First, the movie is nothing like Jumper except that there are people with superpowers. The story is better, the characters are better, and the acting is infinitely better (for the most part). As for Heroes, I can give it that. The powers are incredibly similar to those of the TV show, especially with Watchers, who can see visions of the future (that are liable to change) and have to draw them down on paper. And then there’s a government-type agency involved with injecting people with abilities. Other than that, the story and characters are pretty different.


The story itself, like I said, is pretty straight forward, though it did lose me a few times regardless of that. For at least half the movie, I’m thinking that the Asian group after them is working with Division, then all of a sudden it comes out (or at least becomes clear) that they’re working on their own. So then who are they? Did I just miss that explanation? And something else I liked with the story is that they left it open for a possible sequel, but at the same time kept this one self-containing so a sequel wouldn’t be necessary (unlike the poor past attempts of similar ideas such as Jumper or The Covenant).


Now to discuss the acting. It can really be said with a couple sentences: Dakota Fanning stole the show and Camilla Belle was pretty bad. Chris Evans was somewhere in between. But I’ll expand for you. Dakota Fanning’s Cassie was, by far, the best character of the film. She made you laugh with her spunkiness and made you sad when she was upset. And boy, was she spunky. Though to the filmmakers: why would you give such a young teenager such a short skirt (and I mean short) and then proceed to take every advantage to shove the camera up her legs? Talk about uncomfortable. Camilla Belle did better facial acting than vocal acting, though that’s really not saying much. I know the girl can act (I’ve seen her do it at least once). But maybe something’s just gotten into her recently. Chris Evans, despite being the main character, really felt left out of the film too much to really show off. Sure he was always around, but I guess Dakota upstaged the guy so much that it seemed she was more the main character than he was.


But of course, you’re wondering about the powers. How were they? For the most part, they were really good. Some of the visuals were kinda bad (like any time a Mover floated a gun, which just looked fake), but overall a good job. The best abilities were those outside the telekinesis. Shadows can hide people or places, and the main Shadow of the movie was funny. Wipers can remove memory. Sniffs can smell any object and see the past of where it’s been and where the people who have touched it are now. Shifters can change the appearance of things for a short period of time (the main shifter of the film was pretty cool, too). Stitchers can manipulate the body by either healing it or painfully destroying it. And then Bleeders do some ultrasonic screams that can apparently break glass, explode fish, and disable or kill people. The face alteration of the Bleeders when they scream is just freaky. And I’ve already mentioned Pushers, Movers, and Watchers. But what I loved most about each of the characters with these abilities is that they weren’t just used once and then forgotten. They were continually brought back for different purposes, and you got to see basically every use of their abilities. The filmmakers really didn’t get lazy with this aspect of the film, and it’s very obvious. It really made the film.


But the coolest thing about the powers was toward the end with the Pushers. There’s a bit of a twist, but because of the nature of the Pushing ability, you can never be sure if it’s true or not. I sat there bouncing back and forth, never sure what to believe, even if you think there’s evidence to prove one way or the other. Just like they do with characters in the movie, the movie sometimes acts as Pusher, letting you never be certain if what you’re seeing is true or not until it’s too late.


For more on the visuals (outside of CGI), the cinematography was nice with a plethora of different colors and hues that inked over the picture—blues, greens… it made you feel like you were really in some kind of acid-trip music video, but in a positive way. And I liked the use of the poorer quality video shots to show when a Watcher is watching you. You’re not sure what it is at first (at least I wasn’t), but when you realize it, the rest of the film you’re like “Oh crap, somebody’s watching them” when it happens. Needless to say, the filmmakers made this one heck of an experience. Like I said with the Pushers, it’s like almost every ability of the characters is used somehow within the film itself to clue in or mess with the audience. And I think that was a brilliant tactic.


Overall, I thought I was going to have a difficult time rating the movie, but the more I write about it and reflect back on it, the more set I really am in my score and my thoughts. There were a few confusing bits (especially for what is essentially a straight-forward story), and there could have been a bit more character development with Chris Evans’ character, and they probably should have cast somebody besides Camilla Belle for Kira. But other than those things, I had a really great time with the movie. I didn’t look at my watch once.


Photobucket
A Keanu 'Whoa'

2.06.2009

SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE.

I’ve been waiting longer than you know to see this movie. And now I finally have. And my verdict? I’ll get to that. Danny Boyle's Slumdog Millionaire is a basic love story/pseudo-fairy tale told in a very entertaining and creative way. Jamal (Ayush Khedekar, Tanay Chheda, Dev Patel) and his brother Salim (Azharuddin Ismail, Ashutosh Gajiwala, Madhur Mittal) live in the slums of Mumbai. But after an attack on the city, they become orphans to survive on their own. They then meet Latika (Rubiana Ali, Tanvi Lonkar, Freida Pinto) who he comes to fall for, even as a young child. They go through many hardships together, sometimes even becoming separated for long periods of time. All of this eventually culminates in Jamal becoming a contestant on the Indian version of Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? But something has to be wrong, because this boy from the slums is answering all these questions correctly when even doctors and lawyers couldn’t get as far as he had. So, one question at a time, Jamal must explain himself to the authorities how he knew each and every answer, all of which is shown in a series of flashbacks.


So what did I think of the film? Well, I saw two of my old professors there and we talked briefly afterward. I asked them what they thought, and they said it all in one word: brilliant. Everything about this film was brilliant. Let’s look at it one bit at a time, though. First we have the story. It was always the story that attracted me to the film, even before it started to get all its praise. And it turned out even more than I expected. The juxtaposition of stories between Jamal and Salim and how each turned out (one rising from the slums in the quintessential rags-to-riches story, and the other sinking down into its depths, stuck in its gnawing teeth and dastardly ways) was very unexpected. And the symbolism at the end there (to try and keep this vague and non-spoilery… themes of love and unwanted money) all converged tightly in the apex of the film. And while the final question was rather obvious (but still got a nice “OH!” reaction from the audience), you still had no idea if he was going to answer it correctly (because it was never about winning in that sense).


On the more technical side of things, I loved the frenetic camera work (which was more at the beginning and the end). And it mixed in nicely with the music. And on the subject of the music, I absolutely adored the soundtrack. This was probably one of my favorite soundtracks (at least of a non-musical) of this past year. The music fit so perfectly with every scene, always adding energy or dramatics.


As for the acting, well, it was great all around. I think the move to use real slum kids from Mumbai was (again) brilliant. For just being random kids off the street, they sure did a fantastic job with their parts, especially the youngest versions of Jamal and Salim. For the adult roles, of course Dev Patel shines through as the deeply longing and sometimes snarky Jamal. And Freida Pinto is incredibly hot. And she looks so much like Dilshad Vadsaria (who plays Rebecca Logan on the TV show “Greek”), who is also hot.


It’s really hard to review films you love in almost every way, because you get to that place where you don’t want to gush too much and it’s hard to find anything negative. If I did have anything negative at all to say, it would be that at times, some of the English was hard to understand because of the thick accents. But that only happened so few times (most of it toward the beginning of the film, which worried me at first, but that quickly went away). I do disagree with those people who say the movie is too straightforward with not many deeper levels. I found plenty of deeper levels, metaphors, etc. all throughout the film; you just have to know where to look. So my love of the film just continually built more and more until by the end of the movie, I had the exactly feelings within me that I had hoped to have in watching this movie: I had just watched something great, and I felt really good about that.


Photobucket
Royale With Cheese

1.31.2009

TAKEN.

I read a pretty good description of this movie a couple days ago that I think fits it nicely: Jason Bourne (of the movies, not the books) gets older and has a daughter, then the daughter gets kidnapped and he goes after the bad guys. Bryan Mills (Liam Neeson) used to work for the government as a sort of super-agent. But after his wife Lenore (Famke Janssen) splits with him and takes their daughter Kim (Maggie Grace) to live with her new husband Stuart (Xander Berkeley), he retires so that he can live closer to them and make up for lost time. Soon after Kim’s seventeenth birthday, her friend Amanda (Katie Cassidy) invites her to spend the summer in Paris. Reluctantly, and with conditions, Bryan signs the papers (as she is underage) to go out of the country. Unfortunately, not long after they get to Paris, both are kidnapped and sold into human sex trafficking. So now it’s up to Bryan to get to Paris and hunt down who is responsible and get his daughter back, no matter what.


I’m a fan of anything Luc Besson is involved with (writer/director/producer), from his more brilliant works (Leon, Angel-A) to his more brainless fun (The Transporter). So when I heard that he had his hand in writing this script, I knew I was there. So where in the Besson-Spectrum does it fall? It’d say it’s somewhere in the middle, teetering on the edge between. I wouldn’t say it’s fully brilliant as there is a vast expanse of action and little-to-no character development. But I wouldn’t say it’s brainless, either, because there is a depth to it.


Some will say that the movie starts off slowly, but I disagree. I think that the first twenty or so minutes are really important in doing what so many action movies these days skip: setting up the relationships between the characters. Without seeing how deeply caring and devoted Bryan is to his daughter, would we care as much as we do when he does eventually go on his rampage through Paris? I’m not so sure. And I think the setup works well to help with that.


As far as the actors go, Liam Neeson was a bit stale at times, but at other times I knew he was the only person who could have pulled off some of the dialogue he was given. Famke Janssen, for the little we see of her, does well as the pain-in-the-ass ex-wife who refuses to give Liam a break. I’ve read some people had a problem with Maggie Grace playing a seventeen year old (convincingly). But I didn’t have any issues. She’s not in the movie long enough for me to have really cared how well she did. Though that’s another thing I think the movie does well. Most Hollywood action movies always cut to the kidnapped victim and show his or her (usually her) side of the story. After Kim is kidnapped, that’s the last you see of her until her dad finds her, so you don’t know if she’s going to be dead or alive when he gets there until the truth is finally revealed. It helps with the suspense.


Overall, I thought it was pretty good. There were a few logistical issues that I had, but they weren’t so big to where it would ruin the movie as a whole. There’s some good action and some intense moments (though, oddly, for a movie about human sex trafficking, no nudity). So if you want a good action movie that actually has characters you can care about and a decent plot, I’d recommend it.


Photobucket
I Am McLovin!

1.29.2009

FROST/NIXON.

Irrelevant, but you know it’s sad when you go to buy your ticket, and the guy behind the counter goes “Hey, you got a haircut!” Anyway, on to the movie. As you all know, this movie tells the story of television celebrity David Frost (Michael Sheen), who gets a sudden urge to interview Richard Nixon (Frank Langella) soon after the Watergate Scandal. Also involved are Sam Rockwell, Kevin Bacon, Oliver Platt, Rebecca Hall, and Toby Jones.


As you could probably gather from my pretty short synopsis, I don’t have much to say about the film. It’s kind of aggravating, really. Yes, the acting was great (with the exception of poor Toby Jones, who nearly made me want to laugh at his really forced tough-guy New York accent. Though I guess it’s more laughable when you realize this is the same guy who voiced Dobby the House Elf in Harry Potter). I also loved the symbolism with the shoes throughout the film.


But I really don’t have any overarching negative things to say about the film. I was never bored during its 2-hour time frame. It kept my attention, and I really enjoyed the film. If it were anything, it would be the depiction of Nixon. For a guy frequently described as quiet and to himself and who is horrible at small talk, the only time he ever felt awkward doing any small talk was during the scene it’s actually mentioned in the film. Before that, after that, he seemed perfectly capable of and not awkward at all about chit chatting with anybody.


And in the end, the movie was just, overall, too safe. Ron Howard made a rather predictable film. And I don’t mean that in the sense we all know what happens in the end (the boat sinks! Wait…). But I mean it in that even before I went in, I knew he was going to open it up with audio and/or video of real footage from Nixon and use that every now and then through the film. And the film didn’t make the characters/people anything more than they are set up to be: a naive man who gets some balls and overcomes his opponent (Frost) or a troubled man who comes to terms with what he did (Nixon). Everything was rather straight forward in its presentation, and there wasn’t really anything that made me go “Oh, wow, look at how he did that/portrayed that.” So while I really enjoyed the film as a whole (though they could have shown more of the actual interview stuff, in my opinion), it was no major stride forward in political biopics. But it wasn’t a step back, either. I’d recommend it.


Photobucket
A Keanu 'Whoa'

(P.S. This was a very difficult score to give. I think I really only gave it this score because of the superb acting. Otherwise, it would have gotten a very strong McLovin. So this is a weak 'Whoa', but a 'Whoa', nonetheless.)

1.24.2009

Short Review: Resident Evil: Degeneration.

Premise: Claire Redfield and Leon S. Kennedy get caught up in another T-Virus attack.

Starring: The voices of Alyson Court, Paul Mercier, Laura Bailey, and Crispin Freeman.

My Reaction: The CGI animation was terrible and distracting (I’ve really seen better CGI in video games), especially Claire’s face. The voice acting was awful. The dubbing itself was way off the mark (again, distracting). The dialogue was overly melodramatic and cheesy. For being one of the fan-favorite characters, Leon has the personality of cardboard (or Hayden Christensen… not much of a difference). The Tyrant looked like bad Claymation. For a zombie/monster movie, there was very little blood. Hell, TV’s CSI has more blood. While it did share the atmosphere of the games, even the action was mostly boring (with a couple exceptions). The whole movie as a whole was rather boring. And if you’re not a hardcore fan of the games, you’d probably get completely lost by the story. Finally, where the hell did that woman’s boobs come from at the end? All of a sudden, she has a D-Cup. It was so random. Anyway, it was just awful/terrible/awfully terrible/terribly awful all around. There were only a couple scenes that made it remotely interesting or entertaining, and those didn’t last very long.


Photobucket
The Zed Word

(P.S. And I'm being quite generous with this (rather ironic) scoring).

1.23.2009

INKHEART.

It’s sad that, even if you’ve never read the book the movie is based on, you can still tell when something has been changed, cut, or added. But more on that later. Mo (Brendan Fraser) has a unique ability: if he reads aloud, he can bring things out of the stories he’s reading. But there’s a rule to go with it: if at least one person comes out of the book, somebody has to go in. Unfortunately, he didn’t exactly know he had the power. Years ago, he read from a book entitled Inkheart, where he accidentally brings out some awful baddies, all led by the evil Capricorn (Andy Serkis), as well as the selfish (but good) fire-twirler, Dustfinger (Paul Bettany). But since people came out, somebody had to go in. And it just so happens to be his wife, Resa (Sienna Guillory). So now, years later, we catch up with Mo and his teenage daughter Meggie (Eliza Bennett), who travel through Europe searching old bookstores. Meggie has no idea her father’s abilities until Dustfinger shows back up in their lives, with Capricorn close behind. So now, along with help from Meggie’s great aunt Elinor (Helen Mirren); Farid (Rafi Gavron), one of Arabian Nights’ forty thieves; and Inkheart’s author, Fenoglio (Jim Broadbent), they have to figure out a way to keep from Capricorn’s clutches while bringing back Resa and getting Dustfinger what he wants most: to get back in the book.


Wow, that was complicated. But that about sums up the plot with most of the major characters. The plot really is somewhat straightforward, and it does jump from place to place (read: plot point to plot point) with no real shown travel in between (unless it serves as a plot point). And with the size of the book that I’ve seen in the stores, I know there has to be more to it than what this movie showed.


And I figure what was cut had to be all the character development. Now, the highlight of the film was the wonderful cast of characters. Ironically, this almost excludes Mo and Meggie, who are honestly the least interesting of the bunch. But the best was Dustfinger. Paul Bettany really owns this movie, and it probably helps that he’s really the only character with a satisfying character arch or development whatsoever. Helen Mirren also has an excellent character (and from what I’ve read, is one of the more faithful-to-the-book characters). The most disappointing thing with the characters was the relationship between Dustfinger and Farid. You can tell there was something there, trying to build itself like it would have room for in the book, but it ultimately falls flat. Also, how the heck does Farid teach himself how to do the Dragon’s Breath thing? I felt that was the most bizarre part that needed much more explanation.


And then we get to the ending. I won’t spoil anything, as I can give enough information without giving anything away. The climax ultimately tries to be much more epic than it really is. There’s all this chaos and fighting, but it doesn’t seem to show almost any of it, focusing more on the characters watching and reacting to what’s going on than actually showing what’s going on. And there should have been much more of a fight between Mo and Capricorn. I mean, after the history between the two characters, you’d think they’d do more than that. Then the actual ending of the movie comes in. And this is more where I was going with my opening statement. Normally, if Hollywood forces an ending change to something, they try to make it at least dovetail with what’s already been given so you can’t tell. Not this movie. Even without reading the book, I can give the exact moment where the book ending stops and the movie ending begins. It’s just too jarring. The two specific characters start walking off together, and then here Mo comes, running down the road… making most of what we just saw in the previous scene pointless. Not to mention they threw in mention of a possible romance that comes out of nowhere. There weren’t even hints or looks or exchanged words or anything throughout the entire movie, and then there’s a line like “I know you like her.” And I’m all… “Huh?”


But anyway, I know the bulk of this review has focused on some negative aspects, but you have no idea how weird I feel writing this review. I really don’t know what to talk about. I did actually really enjoy the movie, specifically Paul Bettany and Jim Broadbent (as a writer, I thought it was fun and hilarious to see his reactions to his characters being alive, which is something a lot of writers daydream about). The characters, for the most part, were really fun (even if there’s little-to-no development). And the concept itself was great. I still want to read the book, and the movie makes me want to read it even more so I can see all the development and whatnot that was removed. So overall, it was a fun movie… but not much more than that.


Photobucket
I Am McLovin!

1.22.2009

DVD Review: Repo! The Genetic Opera.

So the nearly year-long wait is over. I’ve finally seen it. I would have reviewed this sooner, but I honestly needed to watch it twice. After the first viewing, I was left without any real words to describe how I felt about the film. After the second viewing, I’m almost in the same boat as the first viewing, but I’m pretty sure I’ve got some better thoughts in order.


In the not-too-distant future, a worldwide epidemic of organ failure spreads death and chaos. But then Rotti Largo (Paul Sorvino) builds GeneCo, a company that will lend you brand new organs and other such body parts, but at a price. And if you can’t pay your debts, they send out a Repo Man, a legalized assassin, to come and kill you and take back whatever it is you had put in. But now Rotti is dying and needs to give his company to somebody, though he hates his three children: the violent Luigi Largo (Bill Moseley); the face-wearing Pavi Largo (Ogre); and the surgery-addicted Amber Sweet (Paris Hilton). So he then sets his eye on Shilo Wallace (Alexa Vega), the daughter of Repo Man Nathan (Anthony Head), whose deceased wife Marni (Sarah Power) used to be his own lover. Shilo has been kept locked in her home all her life by her father due to having the same lethal blood disease that killed her mother. And everything culminates at the epic Genetic Opera, headlined by Blind Mag (Sarah Brightman). And all of this is tied together with the use of comic strips and the Greek Chorus-like Graverobber (Terrance Zdunich).


If you couldn’t tell, the plot is a bit complicated. But at the same time, it isn’t. There is a lot going on, and there are a ton of plot twists, just like any normal Opera. And that’s the thing to keep in mind when going into this movie: you have to think of it like an Opera. Practically every line is sung, no matter how inconsequential. But I also think this is one of the movie’s few downfalls, as well. The movie is described (quite appropriately) like mixing Rocky Horror Picture Show (due to its absurdness) with Blade Runner (due to its dark, dystopian setting). But I also would like to attribute it to Sweeney Todd (due to the gore, as well as a few other things that I’ll be getting to).


So let me start by discussing the music, as that’s the most important part of the film. Honestly, the music is hit or miss. Like Sweeney Todd, I felt the movie had a much stronger second half (as soon as Zydrate Anatomy begins). There are two types of songs in this movie. The first type is the ‘talky’ songs, in which there are countless numbers of all throughout. These are the ones that basically get the plot from one place to the next. They can sometimes seem awkward and forced, too, like the creators just had to have every single line sung, no matter how weird or out of place it sounded. The second type is the ‘musical’ songs. These are the ones that really make the movie shine, the types of hit songs you would expect from a musical. They aren’t just little snips to go from one point to the next, but great, toe-tapping, (sometimes hard-rocking), make-you-wanna-sing-along songs.


Now, the first half of the movie was made up of a lot of the ‘talky’ songs and only a few ‘musical’ songs tossed in. But while the ‘musical’ songs were good, they were just too few and far between. And the first half was much more focused on the gore than the music, it seemed. But once the second half starts up with Zydrate Anatomy (personally, one of my favorites in the film), the gore nearly disappears and becomes a more alluded-to thing. And then the movie has almost completely become one great ‘musical’ number after the next, with only a couple ‘talky’ songs thrown in.


And even though it’s a Rock Opera, there are many different types of songs to find in the film. There’s the heavy rock, the grunge rock, and even a bit of actual Opera. But ironically, it’s the Opera, I feel, that seems most out-of-place in the movie. Luckily, though, the Opera-esque songs are few and far between, and they’re only sung by Sarah Brightman and Paul Sorvino, who both have amazing voices.


And to get on to the actual singers/actors, let me first start with those aforementioned two. Sarah Brightman is, by far, the best singer in the film, even though she’s physically not in it a whole lot. But her Chase the Morning is another one of the best songs of the film, and it’s one of the most inventive, as the refrain is sung by Sarah Power’s Marni through a hologram ejected from her eyes. It’s nuts. On the other hand, Paul Sorvino, while he has a great voice, gets the worst songs of the film. They have him singing all over the place, doing a huge chunk of the ‘talky’ songs, and sometimes even interchanging mid-song from the ‘talky’ voice to his ‘Opera’ voice. Needless to say, that did not bode well with me.


But after Sarah Brightman, the two I felt had the best voices (and songs) in the film were Anthony Head (whom you might recognize as Giles from Buffy the Vampire Slayer) and Terrance Zdunich (who is actually one of the co-creators of the original stage play, as well as reprising his role as the Graverobber). These two men actually had the ability to make even the ‘talky’ songs entertaining, which is good, considering a good chunk of what they did were along those lines. But of course I had to give it out to Terrance, as Zydrate Anatomy is basically his big number. But the only thing about Anthony Head that seemed a bit weird was he had a Gollum/Sméagol (or maybe Batman/Bruce Wayne—Christian Bale version) thing going on. He would flip back and forth from loving/caring father and crazy Repo Man, altering his voice to go along with it.


Then, of course, we have Alexa Vega, who actually does really well (I would hope, since she’s basically the main character). Her voice cracks every now and then, but I think that was a character thing. And finally, the Largo siblings: Paris Hilton, Bill Moseley, and Ogre. Let me just put it this way: Paris Hilton was the least irritating of the three. Actually, I agree with most reviews of the film. Paris Hilton was born for the role and does it perfectly. But then again, that’s not hard to do when the role you’re playing is a spoiled, talentless heiress to a multi-billion dollar corporation. Ogre wasn’t too bad, either. He just had a distractingly cliché Italian (for no reason) voice. Though he did wear the (painted white) faces of his female lovers that he’d killed, which is neat. Though the worst casting, by far, in the entire movie, was Bill Moseley. He acted the part way too over-the-top, annoyingly, and just plain silly. It was totally out of tone for the movie, and his singing wasn’t that hot, either. He and Ogre were like the unneeded jesters of the film, ruining the overall mood.


So I’ve talked about the plot. I’ve talked about the music. I’ve talked about the singers/actors. I guess I could comment on a few of the littler things. For instance, I’m still not sure what to make of the comics-o-exposition that are scattered throughout the movie. The movie itself begins with a 3-minute sometimes-animated comic strip that gives the backstory of the movie. And then, at random intervals, the movie will freeze-frame on a character and give their sketched self to segue into the comic book ‘backstory’ of that character. I suppose it’s an interesting and unique way of doing it, and it does save time showing the little strips of explanation. But at the same time, it gets somewhat old after a while. Not to mention, depending on your TV, some of the text on the comic strips can be cut off on the screen, so you have to make some quick (though usually easy) guesses as to what’s written there (as none of it is read to you in voice-over or anything).


Overall, the movie fell a bit shorter than what I had expected. It tried a bit too hard at times to keep its non-stop singing ‘Rock Opera’ thing. The ‘talky’ songs only worked half the time; the other half they were just forced and awkward. But the ‘musical’ songs, practically every single one of them, were excellent. And the movie does have its fair share of those. But the film also has trouble with its tone. Sometimes it tries to be dark and broody. Sometimes it tries to be slapstick and silly. I think it should have picked one or the other—either it took itself seriously or it didn’t. Like I said, even though there are some really good songs in the first half, I much preferred the second half of the film. Finally, something I didn’t really comment on before, the movie itself (visually) looks excellent. There are so many great visuals, from the costumes to the settings. My final verdict? I’d say check it out, but make sure to know what you’re getting yourself into beforehand. Plus, any movie that can actually make Paris Hilton look good (by any definition of that word—looks, acting, singing) is a movie to check out.


Photobucket
A Keanu 'Whoa'

1.18.2009

Short Review: Snatch.

I finally got around to watching this. I was confused as hell. So I gave it a second chance before reviewing it. Here we are.


-----------


Premise: A bunch of random people are all randomly connected to a diamond heist.

Starring: Benicio Del Toro, Dennis Farina, Vinnie Jones, Jason Statham, and Brad Pitt (among a bunch of others).

My Reaction: The beginning montage bit was, and still is, incredibly, mind-bogglingly confusing. To the point it messes with me for the remainder of the movie. The acting was brilliant all around. The editing style was brilliant, as well. I particularly liked the juxtaposition of the Coursing with the chasing/questioning of the one thug guy, as well as the slow motion fall into the dream-water during the boxing match and that whole little segment. I also really liked the ending, though it utterly confused me the first time around (mostly due to being linked with the incredibly confusing opening). I wanted to like this more, but the more I think about it and try to connect everybody/everything, the more my brain hurts. Too much interconnected randomness going on all at the same time. But for some odd reason, I still liked it.


Photobucket
I Am McLovin!

1.16.2009

MY BLOODY VALENTINE 3-D.

What happens when you remake a cheesy 1980s slasher flick into a 3-D slasher flick in 2009? You get a cheesy 21st century slasher flick. In 3-D. Ten years after a miner brutally kills 22 people on Valentine’s Day, the killings pick up once more on its anniversary. Tom (Jensen Ackles), one of the survivors of the previous killings, returns to the tiny town to sell his dad’s mine. But he’s met with either hatred or confusion from the townsfolk, including ex-flame Sarah (Jaime King); her husband, Sheriff Axel Palmer (Kerr Smith); and friend-of-Tom’s-father, Ben (Kevin Tighe). And everybody starts to not only think that Tom had something to do with the previous killings, but that he’s somehow a part of the new ones, as well.


There’s a reason that the trailers focused mainly on the 3-D aspect of the film and not much about the plot or characters: the movie would pretty much suck without it. So let’s talk about the 3-D first. It really didn’t make the movie any scarier, honestly. The pick-axes and whatnot in the face didn’t make me jump. In fact, it was almost annoying because they didn’t often use the effect to its full potential. There were a ton of moments wherein they could have done something, and they pull away or change the angle so that the 3-D isn’t effective at all. But what the 3-D does is put you in the movie with them and increases the tension because of it. It bettered the atmosphere, in other words. And what it did in the suspense department, as I said, weren’t really with the sudden in-your-face moments, but the slower, more drawn out moments. Like if a gun slowly pans across the screen and points out at your face. You have no idea if it’s going to fire or not, and that makes you nervous. So I felt the 3-D was better used there than anywhere else.


But in the scariness department, I do have to say that the film did have some tense moments. Now, would it still have been nearly as suspenseful without the 3-D? I strongly doubt it. But in the 3-D version, it was able to hold up some decent moments. On the other end of the spectrum, we have the gore. And my God, do we have some gore. This movie showed some things that the Saw films would only show in quick flashes. But the goriest stuff happens within the first 10 minutes. After that, it’s still there, but never to the level it was during the opening.


As for the story, it was awfully confusing. There were some pretty obvious plot holes, and then some other stuff that was never even explained, unless I was just too distracted by the 3-D in the opening montage-o-exposition. For instance, why the hell was the miner killing people to begin with? I know they said the miners were buried in a cave-in and he killed the others to have more air… but what does that have to do with following it up with a killing spree? Or with Valentine’s Day? And what is the fascination with the hearts? Where did that come from? It’s all incredibly random. Not to mention you can see the twist at the end from a mile away. It’s been so overdone to the point that it cannot surprise anybody anymore.


The acting was pretty awful, too. When they weren’t being killed, the actors and actresses were showing off their daytime soap opera talents. Granted, it wasn’t anywhere near the awfulness of The Spirit or Diary of the Dead, where acting just didn’t exist. This was more like they were just trying way too hard. Though I have to give it up to two performers. First, Jensen Ackles wasn’t that bad. He actually did a pretty decent job when he wasn’t trying to remind me of Freddie Prinze Jr. And then there’s Betsy Rue, who gives us at least 5+ minutes of full-body nudity. Her acting sucked, but she bares it all. And I mean all. It was so surprising, I don’t know if I were more surprised at the fact they actually showed so much for such lengths of time or the fact that it was in in-my-face 3-D.


Anyway, the only way I’d recommend seeing this movie is in 3-D and if you like old school horror/slasher flicks. It’s definitely a throwback with the cheesy acting and story and Final-Girl-Runs-Through-Woods sequence. And then the Why-The-Hell-Are-You-Going-In-There sequences. There were a lot of illogical moments, as well, all throughout the movie (with a serial killer on the loose, why the hell would you keep your gun specifically unloaded?). And, as I said, there are some pretty glaring plot holes. Unless you’ll just do anything for a gore-fix, if it didn’t come to 3-D in your town, I wouldn’t bother. That’s the only reason, I think, it was as good as it was. Granted, it wasn’t awful. It did have some pretty suspenseful and entertaining moments. But it’s no grand comeback of a genre.


Photobucket
Stop Saying Okay! Okay.

1.10.2009

LKMYNTS: The Girl Who Leapt Through Time.

Based on what is apparently the most-adapted novel in Japan, The Girl Who Leapt Through Time takes a somewhat different approached (or so I’m told), and not just because it’s anime. Makoto is a senior in the Japanese equivalent to high school, has no idea what she wants to do in life, and just plays baseball with her best friends, Chiaki and Kousuke. But during the worst day of her life (that should have actually ended with her death), Makoto discovers that she can travel back in time. Even ignoring the slight guidance given to her by her Auntie Witch, Makoto selfishly uses the ability on insignificant details that, like most time-travel movies, cause incredibly significant alterations. And things only get worse and more awkward when Chiaki decides to ask out Makoto, which she only wants to ignore as if it never happened, starting a rift in their friendship and their lives in general.


When I first read of this movie, and even when I started watching it, I felt it was something like mixing The Butterfly Effect with Groundhog Day. But it turned into something much more. This movie has such a realism to it for being a movie about time travel. Sure, it has the obligatory montage of her trying to make the same situations better time and time again (much like Groundhog Day), but unlike Groundhog Day, and more similar to The Butterfly Effect, even if she thinks she did a good thing in the past, not all good can come from it in the future. And the movie is much more focused on the relationships between the characters (primarily Makoto, Chiaki, and Kousuke) than the time traveling, which was a nice. It hasn’t been since WALL*E (even though this movie technically came out first) that an animated movie made me laugh, tense up in suspense, and nearly cry (sometimes within the same 5-10 minute frame).


Like most anime or foreign films, it’s much better with subtitles instead of dubbing. However, the dub wasn’t completely terrible, either. The English voice actors for Kousuke and especially Chiaki were really well done. But it was Makoto’s voice that was a bit stiff at times and could have been suited by a better actress (especially considering they got a 13 year old to do it, when the character is at least 17 or 18). But in its original Japanese language, it’s fine, though the subtitles have the tendency to move by very fast at times. There were moments where I had to pause or rewind the movie to see all of what was said. But that only happened on occasion.


Besides the story, however, the greatest things about this film were the visuals and the music. To start with the visuals, I’ve read a lot on this movie that say “It’s no Miyazaki” or “It’s just a throwback to a more classic anime style.” I think some of these people have gotten spoiled by Miyazaki’s style to the point where they can’t appreciate anybody else. This movie is beautiful. You can’t compare it to Miyazaki, anyway, as he does more fantasy-type films, while this is a more realistic (with a touch of sci-fi) film. And in a time when the majority of anime have giant robots, brooding themes and characters, endless bloody action, and dark settings, this movie is full of vibrant colors, rich tones, and some breathtaking scenes (such as any of the frozen time moments). And the music just added to it. It’s stunning when the beauty of the music matches up with the beauty of the visuals so well, and this movie perfects it. I could buy this orchestral/classical soundtrack and just listen in awe.


If there were any negatives to the film, it would lie in with the Auntie Witch character. As I said in the opening, they tried to do something a little different this time around (outside of animating it). They made this movie a pseudo-sequel to the book, but from what I’ve read, it’s one of those sequels that’s almost exactly like the original, except with different characters and a new setting. However, apparently, the Auntie Witch character was the main character from the book, who pretty much went through a lot of what Makoto does, so she references the occurances of the book every now and then (there’s a sequence near the beginning where she talks about how it’s normal for girls to time leap because she, too, did it when she was Makoto’s age. This threw me off completely, as I had no idea what that meant until after the movie). So yeah, if you’ve never read the book or don’t know anything about it, her inclusion in the movie is going to be pretty confusing. But another thing with her is that she always seems to know that Makoto can time leap, even if she traveled back in time to before she told her initially. Now, maybe it’s just that Makoto has to keep re-telling her, but they never address the issue in the movie. They also never show resolution with a particular other character whose life goes to crap due to the time alterations (but I think it’s easily assumed what happens because of what Makoto does without having to be shown).


Besides that, there’s only a couple other scenes near the end that only seemed to be there to lengthen the movie (which is only an hour and a half or so). There’s a pointlessly extended ‘running’ scene. There’s also an almost Return of the King-like ending where it just doesn’t feel like it’ll ever stop. But all in all, it was a beautiful film that I really do recommend. If you don’t like reading subtitles, there’s not a whole lot wrong with the dubbing outside of one or two voice actors (in fact, there are actually a couple very slight script alterations that I liked better in English than in Japanese. Otherwise, it’s almost exactly the same as the subtitles). It’s just that one of those voice actors to put up with is the main character. It’s a fun, heartfelt drama that’s mixed with some fun sci-fi (amazingly enough, the explanation for the time leaping doesn’t suck and is actually pretty good). So yeah. Check it out.


Photobucket
A Keanu 'Whoa'

1.09.2009

GRAN TORINO.

What an ironic movie to be sitting right near a teenage girl who decides to text on her cell phone for the majority of the movie (including during the part at the beginning where Eastwood gets annoyed with his teenage granddaughter for texting at an inappropriate time). Gran Torino tells the story of the incredibly grumpy and racist Walt Kowalski (Clint Eastwood), a Korean War vet who lives in the past. After his wife passes away, he’s left alone with his dog in a ghetto filling up with Hmong families. But when his shy young neighbor Thao (Bee Vang) tries to steal his prized 1972 Gran Torino in order to fit in with his cousin’s gang and is later saved by Walt from the same gang, Walt’s relationship with the rest of the neighborhood begins to change, primarily with Thao and his sister Sue (Ahney Her). Also on Walt’s case is the young priest at his local church, Father Janovich (Christopher Carley).


Let me simply start out by giving the only real negative comment I have of the movie: the acting, for the most part, was pretty bad. The only two who give a pretty good performance are Eastwood and John Carroll Lynch as his barber (who is in all of two scenes), and even Eastwood’s performance is basically him flaunting his good ‘ol days to his Dirty Harry fans. I’ve read other negative comments on the film, such as it is no deeper than its surface level, and while that’s true, I’m not going to say that’s negative. Even if it is only surface deep, I still enjoyed it immensely for what it was. So let’s get on to the rest of the review.


This movie was so much funnier than I expected. I read that the character would make you laugh, but I didn’t expect how much. This movie should have been advertised more as a vulgar comedy than a gritty drama. And it is rather vulgar. I don’t think I’ve ever heard this many racial slurs in one movie, and that includes both American History X and Clerks 2 (the whole scene where Randall’s “bringin’ it back.”). It’s a very politically incorrect film, so if you’re easily offended, stay away.


I think the movie takes its time to get to its plot, but that didn’t really bother me, because the relationships between Walt and the other characters was equally entertaining as the one between Walt and Thao. Okay, so I lied. I did have one other small negative thing to say about the film. The transition for Walt seems slightly forced to me. To go from a lifetime of racism and hatred to eating barbeque and having a good time with his neighbors in such a short span, and only because he gave one of them a ride home? It seemed a bit far fetched. But I went with it anyway.


But anyway, I thought it was a really good film. It was highly entertaining, even if it made you shake your head while you were laughing at all the politically incorrectness. I don’t think it was the best film of the year as so many have said, but I don’t think it was as bad as some of the naysayers have said, either. With a little more polish and a much better cast (specifically for Thao and Sue), I think this movie could have been outstanding. But because of those few little clunks (wow, I almost made and incredibly accidental racial slip there), it fell just short. But still, it was a really, really good film overall.


Photobucket
A Keanu 'Whoa'

(P.S. What the hell was with that song at the end? Clint Eastwood needs to never... ever sing again, especially a song with lame lyrics).