Short Review: The Protector.

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

Starring: Tony Jaa.

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

The Zed Word

Short Review: Nothing.

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

Starring: David Hewlett and Andrew Miller. 

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

Stop Saying Okay! Okay.

Manic Movie Madness Spectacular Bam Wow!

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

The Title: Paprika. 

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

The Score:

Feed Me, Seymour!

The Title: Kamikaze Girls. 

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

The Score:

I Am McLovin!

The Title: RocknRolla. 

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

The Score:

I Am McLovin!

The Title: Heathers. 

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

The Score:

A Keanu 'Whoa'

The Title: Mind Hunters. 

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

The Score:

Feed Me, Seymour!

The Title: The Onion Movie. 

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

The Score:

I Am McLovin!

The Title: Midnight Movie. 

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

The Score:

The Zed Word

The Title: Beowulf. 

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

The Score:

Feed Me, Seymour!

The Title: Knowing. 

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

The Score:

I Am McLovin!

The Title: Fanboys. 

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

The Score:

I Am McLovin!

HARRY POTTER AND THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Royale With Cheese

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

LKMYNTS: 10 Items Or Less.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


A Keanu 'Whoa'

Short Review: Yes Man.

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

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

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


I Am McLovin!

TRANSFORMERS: REVENGE OF THE FALLEN.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


I Am McLovin!

Short Review: Following.

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

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

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


A Keanu 'Whoa'

2 In 1: Wasabi And District B13.

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

Wasabi.

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

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

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

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

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

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


A Keanu 'Whoa'

District B13.

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

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

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

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

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


I Am McLovin!

THE PROPOSAL.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


A Keanu 'Whoa'