Scene it all before

21 Jump Street

2012-03-15T12:54:00.006-07:00

For all my readers who are unsure of where this movie came from you may not be able to appreciate Nice Offerman's role. As the police captain for rookie cops Schmidt and Jenko, played by Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum respectively, he tells them the department is reviving a program they used back in the eighties. This is just one of the many nods to both the industry and the source material. It was also one of the many laugh out loud moments of this movie. It is easy to be suspect of a movie from an old TV show; I mean we were all there for Miami Vice. But get past whatever prejudices you may have because the movie version of 21 Jump Street may be the funniest movie to come out this year.

The original 21 Jump Street featuring Johnny Depp, who has a fantastic cameo and looks very handsome in this picture, had a lot of teachable moment, dealing with issues from AIDS to child abuse. That shit has gone out the window and the whole tone has got a lot raunchier. But the laughs aren't just a bunch of fart jokes, there are plenty of smart jokes, quick pop culture references, and well played bits sprinkled throughout the movie. And for what is essentially a buddy cop movie it bridges the gap perfectly between slapstick and action genre.

Directing tandem Phil Lord and Chris Miller who previously worked on Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs make the move into live action seem effortless when previous projects like John Carter prove that is not the case. Clearly having watched an episode or two of the series before they are able to incorporate some of the old show into the movie. But if you are looking for a faithful adaptation than you are going to be disappointed. The duo are quick to change the tone and inject the project with plenty of laughs. And they have an outstanding cast to deliver the jokes.

Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum jump into their comfort zone as the nerd and the hunk respectively in the beginning of the movie, and while this tandem may seem an unlikely duo they play against each other pitch perfectly. Jonah Hill puts plenty of his perfect placed comedy into the movie. In fact as an executive producer and writer for the movie, he added quite a bit of the raunchy levity that he is known for. But what may be underappreciated from this Oscar nominated actor is that he can also bring a lot of heart to the movie. But the X-factor may be Channing Tatum. The tough cop in this genre usually plays the movie pretty straight and usually is much more of a reactionary. Tatum is actually pretty funny in this movie, has a lot of solid lines, he is great with his character in the role reversal, and (while surprising to no one) has a FANTASTIC dumb face. Also I'm sure the women will enjoy his abs.

All the actors are fantastic in the movie; Ellie Kepler, Chris Parnell, and Jake Johnson all have bit parts as teachers at the school but each have great laughs. But possibly the best smaller role is Ice Cube as the chief of the department. In the series the chief was obviously a hard ass, as the chief is supposed to be in this genre but he kicks it up a level with some well timed lines, vulgar language, and smart observations.

I can't think of a movie that has so many laughs coming at you so quickly since Bridesmaids. The ratio actually is reminiscent of The Naked Gun series, the only difference is the tone changes in the beginning of the third act while they try and raise the stakes. While The Naked Gun movies knew how to stay goofy the entire time, Jump Street tries to become more compelling, but by the climax of the movie they are back into the laughs ending the movie on a high note.

This may be the surprise of the season, and I'm sorry if I ruined it for you but I feel like there are many of you that will still not believe me. This is an unlikely pairing of lead actors, from a relatively unknown directing duo who are reviving an old 80's project. The cards are stacked against it for sure and many of you may refuse to see it for all the reasons listed above. But let me tell you this is a great movie and I encourage you to go out and see 34 Jump Street, no wait, that doesn't sound right. A-

John Carter

2012-03-08T08:03:00.005-08:00

Without the Jeddack’s would there be a Jedi, what would Charlton Heston have worn when crashing on The Planet of the Apes, would Kirk have gotten so much inter-galctic tail if it hadn’t been for this hero created 100 years ago. John Carter is thought to be the inspiration for that and so much more in the science fiction world, so it is understood that fans of the genre have been crying out for the movie to be made. And with the technology to create other worlds, nothing is holding the studios back from making this movie. The execution and hype surrounding Disney’s blockbuster John Carter may be too over powering to create a movie living up the expectation.

Disney gave every advantage it could to the movie, a huge budget a talented cast and a proven director but none of it seemed together as there was a lot of fizzle to the movie, but very little pop. Andrew Stanton made his live action debut, but he has already had so much success having previously worked for Pixar and directing Finding Nemo and Wall-E. He has proven that he knows how to create a compelling story and with so much CGI necessary with a movie like this you would figure he would be right at home with this project. He seems too bogged down in making sure everything fits that he pays less attention to making the characters compelling, so whether John Carter succeeds or not becomes inconsequential.

I wanted to like Taylor Kitsch, I really did. I loved him in "Friday Night Lights", so much like I was rooting for the Panther’s success I was rooting for him to do well in this lead role that could make or break the young star’s film career. He just doesn’t bring anything to the table. Come to think of it none of the live action actors stood out Dominic West from "The Wire" was plenty bland. Mark Strong as the shape shifting puppeteer on Mars and go to villain was only noteworthy when he wasn’t Mark Strong. The only actor who could keep my attention was Lynn Collins as the princess of Mars, but it wasn’t for any of her acting skill.

The most interesting characters were the Tharks and with a 250 million dollar budget and a mostly CGI created movie at least they have that going for them. William Defoe was the stand out character and leader of the alien species which made the movie watchable. They were the only characters which seemed to understand how the movie was supposed to turn out. While every other character played their role stiffly a combination of voice animation and computer generation helped at least one species play into the goofy tone that everyone should have been aiming for.

That should have been the tone to the movie, with production being done by Disney you would think they would be trying to appeal to a younger audience looking for a hero. But with a PG-13 rating I don’t know how many young kids will be able to see this movie. It seemed more important to those behind the camera to pay respect to the source material which inspired so many in the science fiction world from Star Wars to Indiana Jones to Avatar. So instead of getting either by trying to create this balance they get neither.

Maybe the problem is just how brilliant the source material is. Edgar Rice Burroughs wrote this story 100 years ago, and right before he wrote arguably his most notable success Tarzan. This story though may have been the more important as it led to countless warriors chasing after princesses, fights in galaxies far away, and outlaw heroes fighting to save the world. But having seen these elements before they hardly feel as innovative as once before.

Perhaps the biggest problem to the story though is the pacing. The movie moves at a snail’s pace, and with so many different elements thrown into the mix there is a lot that needs to be wrapped up before we get to the climax of the film. The story continues to build upon itself with various villains and conflicts all needing resolved. It seems endless and draining and not all that entertaining.

I’m sure Disney would love to make this movie into a franchise. It seems like there is very little else to tell in the story and I don’t know how many out there would be crawling back for more. Fanboys who have been crying out for this movie to be made for eons may be better off watching the movies that were inspired by John Carter instead. D+

My Top Movies of 2011

2012-03-04T09:08:00.017-08:00

I am a man of the people, and when the people make a request I listen and often ignore it and then just go about my day. But if it is a good request then I take it a little more seriously. A suggestion like what did you think were the best movies of the year. That is a hell of a question and actually took some time to think about. While the top movies are easy to pick deciding what to leave off and what to leave on got infuriating so I thought I would make a go of it. Since the Academy gave us nine nominations here are my Top Nine Movies of 2011

9) The Ides of March
Damn what an incredible cast. If it seems like this movie just snuck on you'd be mistaken. This was going to make the list no matter what I just needed to think where to place it. All the acting is incredible and Ryan Gosling is so clearly The Guy right now, and all he had to do was look across the room to find out what it’s like to be The Man and boom there's Clooney. The movie goes at an incredible pace and while it is a short movie it moves even faster. There were so many moving parts, and Clooney as the writer and director puts it all in there efficiently and has you gripped to the edge of your seat all with tons of nods to campaigns of the past.

8) Midnight in Paris
A lot of people had this a lot higher on their list, and to be named one of the best movies of the year by anyone is an accomplishment. This is on everyone's list. And it is Woody being Woody; you have to like his work to really like this one. And I actually really liked the casting of Owen Wilson as a gentile younger Woody. Some of the characters were great like Hemingway and Dali, but this was one of the few times I got annoyed with Marion Cotillard, she really took me out of the film which is odd being that she was one of the few French actresses in the movie. I don't know, it was great and I liked it but it didn't keep me hooked which is why it is lower on the list.

7) Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part II
Say what you will about the book or all the annoying people who read the book, or even worse the people who dress up for the movie. This was a good movie and deserved far more adulation than it got. It is clear J.K Rowling does not know how to write, but man she created a fantastic story with wonderful characters. And in the hands of David Yates who filmed the movie as darkly as the tone demanded the project played perfectly where so many others failed before him. And who would have guessed that Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson would grow into such fine actors, even if he was half in the bag during most of the shooting. These two young actors were able to stand out when there were people like Ralph Fiennes and Alan Rickman on set, that is impressive.

6) Bridesmaids
Maybe you saw it after everyone was telling you how funny it was and left this movie unimpressed by all the hype. You know how it got all that hype? By being fuckin hysterical. Kristin Wiig wrote a seriously funny movie and then gave all the best lines to someone else. Not that she wasn't brilliant in the lead role, but Melissa McCarthy stole this movie right out from under her. The story is sweet and doesn't dumb down the entire gender which so many movies in Hollywood do by assuming all they need in life is a good man. Plus poop jokes.

5) The Artist
This is just a feel good movie. Yes it is just a giant hand job to all that Hollywood is and all that it was, but whatever I'm down with it. And I personally love watching the rise of one lead to the fall of another. And while the love story doesn't stick with me so much I do remember falling in hook, line, and sinker when I was originally watching the movie. Plus the music is fantastic and I love the difference in acting styles from when they are on the screen to when they are out on the streets. Plus that dog, god I love simple pandering that a cute animal will bring to a movie

4) 50/50
How was this movie not nominated for anything at all?!?!?!? Seriously the screenplay is brilliant and heart wrenching without being too depressing. The characters are all amazing, but a special shout out to Bryce Dallas Howard for rocking the bitch character, oh and I loved the overbearing mother, oh and the music. God so much of this movie was so good I really need to watch it again. And that is all before mentioning just how great Joseph-Gordon Levitt has become as an actor. Or how fantastic Seth Rogan's character was and how well he portrayed him even though it’s not so much acting as it remembering as this ACTUALLY ALL HAPPENED. Will Reiser who wrote the script was diagnosed with cancer and Rogan convinced him to write a screenplay about it. He was going to make it a lot darker; luckily he didn't as the movie was super enjoyable, well as enjoyable as it can be with the subject being someone dying of cancer.

3) Warrior
I wanted to put this movie higher on the list but I just couldn't do it because the movie was so telegraphed but I don't care. This movie still sticks with me and it came out in frickin September, sometimes the lines and music will just pop in my head and I love to leave them there. That is the sign of a great movie, a movie that sticks with you. Nick Nolte is fantastic as the alcoholic father; a role I assume is easy for him to play. Gavin O'Connor who directed the movie also directed Miracle which has the same feel good-id-ness about it. Oh and Tom Hardy is bad-ass. I cannot wait for the new Batman movie

2) Moneyball
Maybe it is because I'm a sports fan that two of the top three movies are sports movies, or maybe it is because both movies are fantastic, probably the latter. Aaron Sorkin takes what is essentially an unfilmable book about sports statistics and makes it compelling to any viewer even if you are not into baseball. I originally thought only sports fans would enjoy this movie but after speaking with a lot of people I found it transcended sports and I love that. Brad Pitt is pitch perfect as Billy Beane and Jonah Hill is fantastic as his counterpart and has some of the best scenes in the movie. The movie moves fast and the dialogue is even quicker, without question Aaron Sorkin is one of the most talented men in Hollywood.

1) Drive
"You tell me where we start, where we're going, where we're going afterwards. I give you five minutes when we get there. Anything happens in that five minutes and I'm yours. No matter what. Anything a minute on either side of that and you're on your own. I don't sit in while you're running it down. I don't carry a gun. I drive." Ryan Gosling on the top and bottom of this list, obviously. He was so bad ass in this movie. He was perfect and I loved all the brilliant parts to this movie, from the retro fitting text to the nameless characters to Albert Brooks eating Chinese in an Italian restaurant. I loved it all, but here is the thing, I didn't love it at first. It took me a while, after seeing the movie I didn't really know what I just saw but then I thought about it and kept thinking about it and just how brilliant this movie was. Just ask The Artist, you don't need dialogue to make a character interesting and that is exactly what they do with the driver. And once the movie passes the half way point and the tone changes the movie becomes all the better. This is a movie that could be examined and picked apart by experts and they still may miss bits of brilliance from the movie. This is a movie that will be remembered years to come.

So that was my top 9 movies of the year. What did you think? What were your favorites? Let me know. And here is to 2012 being top notch for movies to look forward to this year. Enjoy it, I know I will.

The Lorax

2012-03-01T15:22:00.008-08:00

So once again the movie studios have gone to Dr Suess,
This time it’s the Lorax the movie producers have let loose

The Lorax is done by the same people who made Despicable Me
Sure it’s well done, but impossible not to compare to Wall-E

The latter a much better telling of environmental conservatism
The movie is still good re-telling worth all this rhyming romanticism

Our hero is a little orange thing that speaks for the trees
Today it’s impossible not to call him a tree huggin hippie

Danny Devito voices the Lorax as he was the obvious choice
But don’t worry he’s not Frank Reynolds, Devito gives him his own distinct voice

Ed Helms plays the greedy Once-ler stealing all the Truffula Trees,
The directors show him as young man, growing into his greedy personality

But how would you know they needed to give the story a face lift
So they brought in young actors namely Zac Efron and Taylor Swift

They are two younger kids trapped in a different frame story
They needed to pad the film to make it about an hour forty

The new story features a plastic world without any trees
Rob Riggle as the villain and to breath clean air he charges a fee

I guess the execs were worried there just wasn’t enough excitement in the original motion pic
So they added car chases and dance numbers to appeal to a younger demographic

But it’s the original story that has all the movies heart
And who knows maybe you’ll walk away wanting to do your part

There are some people, who hate the Lorax like the anchors on Fox,
They cry indoctrination, it’s just Hollywood on a soapbox

If there’s a problem with the film its all the cross promotion they air
But the problem is much better shared by one Mr. Stephen T. Colbert

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

Overall I liked it; I felt like a kid and left the theater with a smile
It’s better than other movies done earlier this year by at least a mile B-

Oscar Predictions 2012: Best Picture

2012-02-22T14:45:00.005-08:00

At one point in the early going with so few quality movies to pick from it really felt like this could be anyone's year. But then one of these movies, as it usually goes, kept winning all the awards and receiving all the praise. So below is a look at this year's best picture nominees

And the nominees are
The Artist
The Descendants
Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close
Hugo
The Help
Midnight in Paris
Moneyball
The Tree of Life
War Horse

This must have been an off year for me because I didn't see a couple of the movies on the list. So feel free to denounce me as an expert but I really have no desire to see some of these movies. Those movies are Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close and The Tree of Life. I didn't want to see them for different reasons. I didn't want to see Extremely Loud because it got a forty fuckin six on rotten tomatoes. How is this movie nominated for the award? Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol came out the same weekend and got a 93. What the hell is that, I would much rather see Mission Impossible nominated because as far as I can tell it was a better movie. But because Extremely Loud's explosion was a sad one, it got the nod. I can't wait to never see this movie. I also did not see Tree of Life because I am so worried that I may actually like this movie and what that would say about me as a person and pretentious movie-goer. What if I actually liked it and became one of those people looking down on everyone else mocking them because they thought the flower was just a flower. I can't support that. There was just such a polarizing feel to the movie that I couldn't take it seriously and never wanted to spend the money to see it.

There are a couple movies on here that I didn't enjoy either but did see in theaters. Namely Horse War and The Help. Spielberg really went all Spielberg on this one, but he forgets that horses are not as universally beloved as other animals, while beautiful I don't know many people that would call them cute, they're too big to be cute. And then he asked his old pal John Williams to keep on Spielberging it with that overly dramatic soundtrack. Then there was The Help which is actually high on people's list for movies that could win. Partially attributed to the fact that people love movies about overcoming racism just look at The Blindside or Crash for recent proof. What else do those movies have in common, white people fixing racism. Probably because the academy is full of old white dudes who I'm sure thought Birth of a Nation was brilliant. This is the only kind of overcoming racism that the older voters can really support. But with nothing going for it besides the acting of Viola Davis and Octavia Spencer this movie is still a long shot.

Woody Allen and Martin Scorsese are beloved directors, but you know who does hate Woody Allen, The Academy. Midnight in Paris is too quirky to be considered for best picture but just quirky enough to grab an award for the screenplay so that will probably have to do. Meanwhile while The Academy does love movies about movies but they are too old to enjoy the 3D technology and plus they didn't win anything from the guilds and that may be too much to overcome for Hugo to win.

Moneyball really is a tremendous movie, it is sharply written, has fantastic actors, it’s a great story that anyone can enjoy. But being a sports movie is driving it down the ballots list, also not helping is the fact that their director Bennett Miller didn't get nominated for directing. And if there is one category most closely linked to the best picture field it is best director. Lacking this nomination hurts any realistic shot this movie has. Despite it actually being one of the best movies on this list.

The Descendants won the Golden Globe for best picture in the drama category. This is usually a great precursor for the Oscars. George Clooney is fantastic, Alexander Payne is beloved by The Academy and it is the perfect mix of comedy and tragedy. But the biggest selling point of the movie is Clooney and his performance, and the fact that The Artist's Jean Dujardin is so close in the voting hurts the chances to overtake the clear favorite...

The Artist is going to win the award for Best Picture no doubt about it. And for all the reasons mentioned above, Michel Hazanavicius is a favorite to win Best Director, it is a movie about movies, it’s quirky and lighthearted and as I previously mentioned it is impossible to walk out of the theater without a smile. Plus the dog is adorable. Academy voters are old enough to remember seeing the black and whites and that nostalgia will certainly lock in their votes. While it will win the award this year, any other year it probably wouldn’t, it really is a cute movie and that is the best way to describe it but cute is not synonymous for a great film. This cute movie is a fry cry away from the brilliance that was Social Network, Black Swan, or Blue Valentine.

Let me know what you think. What did you think were the best movies of the year? Let me know. And enjoy Sunday.

Oscar Predictions 2012: Acting

2012-02-21T18:10:00.004-08:00

Let's take a look at the acting categories.

Best Supporting Actor

Christopher Plummer, Beginners
Max von Sydow, Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close
Jonah Hill, Moneyball
Kenneth Branagh, My Week With Marilyn
Nick Nolte, Warrior

This has been a lock for quite some time and is probably the lock of the night. Jonah Hill never really had a shot this year and Nick Nolte's performance wasn't going to gain any traction despite Warrior being under appreciated. Christopher Plummer has been a Hollywood great for some time and still remains statue-less. With a brilliant performance as a recently out widower he was fantastic in Beginners. Then all of a sudden people remembered that Max von Sydow is also old and doesn't have an Oscar so he looked to be gaining some support but I don't think it will matter as Plummer is the more deserving of the two. And while this was previously mentioned in the comments section by a good friend it is worth repeating how Albert Brooks and Patton Oswalt took their snubs to twitter.

Best Supporting Actress
Janet McTeer, Albert Nobbs
Bérénice Bejo, The Artist
Melissa McCarthy, Bridesmaids
Jessica Chastain, The Help
Octavia Spencer, The Help

I know how boring, another lock. The Help's success is directly based off the performance of Spencer and Viola Davis. Spencer has already walked away with an arm full of awards for her performance plus she actually deserves the award. Creeping up behind her is Bérénice Bejo from The Artist, but for her to win would be a huge upset. It may surprise you that I think Bejo is in a better position to upset than Melissa McCarthy who stole the show in Bridesmaids but we all know the Academy hates comedies already, plus she won an Emmy for her movie performance so that has to count for something. While I think McCarthy and Spencer did equally well in their respective movies Spencer should have an easy win of it.

Best Actress
Glenn Close, Albert Nobbs
Rooney Mara, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo
Viola Davis, The Help
Meryl Streep, The Iron Lady
Michelle Williams, My Week With Marilyn

Why won't they let poor Meryl Streep alone, haven't they done enough to her psyche. Forcing her to sit in the front row year after year and knowing she is going to lose. It looks like now she is in second place following the front runner Viola Davis. While Streep may have won the BAFTA award and the Golden Globe for The Iron Lady, Davis won the critics’ choice and SAG award. And doesn't playing Margret Thatcher seem like her begging to win. They may be knotted up in Oscar precursors but it appears Davis has more support from The Academy. Viola Davis will be the 14 th person to beat out Streep for the Oscar.

Best Actor
Jean Dujardin, The Artist
Demián Bichir, A Better Life
George Clooney, The Descendants
Brad Pitt, Moneyball
Gary Oldman, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

Finally a category that is still up for grabs. With both George Clooney and Jean Dujardin having won a golden globe for their performance this is really anyone's race. Dujardin may have the slight advantage having won the SAG award. Since the race is so close we could actually look at the performances themselves. Both men starred as men who were broken and beaten down in their story. No matter how hard you looked it still seemed like Clooney with all his Clooney charm playing the part rather that Matt King on the screen. Dujardin has the advantage of being an unknown but he also had to convey all of his emotion via expression. You still got what he was thinking without more than 5 words spoken and that to me speaks to a better performance. I believe that Dujardin deserves the win more so I'm going with him as my pick.

Tomorrow we'll give a look at Best Picture.

Oscar Predictions 2012: Part 1

2012-02-21T14:53:00.000-08:00

Here is the problem with this year's award ceremony. It was a down year for movies. Last year there were so many good movies to pick from (and they still went with the obvious choice in the King's Speech). After that they showed their age leaving movies like Drive and 50/50 off the ballots. Meanwhile love them or hate them movies like Tree of Life and Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close were nominated for best picture because of the way the voting is structured. So with some big snubs and with so few movies to choose from it seems like everything is pretty much locked up but we'll take a look at eight of the biggest categories. Today I'll take a look at the writers and directors

Best Adapted Screenplay
Alexander Payne, Jim Rash, and Nat Faxon, The Descendants
John Logan, Hugo
George Clooney, Grant Heslov, and Beau Willimon, The Ides of March
Aaron Sorkin, Steven Zaillian, and Stan Chervin, Moneyball
Peter Staughan and Bridget O'Connor, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

It looked like at one point Hugo could win the award but has since been taken over by the Hawaiian wave that is The Descendants. With a win from the WGA and major last minute surge overall The Descendants have been creeping up the Oscar ballots. Typically the Academy likes to recognize only one writer rather than a team for whatever reason. But Alexander Payne has been receiving much of the adulation for the movie, including this blog, more so than his contributors so that may give it the advantage. Moneyball probably deserves the award though as Sorkin was able to take a book that was completely unfilmable and turn it into an Oscar contender full of quick dialogue and a story that can be enjoyed by the non sports fan. That is talent.

Best Original Screenplay
Michel Hazanavicius, The Artist
Annie Mumolo and Kristin Wiig, Bridesmaids
J.C. Chandor, Margin Call
Woody Allen, Midnight in Paris
Asghar Farhadi, A Separation

Wouldn't you love to see Bridesmaids win, well I would but if you had to go with a nostalgic pick that vote would probably be going to Midnight in Paris which seems like a lock for the award. It has the rare quality of being a movie that should win and many experts are predicting to win. If for nothing else you had to enjoy the conversations from Ernest Hemingway and Salvador Dali. Although with a big night predicted from Michel Hazanavicius don't be surprised if this movie takes this award with all the momentum the movie has gathered.

Best Director
Michel Hazanavicius, The Artist
Alexander Payne, The Descendants
Martin Scorsese, Hugo
Woody Allen, Midnight in Paris
Terrence Malick, The Tree of Life

What a group of talented directors this year. Yes Malick is a weird guy, but Badlands is frickin bad ass. Then again he has dinosaurs in his movie so he is probably out of any serious contention. Scorsese made a wonderful movie about movies, and the Academy loves self promotion, plus he ventured far out of his comfort zone. Payne and Allen went the opposite direction and told a story they have told before but both do a really good job telling it. Frankly any of these directors are deserving but all of the momentum seems to be surrounding Hazanavicius and with a win from the DGA and favored to win the big award he seems like a lock to win for best director.

Tomorrow we'll take a look at the acting category.

Ghost Rider 2: Spirit of Vengence

2012-02-20T07:14:00.000-08:00

There was no way anyone thought that Ghost Rider 2: Spirit of Vengeance was going to be anything more than a bad movie. The only debate was if it was going to be so bad that it was good or that it was going to be just terrible. It had all the tools to be the former, I'm just not quite sure if the movie got there. As long as you don't get bogged down by things like acting, cohesiveness or consistency then there is a chance you may find the trashy fun in Ghost Rider 2 that I'm sure it was supposed to have.

Nicolas Cage returns as The Ghost Rider the superhero that always had the potential to be cool, just not if it was reigned in by a PG-13 rating. He sold his soul to Satan and now is consumed by this demon who hunts down evil men for the devil. The back story seems more or less irrelevant but the directing duo of Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor does do something fun with it by animating the story to give the movie more of the comic book feel. Once they cut back to present day they can go right into the action. That may be the only thing they get right in the whole movie.

Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor are the same duo who brought you Crank 2. I never saw that movie though because I believe Crank had a pretty solidified ending where there was no coming back from. Well apparently I was wrong so it is clear that these two have no problem dealing in the ridiculous including having the Rider piss fire. If any of you saw the trailer this may have been the moment where you laughed to yourselves and thought this may be a fun movie to see. While that scene may have been intended for more, it is such a throwaway moment that there is no doubt in my mind they put it in there just for the sake of the trailer.

Cage seems to only be putting in half effort in this one. You may be saying to yourself how does an Academy Award winning actor who has agreed to do whatever movie he can to pay off his massive tax bills put in even less effort? Well if there is one thing that ole Nic has become known for it is when he flies off the handle, and that seems to be the only time he puts in any effort into the movie. Add that to the fact that when Blaze became the rider he didn't need to show up at all thanks to CGI. Cage phones this movie in from the get go and that is saying a lot considering the movies he has been doing

They did everything they possibly could to ruin this movie, they made it PG-13, they shot it all in Eastern Europe to keep the budget low, they got rid of any semblance of recognizable actors they had from the original and of course they added an annoying child to the plot line. There are some of you that I'm sure will still find a way to enjoy the movie. But I think my head would have hurt less if I had left the 3D glasses off the whole movie. D-

The Descendants

2012-02-07T16:50:00.000-08:00

After winning the Golden Globe for Best Drama The Descendants have to be one of the front runners to walk away with Best Picture along with several other awards in the big night. If The Artist represents everything that is happy and good, than The Descendants may be the exact opposite. The difference in tone may decide which film walks away with the statuette. The Descendants is both funny and devastating and captures the moments in life we fear the most with eloquence.

George Clooney stars as Matt King a working father who at his best considers himself second rate. After his wife is injured in a boating accident within the opening sequence of the movie he needs to step up and be something more to his family. All the while he and his cousins hold the fate of some of Hawaii's last bit of land in their hand as they are the direct descendants from Hawaii's last ruling family.

Clooney turns out of his best performances for the troubled father. Think Up in the Air, but that character in the third act. Don't get me wrong he is still playing Clooney in the movie, but with a definite lack of togetherness and cool. He plays the character effortlessly which makes the performance that much more believable and heartbreaking. He allows his character to bumble a little bit, to be awkward, because that is normal people would react. Matt King doesn't have all the right answer or the right moves and often makes mistakes, and that's what makes the character so endearing and relatable.

Clooney plays the part of Matt King perfectly, he allows for the awkward moments to seep into his performance. The movie comes off as a perfect balance between dramatic and funny. The Hawaiian backdrop is wonderful juxtaposition to the mundane and depressing he finds himself in. Not every action gets the perfect reaction; sometimes he comes off as downright cruel when facing stressful moments which anyone can relate to in wishing they could take what they said back.

Alexander Payne, who wrote and directed the movie, loves making characters who find themselves on the brink and who are already broken. He did great work in Election, About Schmidt, and Sideways. It is tough to believe this is his first movie since 2004, but Payne knows his strengths and knows the stories that he wants to tell. His experience with lead characters who are imperfect help to drive the best performance out of Clooney and what makes the movie so relatable.

There is a lot in the movie to feel down about, after all the movie opens with Matt King's wife stuck in a coma. His daughters are difficult girls to deal with, his eldest seems to be dating a complete toolbag and the people around him all seem very selfish. But as some people do, the characters tend to use comedy as a way to cope with their grief and that endears us to some of the softer moments in the movie. We see the character lean on each other for strength and it is when people are thrust into difficult situations that we often see them at their best. The characters become more endearing as the movie progresses.

The best performance besides that of Clooney may come from his eldest daughter played by Shailene Woodley. She plays the part of the spoiled brat so well, but when she needs to be she quickly becomes her father most trusted confidant. She makes the transition believable and that is the most important part of the role, she is able to be hated as the movie starts and seamlessly becomes beloved by the time the credits role. Beau Bridges does a great job as well having his character move in the opposite direction. He plays laid back so well that his callousness sneaks up on you. Every member of the supporting cast does a fantastic job of advancing the story and elevating the lead.

Just as the movie is looking to soften up though and place the audience at ease Payne is quick to hit them again and bring down the whole tone of the movie. The movie has a beautiful reality to it, and makes you feel what the actors are going through is genuine. It is rare to have a movie deal with such a depressing reality and give such a honest reaction that you can still walk out of the movie with a feeling of hope. The Descendants walk that line the whole time and on February 26th may be walking away with the best picture award. A-

Oscars 2012: First Thoughts

2012-01-24T12:12:00.000-08:00

The Road to Wrestlemani...the Oscars have finally begun. Most would agree it was a pretty weak year in film. There are a score of movies that came out last year which would probably be taking home the award this year. That is just not the case though, so let's take a look at some of the nominations or lack there of

Best Picture
“The Artist”
“The Descendants”
“Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close”
“The Help”
“Hugo”
“Midnight in Paris”
“Moneyball”
“The Tree of Life”
“War Horse”

With different rules this year one of the biggest questions was how many movies would be nominated in this category. In order to be nominated for best picture the movie needed to receive at least 5% of the vote. Many thought that because the field was weak this year it would lead to fewer nominees. Instead it led to more. With the most surprising selection being “Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close” followed closely by “The Tree of Life.” Both of these movies left critics and audiences highly divided walking out of the theater. Despite the Academy not normally supporting comedies, I honestly thought that “Bridesmaids” would make it through this year, sadly it was not to be as the combination of Tom Hanks and September 11th seems too strong a pull for the older Academy voters. While it was never going to happen weren’t you kind of hoping to see the final Harry Potter movie get nominated, say what you wish about the series, bit if you put away any bias you may have it was a good movie, and one of the best this year. Not an artistic choice, but a really well done movie.

BEST DIRECTOR
Michel Hazanavicius ("The Artist")
Alexander Payne ("The Descendants")
Martin Scorsese ("Hugo")
Woody Allen ("Midnight in Paris")
Terrence Malick ("The Tree of Life")

Four of the five directors nominated also were nominated for the Director's Guild Award. While it may shock some to see Steven Spielberg off the list, the more surprising diss is without question David Fincher for his take on “The Girl with The Dragon Tattoo.” Spielberg is usually snubbed come awards season, it didn't help that his horse movie wasn't as so much good as it was sentimental. Fincher did terrific work, well maybe not terrific but certainly better than Terrence Malick whose own star couldn’t even understand “The Tree of Life.”

BEST ACTOR
Demián Bichir ("A Better Life")
George Clooney "The Descendants")
Jean Dujardin ("The Artist")
Gary Oldman ("Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy")
Brad Pitt ("Moneyball")

Clooney, Pitt, and Dujardin, were obvious selections and while it seems to be a two man race between Clooney and Dujardin many thought that two of the biggest rising stars in Hollywood would get the nod as well. Without a doubt the biggest snubs of the day came in this category with the exclusion of Michael Fassbender and Ryan Gosling. Gosling had three fantastic performances in “The Ides of March,” “Drive,” and “Crazy, Stupid Love” (which would actually get him a supporting nomination). But Fassbender seemed like the bigger snub of the two, though it makes more sense as Academy voters typically don't support naked men. But seriously has anyone seen “A Better Life’ besides Christoph Waltz?

BEST ACTRESS
Glenn Close ("Albert Nobbs")
Viola Davis ("The Help")
Rooney Mara ("The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo")
Meryl Streep ("The Iron Lady")
Michelle Williams ("My Week with Marilyn")

A lot of people are surprised that Rooney Mara made the list; I am not one of them. She did well but many of the experts thought that took away from Tilda Swinton for Let's Talk About Kevin. I didn't see this one so can't speak to it. Moving on.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Kenneth Branagh ("My Week with Marilyn")
Jonah Hill ("Moneyball")
Nick Nolte ("Warrior")
Christopher Plummer ("Beginners")
Max von Sydow ("Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close")

Love that Nick Nolte got nominated for “Warrior.” This was one of my favorite movies of the year and I suggest every guy out there go out and watch this one. This is one of the reasons that Tom Hardy got cast as Bane. The movie was marketed wrong initially, but it had a lot of great action sequences and was a fun watch. I did not think that Jonah Hill was going to get nominated either, but was glad to see him on the list. Now the question is did Albert Brooks deserve the nomination. He certainly was good but I completely forgot about his performance until people kept talking about it which may be the most telling sign of his deserving the honor.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Bérénice Bejo ("The Artist")
Jessica Chastain ("The Help")
Melissa McCarthy ("Bridesmaids")
Janet McTeer ("Albert Nobbs")
Octavia Spencer ("The Help")

It is surprising that Bejo got nominated in this category and not for lead actress, but that was her decision to make as she submits herself into the category. Melissa McCarthy getting nominated was well deserved for her performance and also a way to make up for the fact that her movie didn't make it to the big one. But everyone knows this award will belong to Octavia Spencer by the end of the night.

Best Animated Film
“A Cat in Paris”
“Chico & Rita”
“Kung Fu Panda 2”
“Puss in Boots”
“Rango”

How did Puss in Boots get nominated? And while “Cars 2” didn't make it, and didn't deserve to make it I'm still surprised it didn't make it. This will be the first year in a while that Pixar won't walk away with the major award, which means this field is wide open.

Finally how are there only two songs nominated for Best Song. Man or Muppet will go head-to-head with Real in Rio. But where is the love, for songs from Elton John, Mary J. Blidge, and this year's Golden Globe winner Madonna all being left off the list. Even with the prospect of a Muppet performance at The Oscars it is surprising not to see more nominations, and for that matter where is the love for last year's winner Trent Reznor. His score for “The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo” is what garnered a lot of the early buzz for the movie. You certainly could take off one of John Williams’s two nominations for scores as that are completely interchangeable and sound like every other Spielberg movie he worked on
.
Those were my thoughts. What did you think? Let me know.

Haywire

2012-01-19T14:04:00.000-08:00

Steven Sogerbergh has been talking about retiring from the film industry for some time now, that being said this is his 25th film in a little over 20 years. He has never done a movie involving so much fighting as he is usually known for his dark shots and dialogue heavy stories. He is still able to put his own spin on the genre and makes Haywire an enjoyable movie even if it leaves no long lasting impression.

Newcomer Gina Carano stars as a black ops agent seeking revenge after being set-up on her latest mission. She was plucked from television after Steven Soderbergh saw her beating up a woman in a cage. At one point she was ranked number three in her weight class and was referred to as the face of women's MMA. It didn't hurt that she was also listed as number 16 on Maxim's Hot 100 List. Taking all that into account while she is a very talented and blessed woman, acting is not one of her strong suites. Soderbergh seems to understand that and builds up the movie around this fact. She is asked to deliver very little dialogue and instead just be herself whether it calls for total bad ass or drop dead gorgeous. He also puts a litany of huge and talented male counterparts at her disposal to carry any scene and also get lined up for an ass whooping.

It is clear that Steven Soderbergh is one of those directors that can get any actor he wants. With almost no money in his budget he is able to go out there and gather amazing talent to surround his leading lady. He is clearly able to get his actors to do anything he wants as well, he gets Antonio Banderas to put on a horrific beard, Ewan McGregor to sport a dorky looking hair cut, and puts Bill Paxton in a mustache which is always a ridiculous look, with some notable exceptions. The limited dialogue which is important to getting the story across is delivered by men who have more training than Carano. She instead is put in her comfort zone and handles the hand to hand combat throughout the movie with nameless punks along with Channing Tatum and Michael Fassbender. Despite his much larger size her encounter with Tatum still looks believable and her sequence with Fassbender in a hotel room is the coolest in the movie. The opening sequence may be jarring for those who are not comfortable watching a woman get her ass handed to her but as McGregor's character states in the movie "You shouldn’t think of her as a woman. No, that would be a mistake." She knows how to handle herself.

In a time when fight sequences have become full of quick cuts and body doubles Soderbergh takes a refreshing look. He shoots most of the sequences in long view and wide shots. He also uses long continuous shots to show off just how talented his leading lady is. He cast her for the very purpose of being a believable action hero who could handle the men around her. There is also no music over these sequences, he isn't trying to over-dramatize the scenes and lets the audience hear every hit and grunt. This is Soderbergh's first attempt at a martial arts film and makes it his own allowing the actors to do the heavy lifting instead of over dubbing everything with effects.

Soderbergh's head is clearly involved in the action and not so much the plot. The story is kind of ridiculous so don't try and overly concern yourself with it. Even Len Dobbs, who wrote the story and has worked previously with Steven, boils the plot points down by the end of the movie. It lacks any kind of convincing story to get the audience to care about his characters. The story seems more concerned with the visuals whether it be an action sequence or the background as he takes his movie to various locations across the globe. And if the writing staff isn't worried about the story I wouldn't either, just sit back and enjoy

Haywire is a solid action movie that runs at a brief 90 minutes. Gina Carano does a fine job as the indie-female version of Jason Bourne. It is a fun movie and much of that is clearly attributed to Soderbergh. He does a great job getting what he needs out of everyone on his staff and knows when to take his foot off the gas and let the audience enjoy the view. Plus it is always fun watching a woman kick ass. B-

Contraband

2012-01-11T15:14:00.000-08:00

A former thief must commit one last job in order to look after and protect his family, coming out this week Mark Wahlberg stars in The Italian Job. Wait no, that knock off came out in 2003 and was based off a 1969 movie, this knock off is based off a 2008 Icelandic movie. Contraband is actually directed by the star of the original movie, so at least with a larger budget and the experience of working on the same story before the crew should be able to make a well done movie. At its best Contraband is a formulaic genre piece that is something to see if there is nothing else on.

In this version of the movie Marky Mark plays Chris Farraday, a former thief who once had the nickname of Houdini for his ability to get illicit items past customs agents. He has since got out of the game and now installs security systems and comes home to his loving children and wife played by Kate Beckinsale. That is until his wife's brother gets in deep with a man who is not quick to forgive for lost merchandise. He now must commit one final job to get his brother in law out of trouble and protect his family.

This is a far cry from anything worthy of an academy award by Marky Mark. The project seems perfectly tailored to a younger Wahlberg when he was making movies like The Italian Job. The movie though lacked any of the pop he displayed in The Departed or the humor from I Heart Huckabees. He instead reverts back to his comfort zone of principled tough guy rocking tight t-shirts. Which is fine, he does display a level of comfort in the role knowing it is well within his wheel house. Fortunately for everyone he doesn't attempt a New Orleans accent, and instead sticks with his Boston attitude and accent.

Kate Beckinsale is stuck at home playing wifey and offers very little to the role besides playing the damsel in distress. The only performance that really stands out is Giovanni Ribisi as character actor and fill-in bad guy Tim Briggs, rocking out neck tattoos and poorly groomed facial hair to let everyone know his role. His performance is completely over the top but it fits the movie and he is fun to watch. It is also too ridiculous to take him as a serious threat.

Ridiculousness tends to run throughout the movie as each series of event seems to be far too coincidental to do anything but laugh at. Once they make port it seems that the boat is always in a state of shipping off in 10 minutes. It lacks any control of a realistic timeline as there is no way they would be able to get any of these things done in the time they have set out to do it in. This plays a problem as it seems the funky bunch have a laundry list of things to do before heading back, with each event leading up to another even more outlandish task. The problem with the story is it seems the writing staff first wrote an action beat every 10 pages or so and then filled in the rest from there. This may be why any semblance of story seems lost in the jumble; it’s as if they ran out of room to write before they hit another car sequence. Probably the only intentionally funny part of the movie involves the theft of a near priceless Jackson Pollack.

The movie's director Balastar Kormakur tries to raise the stakes by using a lot of shaky camera techniques and quick zooms. All this accomplishes though is an unfocused shot that takes you directly out of the story.

At the very least Contraband knows that it is a genre movie, and doesn't try to be anything more grandiose. It is a mediocre movie that could stand out because in general January is usually a lackluster time for movies. This may not be enough to make you go out and see it immediately but at least you know it is out there. C+

The Artist

2011-12-25T08:25:00.001-08:00

The Artist has the opportunity to alienate a lot of people before anyone even steps up to the ticket counter. The movie is done in black and white, it is mostly a silent movie, and there is little chance you will recognize either lead actor. While this may deter some people from seeing it I encourage you not to be one of them. The Artist is a beautifully crafted movie, and within a couple months may be declared the best movie of the year.

The Artist is a silent movie about the silent movie era. It follows two different careers and how they intersect while the industry transitions to the talkie era. These two actors could very well be right out of the 1920's. It stars Jean Dujardin as George Valentine, the king of Hollywood during the silent film era. After his most recent premiere he bumps into Peppy Miller played by Berenice Bejo. You may not know their names now, but I'm sure the Academy does, these two play to the era perfectly and look the part to boot. While on camera they are able to capture the era by hamming it up, but when the characters are alone they play down their parts. They display every thought perfectly to the audience, who needs words when you already know exactly what’s been said.

It isn't exactly a silent movie though, not only is there a scant bit of dialogue but there are also some perfectly placed sound effects to accentuate the moment. Also throughout the movie is a beautifully made soundtrack done by Ludovic Bource. While far more elaborate than any orchestra would play at the time; the score keeps a modern audience engaged throughout the many mood swings of the story. Listen closely and you may also hear pieces of Bernard Herrmann's score from Vertigo. Actually they pretty much lift the piece entirely, along with the breakfast table scene from Citizen Kane. No matter though, they fit the piece perfectly.

While all about the Hollywood era this isn't like one of the movies that the studios would look to crank out by Thursday. It looks more like an early French film than early Hollywood which would make sense because while it was shot in LA this is a French movie. Although you would never notice it as there are plenty of American actors and no French accents. The moments that give away the film’s origin are on screen in the director's artistic choices that very few American directors would even attempt. Contemporary directors would have a hard time getting support to make a silent, black and white film in this era. Making it all the more impressive that Michel Hazanavivius wrote and directed such a beautifully crafted film, in a 1.33 aspect ratio no less.

While careful to detail some aspects of the time the production crew are quick to abandon others. Gone are the soft focus close ups of the time, replaced with a clearer image more prevalent today. More important to the filmmakers are capturing the mood, energy, and emotional appeal. A direct tribute may have kept more people away; capturing moments using techniques from across the first half of the century will get more people inside the movie house. This isn't a movie done in the times, so much as a tribute to times gone by.

The movie has it all and captures almost every genre from comedy to melodrama to romance; it is as silly as it is serious. The plot is probably as predictable as any goodhearted movie of the era. Part of the charm of the movie is they are playing with old Hollywood clichés especially in the first half. While it comes off as corny at times we allow this trespass to occur because despite knowing what is coming we want to see how.

The technique of The Artist is grand but it is the performances of the artists that capture the audience. Every look and movement by these two actors brings to life an era that reflects a modern life of things constantly being left behind. They are able to be cheesy when showing off for the camera, but also capture a soft sincere look that will melt your heart. This is a beautifully done movie that will have you smiling long after you leave the theater. A

War Horse

2011-12-22T09:30:00.000-08:00

While talking to my friend about War Horse, he told me that he initially thought there was some deeper meaning to the title; it wasn’t until later that he found out that the movie is literally about a horse in a war. Any kind of serious discussion about the movie from that point on was impossible. This makes the review all that more difficult to write because Steven Spielberg takes his story very seriously. You know the one about a horse, in a war.

Steven Spielberg takes us back to just before the start to The Great War. It opens on a young Albert Narracott, played by newcomer Jeremy Irvine, who takes his first look at the pony which he will one day own named Joey. The beginning 45-minutes of the movie not only set up the bond between the horse and his owner but set the tone of being over romanticized and overly-dramatic. With sweeping landscapes and a beautiful setting it is tough not to be taken in by the beauty of the movie. The music though is too on the nose to be taken completely seriously. John Williams, who composes the score, goes full throttle trying to bring the weepies out of the viewing audience. The sentiment these two frequent partners in crime are trying to get off is clear, it is never more noticeable than this segment of the film but the tone carries on the rest of the way.

The story has now been told through the written word, on stage, and now takes to the screen. This may be hard to understand but of the three versions, the one with a real horse may be the least believable. The story comes from the 1982 novel where the horse is the narrator of the story. It then took to the stage where it won a TONY for best play by using wonderfully crafted puppetry reminiscent of what “The Lion King” has been doing in front of packed houses for over a decade now. Spielberg decided to use a real animal and let the people around him do the narration and allow the horse to be perceived as it normally would be. The animal truly is beautiful and after viewing the movie, it is impressive just what they were able to train this animal to do. But one thing it can’t give you is a reaction shot as the horse is just going to look at the camera no matter how many close-ups of its face you give it, and there were a lot. In the other two mediums there was a level of mysticism behind the story telling because the animal wasn’t real so you allowed yourself to be taken away by the emotional plight of the character. Here it looks almost like they are trying to make up for what they lost by being over-romanticized and the outcome just makes it look cheesy.

Once the actual war begins the director creates more genuine moment. One of the most memorable come from the horse’s war time owner Captain Nicholls played by Tom Hiddleston as we witness first hand one of the most notable moments in wartime history in the transition of fighting styles to automatic weapons. One other moment comes towards the end of the movie; feel free to jump to the next paragraph as there are SPOILERS AHEAD. But not really as this is the moment before the climax of the film, I’ll do my best to be vague. It features two soldiers coming out of their respective trenches to aid the horse which was stuck in barbed wire in no man’s land. While coming off initially corny I appreciate the filmmaker referencing a little known moment in history called the Christmas Truce that took place across the Western Front between the warring sides. It is no surprise that Spielberg is able to properly capture these moments of war as he has had so much experience in the past creating them.

One of the most talented filmmakers of our time, Speirberg takes his expertise in both action packed war movies and childhood films and is able to create quite the hybrid that is getting a lot of award talk. The accolades the movie has received may be more attributed to the source material, the timing, and the man behind the project than the film itself. He does create a movie that can be viewed by audiences of all ages and that is something rarely seen in movie making anymore. B-

The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo

2011-12-20T13:25:00.000-08:00

It has been tough to escape the Millennium trilogy for the past three years. Author Stieg Larsson left his trilogy unpublished, it wasn’t until after his death that the books hit the shelves and became a worldwide phenomenon. It then became a movie made in Sweden which did not shine away from the darker parts of the story with European audiences unafraid to deal with such issues. When trying to make an American version of the film the studios called on none other than David Fincher who previously worked on Se7en and Zodiac. With an expertise in sadistic storytelling Fincher gives his telling of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo an American touch.

In case you were unaware that David Fincher was directing the movie, the opening sequence should give it away. Two bodies cased in oil and covered in flame become one with Trent Rezner’s cover of "The Immigrant Song", the story hasn’t even started yet and his style comes screaming at you already. The concept behind this project plays perfectly into what Fincher is known for and is truly a perfect pairing. While there is little he can add to the overall story in fear of alienating fans, his biggest addition to the film is a glossy touch. For fans of the book and the Swedish movie, available on Netflix streaming, some of you may be surprised what he kept in the movie if you were anything like me who believed the American version was going to be softer. Fincher is still able to soften up the material through with some deadpan delivery from his leading lady. It is tough to tell whether some of the laughs were intended or accidental considering what’s going on.

Past the opening sequence, and for those of you unaware the movie opens on Mikael Blomkvist, played by Daniel Craig, leaving the courtroom having just been convicted of libel after going after the head of a major corporation. He probably should not have gone to print with material from one anonymous source. Either way with free time after stepping down from his magazine he accepts a job to investigate a 40-year-old murder of a young girl. While this is going on a brash young female rolls into the parking lot on her motorcycle, hair dyed black and still in a mohawk once she removes the helmet. Lisbeth Salander played by Rooney Mara has just completed her own investigation through different means, which some may call illegal, but now finds herself in trouble in her personal life. With the two different characters come the two completely different style of story, until the midway point where their paths cross and Fincher combines the tones into the one main arc. They almost seem as they could be two different movies, once they converge on each other Fincher allows the two to blend together till they are on the same beat.

Fincher takes his time before our two leads meet. Mikael Blomkvist’s story seems pretty straightforward, and he allows Craig to insert his confidence into the role, a confidence not seen in the original. The other half of the story dwells on the darker side. The character starts off visually assaulting, she seems so detached and soft spoken, isolated from the world. It isn’t till we see her investigative prowess where she shows off her skills and fortitude that the audience starts rooting for her. Larsson delves deep into the past and shows what made Lisbeth this way, and continues to do so throughout the story. Noomi Rapace injected herself into Lisbeth, succumbing to the psychosis of the character and entrenching herself in the darkness. Mara allows some light to shine through; her depiction of the character has a confidence to her as well. Not like Craig, who always has a swagger about him, Mara shows her confidence by playing Lisbeth as comfortable in her own skin. Mara doesn’t possess the same dark strength as the Swedish version. No doubt this is the studio telling her to play the psychosis down fearing they may alienate the audience. That darkness is what made Rapace’s portrayal of the character so mesmerizing in the original trilogy and will definitely be seen as lacking by fans of the material.

To not know about this story before this movie comes out probably means you avoided beaches, any major mode of transportation, or friends who enjoy holding it over your head that they actually read in their spare time. For some this may be the third time in the past three years to see a different take on one story. The source material is so strong that there is little doubt that this movie won’t be a success. To attach big names like David Fincher and Daniel Craig to the project only injects more confidence into the film. A confidence that definitely lacked in the Swedish movie, but don’t mistake that as positive. You don’t necessarily want a superhero or a glossy touch when dealing with gruesome murder. Mikael Nyqvist played the lead more straight on with little nuance to the role, but would a reporter really know how to handle torture as well as a James Bond would?

It is tough to not compare the book or the first movie to this new one considering how quickly all three were released. This movie stands well on its own and does a loyal retelling of the book through most of the movie. And short of adding a little gloss to the movie and taking away subtitles the shots aren’t all that different from the Swedish version. There is a lot to like about this movie, but that has more to do with the story than any changes that took place in this version. While it may not have needed a glossy touch, or a retelling as the original movie was done so well. If this is what it takes to get more people to see this story than they put together quite a team to execute with a gripping finished product. B+

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

2011-12-13T13:45:00.000-08:00

It was two years ago when Guy Ritchie debuted his take of the famous detective from Baker Street. From the outset it enraged traditionalist fans who did not want Sherlock Holmes to be a gritty street fighter. It was fun to watch as any blockbuster should be and Robert Downey Jr. was in the middle of his resurgence. Since that time Downey has become an A-lister while the original movie grossed $524 million dollars worldwide. So while certainly not a great movie it put butts in the seats and while I thought the franchise would be left for dead with Holmes greatest nemesis waiting in the wings the crew had another chance at the 19th century detective. With more confidence Guy Ritchie returns with Robert Downey and Jude Law to create a much stronger story sure to be enjoyed by many fans this holiday season.

We are several years removed from the original story and Sherlock Holmes is trying to unravel his biggest case to date. He has already thwarted the plans of a master criminal several times, but what all these crimes are building up to is impossible for our hero to deduce. Meanwhile his loyal sidekick John Watson is getting married and moving on beyond this life of danger. Holmes convinces his old partner to help thwart his most worthy adversary in one final adventure.

It is worth noting that while Professor James Moriarty is the villain most notably linked with Sherlock Holmes he only appeared in Sir Author Conan Doyle's last story. Conan Doyle wanted to create a formidable opponent for Holmes to end on so he featured a brilliant scholar who could match wits with the detective. 'The Final Problem' became one of the most famous stories and is why Moriarty is as much a part of Holmes lore as Watson is. In a world of sequels it is easy to tell why Ritchie would save Holmes' most famed nemesis for later.

That being said Jared Harris was an odd choice for the great mastermind. For such a major threat they have chosen a relatively small actor, one that comes nowhere near the level of Robert Downey Jr. It is tough to believe the two characters are equal when the performances are not. Harris has full control over the intellectual portion of the character as exemplified in his work from 'Mad Men' he just doesn't seem believable as an imposing threat. It would have been wonderful to see what an Alan Rickman-esque actor could have done with the character he seems to have the perfect combination of controlled anger at his disposal. Similarly Noomi Rapace does little as our heroes' gypsy ally. Short of her opening action sequence she seldom helps develop the protagonist or the plot. It makes you miss Rachel McAdams as the prominent female lead who did little to nothing extraordinary in the first one except look stunning.

The story though bears its success on the shoulders of our hero and as can be expected Robert Downey Jr. once again does a fantastic job as the movie titular character. He was one of the few bright spots from the original and here he does more of the same with a darker twist to the character reflecting the raised stakes. The character is constantly banged up as his tweaks seem to not only reflect his thought process but the danger he finds himself in. His delivery builds upon the originals strengths as he is quick to lay out a subtle jab. Whether it is a physical or verbal one he does so in prefect deadpan form. Just as important to the character's delivery is his relationship with his lifelong friend John Watson once again played by Jude Law. Still a thankless role as Downey will surely outshine him, if not for the set-up and report provided by Law's portrayal of the character it stands to reason that much of the energy in the movie would fizzle. In the first movie most of their relationship was shown through an angry reluctance, there for each other because their bonds had been built over time. In the second story the relationship seems much more reflective as each understands their partnership is coming to an end. Their bond drives a large part of the movie; it helps to heighten the action sequences and is the main source of entertainment through the down beats as well.

Guy Ritchie seems much more comfortable directing this time, while he still uses most of the techniques that cluttered his first attempt he seems more restrained and allows his style to help tell his story rather than using it to gloss over unpolished sequences. The most notable technique being when Holmes slows down the action to predict his enemies attacks. It was used more for the character last time, here Ritchie uses this sequence and the outcome to provide perspective to the story. The action scenes benefit the most from Ritchie’s first crack at the story while the music of Hans Zimmer really highlight what is going on. The bachelor party, the scene on the train, and the climax all become exponentially more exciting than the action beats from the original. In the same breath though the scenes in between the action tend to drag a little bit and while the two leads do all they can to liven up the scenes it still seems like it takes a while to get to each major plot point.

There are those will argue that this is just another typical Hollywood sequel with more action and less substance. While you can certainly argue the former, the latter seems unfounded. The first movie had no intention of being taken seriously, merely meant to entertain, A Game of Shadows seems much more entertaining than the original in a large part due to the return of the two male leads and the director working hard together to improve their story. As long as you allow yourself to go into the movie with the expectations set from the first movie in the series and not the original stories you should be able to enjoy the movie. It is very much the same type of movie just done a little better. B-

New Year's Eve

2011-12-06T01:55:00.000-08:00

From the same people who brought you Valentine's Day, just in case you couldn't tell, Gerry Marshall takes another holiday that is always completely blown out of proportion, slaps together a bunch of A-listers, and creates as many shallow characters with inconsequential plot lines as possible and calls it New Year's Eve. It is the exact same movie.

Want any more proof that this is the exact same movie; they cast some of the same actors and just gave them different names. That's right we are led to believe that in this universe where everyone is three degrees away from everyone else on holidays there are two people who look exactly like Ashton Kutcher and Jessica Biel on both sides of the country. Didn't you learn your lesson from the first movie; I know you didn't do it for the money because Chuck Lorre and CBS are literally throwing money at Ashton to keep their sitcom alive. Maybe it is just a fun movie to do and I assume the schedule is super flexible because they only need you for like two weeks of shooting.

We could go over all of the plot lines but added up I doubt any story gets more than twenty minutes of screen time so there is no way to make any kind of connection to the story which is probably for the better. All of the clichés you can imagine make it into the movie people get stuck in an elevator, running into an ex, first kisses, bucket lists and obviously the New Year’s Ball breaks and there is concern it may not drop on time. It doesn't really matter who stars in which role as you can just throw in any actor to be any character, as they did with Hallie Berry, it is that nondescript. Some of the more ridiculous moments feature a dying Robert De Niro trying to get to the roof of the hospital and Hilary Swank talking on National News about being nicer to people or some shit.

The movie studio involved is Warner Brothers who take a laughable amount of screen time to pimp out their next movie Sherlock Holmes which comes out next week. This movie is also brought to you by the fine people of Nivea. Nivea: Touch and Be Touched. As you can see their product placing skills even made it into my review, well done.

The best part of the movie was the ending, not only because you could finally leave but because there are some actually genuine moments in the outtakes where the actors were allowed to have a little fun on screen. This is the attitude and style the movie should have been made in, not whatever was happening on the screen.

There really is no reason to see this movie, for those of you that saw the first one in theaters you should still be shaking your head at that decision. At its absolute best the movie is hokey and at its worst it is laughably trite. I would say it is a bigger let down than the actual holiday but there was no way the expectations were all that high. F

A Very Harold and Kumar 3D Christmas

2011-11-03T14:21:00.001-07:00

To really enjoy A Very Harold and Kumar 3D Christmas might I suggest one of two things. Go in feeling the Christmas spirit or go in extremely high. While not necessarily requirements to enjoy the movie it will no doubt make the experience a better one. The franchise that started at White Castle has grown up and has lost a step or two. Harold and Kumar return to their drug induced states for their Christmas movie and you just might want to do the same.

It’s not that the movie isn't funny, it's just not all that hilarious but I believe that may be because I didn't see this 3D movie, the way it was intended to be seen, high. I saw it in 3D and there are all kinds of things flying at you from smoke to show to confetti to cocaine. At one point they may actually throw a kitchen sink at the audience. While they acknowledge that the whole 3D thing has "jumped the shark" it doesn't stop them from doing it, which may actually be worse. But there are also bright lights and clay-mation at work which would leave any stoned mind enchanted. Plus all the bright lights may keep you distracted from the writing.

The creative team behind the movie look to offend every minority out there, but my objection isn't the ethnic bashing it’s the lack of laughs. Once again this may all depend on your state of mind, you may be laughing out loud throughout the whole movie, or only chuckling a few times. Most of these laughs are in the first half of the movie, and if you are anything like me you may look at the clock and be unable to believe the movie was 90 minutes when it felt like two hours.

The success of the movie though is entirely in the hands of aging stoners Harold and Kumar played by John Cho and Kal Penn respectively. The plot of the movie revolves around Harold growing up and becoming a member of Wall Street while Kumar has stayed stagnant and remains baked in his bachelor pad. They have drifted apart since escaping from Guantanamo Bay but a mysterious package has brought them together. This plot seems fitting as these two actors seem to have outgrown the roles that launched them to stardom. Both have moved onto more serious work and now seem a step behind if not a little pathetic being in their mid thirties and still acting like this. The actors still have their charm though and have much more convincing delivery than the first movie but they still just seem out of place and the roles just don't come as easily as they did seven years ago.

Brief encounters take place by all sorts of co-stars and may be the best parts of the movie. Patton Oswald plays Santa, Danny Trejo plays Harold's father in law, Eddie Kaye Thomas and David Krumholtz return as their stoner buddies and of course NPH rises from the dead to play Neil Patrick Harris which helped to re-start his career. All these roles add to the movie and they are in and out just in time for each actor to grab a couple laughs.

The movie is funny; the actors are good there just isn’t anything spectacular or innovative about the third movie in the series. There is plenty of spirit to the movie along with nods to holiday movies of the past, which is why those who love the season may love this movie as well. But bear in mind lovers of eggnog, there are also a bunch of penis shots as well. While I can’t prove that they were injecting marijuana smoke into the theater I do know I bought an entire pizza afterwards. C

In Time

2011-10-26T14:37:00.000-07:00

The movie begins with a decent enough premises for the sci-fi universe and definitely has enough potential to feel like it could be something special. It was written and directed by Andrew Niccol who also wrote Gattaca and The Truman Show so the man is no stranger to the bizarre. Niccol’s future enjoys a very glossy look with a vintage touch; he has also envisioned a future full of attractive people. It is all very fitting because In Time concerns itself more with style than substance because it offers very little beyond a cool concept.

In Time takes place in what is supposed to be a very near future, yet in this very near future somehow a few rich elite have convinced the world to shift the currency from money to time. None of this is explained mind you, how or why it happened, or how they were able to attach a glowing clock to everyone’s arm. If you are able to get past that, all you need to understand is everything is now charged in time from 4 minutes for a cup of coffee to 2 months from a hotel suite. There is still a significant difference between the rich who have the potential to live for eons and the poor who only have enough time to survive day by day.

The plot devices and situations are set clearly and are easy enough to understand that you can look past the unmentioned history, which a sci-fi is never obligated to explain instead just hope the audience can accept it and move on. The best thing Niccol does is lay the premise on thick, his problem though is that he lays everything on thick. There are so many different time puns that if I were to write them all out I don’t think I would be able to finish the review In Time. See what I did there, and if you found that annoying than get ready because this movie is stocked full of them for two hours. While the beginning of the movie is laid out very clearly it loses the momentum it may have garnered in the first half hour and loses any sense of pacing or tension. They have people running for their lives, watching their clocks tick down to zero and still it is tough to feel anything for the characters.

The lack of connection may be due to the delivery more than the writing. Justin Timberlake takes his first shot at headlining an action movie. He plays Will, who lives in the ghetto but after inheriting over a century looks to move up in the world. He plays the part just fine but he still seems too cool to be considered any kind of a bad ass or credible action hero. Amanda Seyfried plays the love interest that falls for the boy from the other side of the tracks. Niccol knows she brings very little to the part which may be why he wrote in scenes for skinny dipping and strip poker. One would expect that Pete Camball would be good at playing a little slime ball executive, but for some reason he just comes off as bland, his character on Mad Men must really benefit from Matthew Weiner’s writing. The only character who gives a convincing performance is Cillian Murphy who you may recognize from various Christopher Nolan movies. He plays a time cop who looks to uphold the society they live in and stays hot on Will’s trail.

The message is laid on extremely thickly. There will be little need to convince anyone who is seeing this movie that there is something wrong with the current situation, and seems more topical than ever with the events taking place in Oakland and Occupy Wall Street. But this movie hurts the very cause they are trying to acknowledge by stealing ten to fifteen dollars from the poor and handing that money over to wealthy movie studios. Seeing this movie is a waste of your time. D

Like Crazy

2011-10-20T22:54:00.000-07:00

The movie opens on a young couple beginning their relationship. After their first date he goes to leave her apartment and places his hand on the door, she does likewise as if the artist is attempting to say there will always be something that comes between their love. It becomes immediately obvious at this point that these two people are going to be one of those insufferable couples that everyone else hates. Nailed it. Like Crazy explores the trapping and difficulties involved with a long distance relationship and shows just how annoying watching a couple explore personal moments in public can be for everyone else.

While I did not like the movie that is not to say everyone will hate it. I’m sure there are many people in the audience who will connect with the movie whether they are currently in a long distance relationship, part of a new relationship, just getting out of a relationship, etc. Director Drake Doremus shows an honest and personal look inside almost any relationship from the cutesy moments to the bickering. The reason these moments are so personal is because no one else wants to see it. He shows his two leads being overly affectionate and annoyingly cutesy just as often as he shows the couple fighting in public. As anyone who has seen couples fight, it is an uncomfortable experience that you just hope ends without being dragged into it. Why would you want to pay for an experience that in real life you see almost any Friday night and try desperately to look away from?

The problems begin to stack up after Anna allows her student visa to expire, despite everyone telling her if she left for the summer it would be much easier to gain entry back into the country she decides to forgo that in order to spend a couple extra nights just laying in bed. It seems that most of their problems could be solved with a skype account and a couple extra plane tickets which they can obviously afford since Jacob graduated to become an instant success as a furniture designer and they can afford to make international calls on their cell phones. Many of you may respond that this is young love and everyone makes stupid mistakes at this age or without these problems there probably wouldn’t be a movie. That is all fine and well but it doesn’t mean we need to feel bad for them either. The main characters are completely unsympathetic and get everything they deserve. Besides being completely insufferable to watch they are also quick to betray each other’s trust. The most sympathetic character is Sam played by Jennifer Lawrence whose biggest fault is that she keeps falling for Jacob who keeps ditching her every time Anna becomes available. Which begs the question what is he bringing to the table that he is able to bag two girls like this, is building furniture a really sexy occupation and no one told me? If that is the case well then I have a table from Ikea that I can put together for all the ladies out there. Lawrence is without question the biggest talent in the movie and her performance is mostly tossed to the side in order to show Jacob and Anna in more montages. In fact all of the supporting actors excel in their effort to prop up their leads and are far more likeable characters; from Anna’s whiskey loving parents played by Alex Kingston and Oliver Muirhead to both of their ex’s played by Lawrence and Charlie Bewley.

It is tough to tell how much time passes between each fight but it doesn’t matter, Doremus feels it is more important to show the major moments than showing the timeline of the events and I won’t disagree. In fact Doremus made a lot of stylistic choices throughout the movie whether they match with his artistic vision or due to cost restraints it is tough to tell. They all help the story and help to give an intimate look into the relationship. He provides small moments that any audience member can connect to such as waiting for a reply from a text or sending more than one text in a neurotic hope that you’re special someone isn’t dodging you.

Anton Yelchin and Felicity Jones churn out very strong performances, especially considering most of the dialogue was improvised. They really show just how frustrating young love can be, which turns out to be the main reason why this movie is hard to watch. It is just tough to get past how maddening it was to watch these two make up and break up over the smallest trivialities. Where are these character’s friends to tell them to stay away from each other. I imagine they alienated any friends they may have had by being awful to be around.

Without sympathetic lead characters or living in a similar situation it is going to be tough to like this movie. I do suggest that if you are a couple that likes to argue in front of people I think you should see this movie, in order for you to understand how we all feel. D+

Trespass

2011-10-13T12:47:00.000-07:00

It is tough to believe that Nicolas Cage's money problems are still this bad. It really is a shame that an Academy Award winning actor now has to do movies like this. But what I can't figure out is why Nicole Kidman is involved. This is a movie that at one point had discussions of going directly to DVD, but due to some big names got a theatrical debut. For whatever the reason Joel Schumacher, who always seems to direct movies this bad yet still get some kind of box office, strikes again as he makes his attempt at the recent brash of home invasion movies.

Allow me to save you some time and tell you Cage plays a diamond investor looking to make a big score for his family who feels alienated from him. Meanwhile thieves bust into his house and want the money and the stones. From there as one can expect Cage loses his shit and refuses to go along with their plan. Then the threats from the thieves come pouring in, making all sorts of demands to get a big pay day. The last two steps repeat themselves for the next HOUR. Literally no difference: Do this or I will kill that, then Cage refuses and the process repeats itself.

I'm sure someone thought to themselves, how are we going to keep raising the tension in this scene? Rather than any character exploration or originality they choose to just move the gun around to different people. For those of you interested in how the writing meetings went my crack detective team was able to record a meeting before a shoot: "Who haven't we threatened yet? We already did all three, well how about we have the thieves threaten each other? We did that too? Fine what’s the running time? We still need 20 more minutes? Damn it! Well threaten them all again but this time with a knife, I'm calling it a day." So with legitimate tension clearly gone from the script the camera man does his best to move the camera back and forth really quickly, I applaud your attempt sir. They also kept trying to insert plot twists throughout the movie, but they aren't twists so much as a step by step following of how every movie like this is done.

By the end of the movie people in my screening were actually laughing about what was going on. This is a great movie if you want something completely over the top and melodramatic and need to turn your brain off for about 90 minutes; you just need to ask yourself if that is worth ten bucks. If all you need is an over the top laughs save your money for your convenience I have posted a video of The Wicker Man below, it has been condensed to its shortest and funniest format which is how I wish Trespass was edited. D-

50/50

2011-09-27T15:56:00.000-07:00

Whenever dealing with heavy themes, it is always important to find a balance to the material. No one in Hollywood is afraid to laugh about terminal illness anymore, but too many laughs and you risk creating an uncomfortable audience, too few and you risk being a Hallmark television movie of the week. Will Reiser is able to take a frightening part of his life and keep the audience smiling while sharing his heartfelt story of survival. 50/50 is a perfect balance of humor and heart to create a terrific story.

Let me start though with the tagline of the movie "It takes a pair to beat the odds," it's just awful. There is so much more to this movie than just two buddies looking to support each other. In fact there is a great ensemble here that helps convey the story’s message. I understand why the tag line exists; it is to let people know that there are two very popular male leads in the story. But this isn't a movie you are going to want to roll into anyway to forget about life for a while, the featured lead has cancer after all, and while there is plenty of humor behind the story the character still has a 50 percent survival rate, and the movie does not shy away from the emotional moments that come with such a diagnosis.

The movie stars Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Adam, who has just been diagnosed with an extremely rare form of cancer. And to no one’s surprise he plays the role superbly. He goes through the whole range of emotions almost effortlessly yet seems strained while doing it. The strain of course seems natural from a person who can see his own demise. Without the help of Seth Rogan, the performance may have leaned too far towards the depressing. Instead Rogan, who was a producer on the movie, balances out the story with laughs as Adam's best friend Kyle. In the third act though he is able to dig a little deeper into his character and shows why he is so easily likable by audiences despite his usual crassness.

The reason that Rogan does so well though is that he is part of the story that the movie is based on. The movie was written by Will Reiser who worked with Rogan on "Da Ali G Show" which is when he found out he had a serious form of cancer. The first draft of the script which was called "How I Learned Nothing from Cancer" I imagine lacked some of the more heartfelt moments that Gordon-Levitt was able to portray. But Reiser worked with Rogan to reflect back on this period in their lives to examine what really happened from many different perspectives. The combination and reflection both men shared helped to shape the movie.

It wasn't just the men that helped to make a strong finished product, the females co-stars help to elevate the lead actor and sometimes even outshine him. The first woman we meet is Adam's girlfriend played by Bryce Dallas Howard. She is always being cast as the beautiful bitchy character, which she has been playing so well recently. I don't understand how she plays the character so well with her grandparents being the Cunninghams, I suppose good parenting skips a generation. The bigger part though belongs to Anna Kendrick who plays Adam's therapist; she also seems to be cast in similar roles as the young professional who is in over her head. She once again does fantastic in the role and I can't wait to see her more often as she is a great personality to play the love interest in any drama. Anjelica Huston shows her years of experience and is superb as an overbearing mother. Any young person in the audience can identify why Adam may find her annoying but when he finally lets his guard down she shows him the caring and love every mother has for their son; which in turn should make every son feel guilty for blowing them off.

The sadness never becomes unbearable. Sure it may be tough to get through the whole movie without a couple sniffles, especially for those who have been through something like this before. But just when you think all the drama has taken over the actors in the movie will do something unbearably charming and will bring a smile back to your face. Often times while watching a movie I will say to myself “right here” in a hope that the movie will end on a high note, I don’t think any movie has ever gotten so close to a perfect moment, which makes sense as this story is full of near perfect moments. A-

Money Ball

2011-09-20T22:51:00.000-07:00

There is a tendency in Hollywood for their movies to have a deeper meaning. If a movie were just about zombies it may be tough to get a broad audience into the theater. So what people tend to do is add a metaphor like zombies that really stand for consumerism or lack of individuality or some B.S. like that. Or they will put in a handsome lead to attract women who may otherwise not want to see a monster movie. Moneyball has every opportunity to do these things as well and while it may touch upon these ideas this is a baseball movie about baseball stats. If you like baseball, hate the Yankees, or find mathematics interesting you'll probably like the movie. That is what the movie is about and while it has a David and Goliath feel with a charismatic Brad Pitt in the lead this is a baseball movie. And how could you hate America's Pastime?

A big contributing factor to the success of the movie is the writing team behind it. When the source material is a look at stats and analysis you need strong writing to engage the audience and that is what Steve Zallian brought to the original script. Once the script was finished they brought over Steven Soderbergh to make the film and he made several changes to the script including interviews and having the players play themselves despite the age difference, the studio was not a fan. So they took him off the project and instead brought in Bennett Miller who has worked on dry material before and squeezed Oscar juice from it with Capote. Once they found a director who would make a more traditional movie (rather ironic considering what the movie is about) they brought in Aaron Sorkin to complete a fianl draft of the script. Usually with too many chefs in the kitchen you create a mess, here it works out and while it seems scattered at times, especially the end, I believe it works to make a compelling story.

As for the story I found some objection to it and what they left out. For those of you who don't know what Moneyball is about, it is based on the true story of the Oakland A's during the early 2000's while their team was good despite the lack of resources (read: money)that teams like the New York Yankees or the Boston Red Soxs have. Billy Beane the A's GM and a former player who had been highly touted coming out of high school abandoned the old method of scouting based off looks and feel and subscribed to an anaylytical, subermetric approach to forming a team. In other words he wasn't looking at batting average and speed like other organizations he wanted player who could get on base and could hit for power. The formula was basically the need to get people on base and keep your opponent off. In the movie they focus on getting men on base but during their run they had three of the best pitchers in baseball on the mound in Barry Zito, Mark Mulder, and Tim Hudson which is arguably a bigger reason they won then the batters they were able to scrap together after Jason Giambi and Johnny Damon left. I understand why they were left out of the movie as they were already on the team and had nothing to do with Beane's negotiations and front office moves, but to completely dismiss them from a movie about why the A's were winning is a little ridiculous.

Obviously nerding out a little there, but besides that the movie is strong. Sorkin writes a script as you would expect with plenty of great dialogue. Brad Pitt plays Billy Beane perfectly in a mix of a confident businessman with plenty of self doubt. His character refuses to watch the games as he believes he is cursed. The need to win the last game of the season keeps his head churning and his confidence in check. Pitt is able to be a character that can walk into a room with a confident swagger then leave it with nothing but doubts and remorse in his eyes. They also choose to include his daughter in the story, in an attempt to humanize a man who needs to be vicious when cuts need to be made.

Beane's right hand man is Peter Brand who is based on Paul DePodesta and is played by Jonah Hill. Hill does fantastic opposite Pitt, and while known for his comedy is able to slow his performance down as a man who lacks the swagger that Beane has but believes that his system is right for the organization. He nails his deadpan delivery and is able to participate in a great give and take with the lead actor. Philip Seymour Hoffman also makes an appearance in the movie as a manager who still believes in the old way of doing things and often clashed with his GM. That dynamic could have been interesting to explore but I imagine that confrontation ended in real life once the team started winning. Chris Pratt also stars in the movie as former catcher and current first baseman Scott Hatteberg, Pratt is always all kinds of charming and he is no different in this movie.

There isn't a whole lot of baseball action in the movie as it is more about the front office moves but there is enough to wet your whistle. The scenes in which we actually do see baseball are shot in different manners almost every time we see it. But since this story is told from the perspective of the GM who doesn't watch the game we only get slivers of action. We also see different shooting techniques from when he is interacting with people to when he is alone which reflect his two states of mind. When he is with others they use normal shooting techniques but when alone, they show Beane's disjointed thoughts and constant questioning of his moves using quick cuts and close ups that help us to further get in the character's head.

Not everyone is going to like Moneyball, it moves slowly and there is not a lot of action to it. But the writing is compelling, the banter and interactions are funny, and the actors are all charming, plus it is a movie about baseball stuff. For all the reasons above I liked the movie, and even if you are not into baseball maybe you will like the movie as well. Much like the movie the producers were able to get the most talented people to play for their team and create a winning formula. A-

Emmy Predictions: Drama

2011-09-16T12:59:00.000-07:00

So yesterday I did Comedy, today I'll try my best to predict the Drama categories.

Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Drama
Kelly Macdonald, Boardwalk Empire
Archie Panjabi, The Good Wife
Christine Baranski, The Good Wife
Margo Martindale, Justified
Michelle Forbes, The Killing
Christina Hendricks, Mad Men

With two women from the same show, they may be stealing votes from each other, so I don't like either actress from The Good Wife to win. While Kelly Macdonald flourished in a cast full of outstanding male actors Margo Martindale had the performance of her career. Either of these two women could win but I like the Justified actress to give Justified its first Emmy.

Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Drama
Peter Dinklage, Game of Thrones
Josh Charles, The Good Wife
Alan Cummings, The Good Wife
Walton Goggins, Justified
John Slattery, Mad Men
Andrew Braugher, Men of a Certain Age

My heart of hearts wants Peter Dinklage to win for Game of Thrones (I'm still mad that Sean Bean didn't get nominated as a lead actor). The problem is he has some really stiff competition this year. Alan Cummings was outstanding on The Good Wife just as he was last year. John Slattery is terrific year after year, and for it keeps getting nominated year after year. And Walter Goggins is astonishing on Justified (let's face it that whole cast is great). While Slattery is due Alan Cummings had the better performance throughout the season so I think Cummings will win, but I'm still pulling for the honorable Lannister.

Outstanding Actress in a Drama
Kathy Bates, Harry's Law
Connie Britton, Friday Night Lights
Mireille Enos, The Killing
Mariska Hargitay, Law and Order: SVU
Juliana Margulies, The Good Wife
Elisabeth Moss, Mad Men

That's right, Harry's Law is still on TV. Oh man NBC is in a bad way. Anyway Juliana Margulies won the award last year, so don't be surprised if she wins again this year. The work is consistent and the show is just as good. But I would argue that Elisabeth Moss deserves the award more. As her character continues to grow and become the brains of the operation her talent becomes more visible. She is at her best when confronting Don and gives Jon Hamm a terrific partner in some of their scenes together. I would argue that Moss had the better year, I'd probably lose but I'd still be willing to put up the fight.

Outstanding Actor in a Drama
Steve Buscemi, Boardwalk Empire
Kyle Chandler, Friday Night Lights
Michael C. Hall, Dexter
Jon Hamm, Mad Men
Hugh Laurie, House
Timothy Olyphant, Justified

With Breaking Bad not eligible this year because of the late debut that means someone new has to win. Last year all six men had a legitimate claim to the best actor award, this year it is just as difficult to pick whose performance deserve the award. Kyle Chandler should have been nominated earlier than last year as he is great on Friday Night Lights, and since the show is over with this would be a great way to wrap up his tenure. Jon Hamm has been deserving of the award for the past three years but Bryan Cranston has always been a little bit better. With this season of Mad Men being devoted to the question "Who is Don Draper?" it gave him the perfect platform to show off why this show has won best drama the past three years. Steve Buscemi may play the role of Cranston for Hamm this year. Much like Don Draper, Nucky Thompson is one of the main reasons that Boardwalk Empires is so successful. He is perfectly cast in the lead role and can definitely walk away with the trophy, but Hamm has had this coming for too long not to walk away with the statuette tonight. Don Draper for the win.

Outstanding Drama Series
Boardwalk Empire
Dexter
Friday Night Lights
Game of Thrones
The Good Wife
Mad Men

I don't care who wins the award, Game of Thrones was the best show of the year. It took a manuscript that was written in order to be unfilmable and knocked it out of the park. They made bold moves all season, the premiere included a zombies, rape, incest and the killing of a child and by the end not everyone made it out alive, and did things no other show has ever had the cojones to do. But they won't win, the award comes down to a low year for Mad Men and Boardwalk Empires which started strong but tailed off towards the end. But at its worst Mad Men is still a brilliant analysis of a man destined to fail. The writing is always fantastic, the costumes fitting and they know how to make everything look exceptional by this point. Matthew Weiner will win again and this will give Mad Men their fourth straight win in the category.

What do you guys think? Did I get it wrong? Who do you think is gonna win this year. Let me know. And enjoy the show.

Emmy Predictions: Comedy

2011-09-15T21:54:00.000-07:00

For those of you that read this blog know I am a movie guy, but come award season I like to show that not only do I watch a lot of movies but I also watch a lot of television. I really need to get out more, but it’s too late for that so for now here are some of my best guesses for how this year's Emmy awards will be handed out. First we'll take a look at the comedy field.

Outstanding Variety, Comedy or Musical Series
The Colbert Report
Conan
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Late Night with Jimmy Fallon
Real Time with Bill Mahar
Saturday Night Live

This actually isn't in the comedy field but I think it deserves mentioning just because how impressive it is. Last year I wrote a hell of a piece about why The Daily Show would finally lose. And I stand by it for all of those reasons but to sum it up it wasn't their best year and Conan and Colbert were both ON. Stewart didn't even show up last year which means assumedly he had something more important than getting one of the highest honors for television; already knew what it felt like to win and didn't want to go; or maybe thought the competition was better and more deserving. Well he still won, and now I am convinced if he wasn't going to lose last year he certainly isn't going to lose this year. The Daily Show will win its ninth straight award in this field. How many more years do you think Colbert has before he just loses it and goes postal on his past employer.

Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Comedy
Jane Lynch, Glee
Betty White, Hot in Cleveland
Julie Bowen, Modern Family
Sofia Vergara, Modern Family
Kristen Wiig, Saturday Night Live
Jane Krakowski, 30 Rock

This is a tough category to predict. Last year’s winner is this year’s Emmy host and I don’t even know how she is going to do with that, I hope well but it is tough to tell. Last year she was the clear cut winner for her negative slams and one liners, but to end season one they tried to show her evolution and make her a better person. So this season they had to split her time between glee club hater and being sympathetic. The character was at her best when she was mean and awful that is why she won, to give her a heart and redeem no longer makes her the best. While I don’t watch Hot in Cleveland never count out Betty White, she is cute as hell and still hits all her marks. On merit the best performance would have to be Jolie Bowen, she doesn’t get all the laughs but she helps to make all the people around her funnier.

Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Comedy
Chris Colfer, Glee
Jesse Tyler Ferguson, Modern Family
Ed O’ Neil, Modern Family
Eric Stonestreet, Modern Family
Ty Burrell, Modern Family
Jon Cryer, Two and a Half Men

This is going to someone on Modern Family. Jon Cryer basically did a half season of work so how could he get the award, and Ryan Murphy took all the emotion and love that was in Kurt’s character from season one and instead made him a soapbox to send out his message. Any of the other four men could win it, putting Jesse Tyler Ferguson in a distant fourth. Eric Stonestreet won the award last year, but Ed O’Neil and Ty Burrell were better this season. I wouldn’t be surprised if Burrell won but Ed O’Neil is the heart of the series. He wins the award on his first nomination, an award that he deserves.

Outstanding Actress in a Comedy
Edie Falco, Nurse Jackie
Tina Fey, 30 Rock
Laura Linney, The Big C
Melissa McCarthy, Mike & Molly
Martha Plimpton, Raising Hope
Amy Poehler, Parks and Recreation

Is Nurse Jackie a comedy? Do people laugh at that show? Getting past that, I have never enjoyed Raising Hope, so have a tough time pulling for Martha Plimpton. And while Melissa McCarthy was fantastic in the movies she has been good on Mike and Molly but not amazing.Amy Poehler has been fantastic on Parks and Rec. She leads a fantastic cast and shares the spotlight just as much as it shines on herself. She is the one I believe will win, but this is a tough category to predict and may face difficult competition from Laura Linney who not only manages to be funny but in a show that deals with cancer can also be very touching and Emmy voters love that mix.

Outstanding Actor in a Comedy
Alec Baldwin, 30 Rock
Louis C.K., Louie
Steve Carrell, The Office
Johnny Gelecki, The Big Bang Theory
Matt LeBlanc, Episodes
Jim Parsons, The Big Bang Theory

This may be the biggest lock of the night. There is no chance that Steve Carrell doesn't walk away with this award. That is not to say that he necessarily deserves it for his work this past season. The award would be given to him for the sum of his work over the past seven seasons on the office and his past six nominations. For all of that, mostly the first three seasons and a little bit for seasons four and five, he will win the award. While Carrell deserves it for all that he has done, Louis C.K. has been hilarious all season, watch the masturbation episode and tell me he’s not funniest actor on television right now.

Outstanding Comedy Series
The Big Bang Theory
Glee
Modern Family
The Office
Parks and Recreation
30 Rock

Does Modern Family have what it takes to become the next 30 Rock, well 30 Rock certainly doesn’t. The show is still smart but for the past two years I have enjoyed the first half of NBC’s Thursday line up more than the second half. To that point Parks and Recreation had a fantastic season. While it was upsetting to not get a fall debut last year, by getting pushed back to the spring it allowed the creative staff to fine tune some of the earlier episodes which only made it funnier. Of the nominees this was the funniest show of the year, and I would be willing to wager that this may be the high point for the series because of the extra time they were allotted. The best show of the year though would probably still be Modern Family. The actors on the show are phenomenal as evident by all of the adults being nominated for acting awards. The jokes are good; there are countless laugh out loud moments but the difference may be the rather clichéd ending where the lone voice over tries to wrap everything up into a neat package. The reason this trick has become so clichéd is because it is effective at doing what they need, and that is tying the episode up. The show’s heart and the love the characters have for each other is what give Modern Family the edge.

Drive

2011-09-09T18:07:00.000-07:00

Ryan Gosling is capable of almost anything, and has left little doubt that he is one of the brightest stars in Hollywood. He has can play the heartthrob and romantic like in The Notebook, he can be a heart breaker like in Blue Valentine, he can be funny and charming like in Crazy, Stupid, Love. In the last movie mentioned he stepped out of his comfort zone and tried a comedy. He is often very adventurous in his roles and always knocks then out of the park. In Drive he seems to take a step back in to what he knows and while he does well in the role I doubt this will be a role worth remembering.

For director Nicolas Winding Refn this is his first stab at American film making. He has been very popular in Europe and has shown a knack for making movies, but of his movies that I have seen they have all been very stylistic. There are those who praise his style and concepts as high art and enjoy his projects for it. In Drive he appears to be making an ode to the eighties be it the font on the movie poster and credits, the music, or the white jacket our protagonist wears throughout the story. He obviously is very knowledgeable on the era and creates a wonderful atmosphere. But he always seems to over commit to it. Alright Don, we get the image you are going for but sometimes it seems that you are more concerned with style over substance. Some people will praise his work, and with a 13 million dollar budget maybe the only thing he could afford was an eighties looking B movie. It was a fun style but sometimes, much like in Bronson it overwhelmed the story.

The story is good though, it features Ryan Gosling in the lead role as a man who works as a mechanic and a stunt driver and also moonlights as a getaway driver. In the opening monologue he lays down the rules. He gives them 5 minutes to do whatever they want, outside of that they are on their own. With a hero that dabbles on the other side of the law he must hold a strict moral code on what he is willing to do in order for the audience to side with him. It also helps that the hero seems to epitomize cool. In order to prepare for the role Gosling rebuilt the 1973 Chevy Malibu that his character drives in the movie. The writers also do their best to help the audience connect with the character. He only speaks when it is absolutely necessary. This type of writing is rarely seen anymore, more often opting for dialogue that expresses what our characters think. Here the actors express themselves, rather than verbalize their thoughts.

There are a slew of actors who help to get Gosling's point across and help to define him and his actions. A plethora of television actors make brief appearances in the movie for some defining moments to our other actors including Bryan Cranston, Ron Perlman, and Christina Hendricks. One of the most surprising performances though belongs to Albert Brooks. I can't remember the last performance I liked of his, not counting voicing a fish looking for his son and a billionaire trying to take over the world. He brings a cool calm and trusted performance to the movie that really accentuates his character. Gosling's romantic opposite is played by up and coming A-list actress Carey Mulligan, whose talent seems to go wasted. She is asked to do little for her own character and instead only to move plot and provide support to Gosling. This is something rarely seen anymore either, a supporting actress actually there solely for the support of the main actor. But as the female lead and boasting such a talent it is a shame to see Mulligan’s go to waste in a movie that asks her to do very little.

Mulligan's biggest contribution may be that she brings to the movie what many in the audience may already be expecting. There are very few times Gosling has not been involved with a romantic counterpart, so for the females in the audience she brings some of that to the story. But really any expression of love in the movie is there to accentuate the violence willing to be done for it. For the guys in the audience there is no shortage of blood. It takes a violent turn during the second half. It is almost shocking how violent they go, but maybe even worse it is sometimes laughable how bloody some of the scenes get. Also shocking is despite the movie being called Drive just how little our main character spends behind the wheel. I understand not wanting to be lumped into the same genre as The Fast and the Furious, but there is really only one good driving sequence which I can't help but feel was inserted in at the producer's request to increase the action pacing a bit.

The movie is fun, but it just gives off the impression that it is trying too hard. The movie really wants to fit into a certain genre and be a certain style. It wants to be an art house movie and an action movie and I don't know if the two blend well together. Some people are going to love it, a lot of blood a lot of action why wouldn't they, but for me the need to be artistic as well as bloody made it too ridiculous. For some people that is exactly what they are going to want. If you want an eighties movie with a hero the likes of an Eastwood then you should enjoy this movie. I enjoyed it, but it took me a long time to really formulate any kind of opinion on it which usually means that the movie is good but certainly not a must see. B-

Warrior

2011-08-23T22:21:00.000-07:00

Oooh and Aaahs rang out across the theater during almost every fight seen. The audience cheered and applauded during all the high points of the movie, and had I turned around I'm sure there would have been some grown men fighting to hold back the tears. The movie hits on all the right points and is an impressive piece of work.

The first thing you need to do as soon as you walk into the theater is suspend possibility over some of the events that take place. Suspend the fact that two nobodies could just walk into a 16-man tournament with a grand prize of 5 million dollars. While one brother enters as an internet sensation which doesn't usually work out, the other is a late minute addition because a trainer put in a good word. Once you ignore that people can just enter hugely marketed tournaments rather than finding other more proven fighters you'll be able to enjoy the movie a little more.

The movie opens on Tommy played by Tom Hardy showing up at his father's door after a 14 year absence. His brother Brendan played by Joel Edgerton lives by Philadelphia and is now a teacher raising a family with his high school sweetheart. All three men have not said a word to each other for years, in a backstory that slowly reveals itself during the course of the movie. They do not force the details to come out but rather they reveal themselves naturally, which is a credit to the writing staff. Some information though must be inferred as a family, with what one can assume is a dark past, would probably not vocalize their problems in a casual confrontation. It adds to a realism behind the family dynamic and allows the mind to wander on just what this father, played by Nick Nolte, did to his family that led to all this. Also leading to the realism is the striking similarities between Joel Edgerton and Tom Hardy, I'd be lying if I said I didn't confuse the two actors during the first half of the story, they really do look like brothers.

The first half of the movie is full of family dynamic minced in with a sliver of MMA fighting, just enough to keep your interest until the second half which is full of MMA fighting mixed in with the loose ends of the story. The choreography and camera work reels you into the cage. Despite knowing how the movie ends up, having seen movies like this before and the trailers that actually tell you, you find yourself bobbing and weaving gripped to the edge of your seat for the outcome of the fight. That is not to say the fighting was the only good part of the movie, quite the contrary the story is gripping and filled with dark realism that will attract the audience to the story and force them to care about the outcome.

Gavin O'Connor not only directs the film but is also the movie's producer and writer. With a lot at stake he does not disappoint. His past work in Miracle and to a lesser extent Pride and Glory no doubt helped him craft his story properly with a mixture of sports and family ties that are motifs in his other movies as well. He spends a lot of his time and effort around his characters giving equal time and sympathy to each brother. From the director's chair he is able to get the most out of all of his male leads and his supporting cast.

Hardy is a beast in the movie and looks like he is always ready to pounce or go postal on anyone who would dare enter a ring with him. His persona reminds me of Goldberg for all my wrestling fans out there. He is impossible not to like inside the ring, outside he keeps everything bottled up and it impressed me that Hardy could capture the persona of man like this. He churns out a nuanced performance filled with gaffes and ticks that may look out of place, but that is an accurate portrayal of a man afraid to reveal himself. While Hardy is a dark and brooding figure, he plays the perfect counterbalance to Edgerton's family focused Brendan. Brendan is more methodical and thoughtful character, and it is easier to understand his wants and needs. While you'll root for Tommy because he is a bad ass, you'll want to support Brendan because he's a good guy and deserves something to go his way. Past his prime, the physics teacher relies on skill and technique while Hardy is all power and fury. It is a credit to O'Connor and the male leads that they are able to capture the two men's personality and personify them in their fighting styles. Both characters are well developed and provide powerful performances that help to create an emotional connection.

Nolte's character is desperately seeking the forgiveness from his two sons for his past sins. Nolte is fantastic as a recovering alcoholic looking for a second chance, a perfect casting choice he no doubt is able to pull demons from his own past to inspire a man so desperate for redemption but unable to find it. Providing some level headedness to the family cohesion is Brendan's trainer played by Frank Gillo and Brendan's wife played by the beautiful Jenifer Morrison. While not nearly as flashy it shows where his support and levelheadedness comes from along with putting a face to what he fights for.

It is not just the story that keeps you interested in all the fights; it is the fights themselves as well. They are brilliantly choreographed and cut. The camera angles dart all over the place; this is really a credit to the editors who put the shots together. The shots are used perfectly to capture the emotion of the fight with plenty of close ups to feel like you are inside the cage. The stakes seemed raised and the emotional toll is high.

The hard work and consideration are impressive during both halves of the movie. The dreary scenes in Philadelphia compel you to care about the stakes laid out for the second half. The story and emotion of the fighter shines through the ring with every part of them on the line. It may or may not be an artistic tour de force but it is impossible not to care about these characters and that is something that has not been seen in the theaters for some time. A-

The Help

2011-08-09T11:46:00.000-07:00

Based in the racially charged Deep South during the sixties The Help takes a look at the perspective of the hired help and what they were forced to grin and take during Jim Crow. The heart of the story is in the right place. Everything else seems to be scattered from the emotion to the narrator. This fluctuation may work for a book but in the movie the story seems to be all over the place.

The story itself is very convincing and connects itself to the audience. There didn't seem to be any over dramatization for the sake of getting a reaction. Although it seemed there was plenty of room for just such an action as one can't help but feel nervous for the main characters as they attempt to do what they feel to be the right thing. Instead the story is told true to what life could have been during this tumultuous time. The story seemed so natural that I believed it to be a true story.

The Help follows the action of two women attempting to share the story of their town with the rest of the country. Emma Stone plays Skeeter a fledgling writer living in a well to do Mississippi town. She is looking to make the move from small town journalist to novelist and to do that she needs to find a subject to speak to that people around her seem to be missing out on. After noticing the way her friends and family treat the hired help, she believes she has found her subject. No one is willing to talk to Skeeter about what really goes on in these white homes fearing the repercussions until she finally convinces Ailbileen Clark played by Viola Davis to speak about her life. While the story is about the black workers and the voiceovers are done by Viola Davis, Emma Stone’s character seems to be the one pushing the plot along. Only Hollywood could take a movie about the plight of Black workers in Jackson, Mississippi during the sixties and have it star a white woman.

The book features three different perspectives both the point of view of Skeeter and Ailbileen along with Ailbileen's friend Minny. In the movie Minny, played by Octavia Spencer takes a back seat and provides more comic relief than perspective. The movie is at its best when the focus of the movie turns to Davis and Spencer. As you can expect Davis, a Tony and Oscar nominated actress, brings in a powerful performance. All her emotions dazzle through the eyes of this performer and it is her character that can raise you up or bring you down. Spencer does not convey her fears as well as Davis, and while she obviously fears for her livelihood at time she does much better with sass.

Their white counterparts do a fine job. It is easy to see why Emma Stone is in so many movies, she is charismatic, talented, and cute. She does a great job in the movie but is probably given too much to do, including a romance that has no bearing on the story, and in fact takes away from the idea that this movie is about strong independent women. Her romance is the only male prominently featured in the movie; all others are pushed out of the scene or are only there at the whims of their wives to showcase the women of the time. No better example than queen bee and president of the Junior League Hilly Holbrook, played by Opie's daughter Bryce Dallas Howard. Hilly holds the most power in her group of women and has ostracized those who would get in her way. Howard really gets herself into the character, pushing those around her to maintain the status quo of the town all while wearing a perfect smile. Howard does a great job bringing to life a deplorable character.

With such strong talent in front of the camera most of its waywardness can be attributed to the relatively new director Tate Taylor. Taylor is a close friend of the novel's author Kathryn Stockett and may have been convinced to keep too much of the story. While not necessarily a bad thing to stay so true to a beloved book, there is no need to keep everything, and someone with such little experience or sway may not know how to correctly pace a movie.

The movie itself though is fine, it doesn't get bogged down or overzealous, though it is often fairly overt on what the characters are thinking and how you should feel. The movie concerns itself with making sure fans of the book can cherish the story and share it with those who have yet to read it, and in that respect the movie accomplishes its goals. If you allow yourself to be taken into their world you will surely feel better for it. C

Cowboy and Aliens

2011-08-02T21:30:00.000-07:00

Walking into this movie you know what you are going to be getting, and if you don't it may be time to stop reading this blog. Jon Favreau promised his audience both cowboys and aliens and by god that is what you get, just not much else.

Favreau could have taken this movie in a couple different directions, he chose to take the mixing of two genres that have been lampooned in more recent history and decided to make it a serious action movie. Then there was the decision of which genre to focus on, and as the title denotes he gives the Western top billing over Sci-Fi and follows the traditional Western format. We get almost all the archetypes of the Western from the mysterious stranger who rolls into town to face offs against thieves and injuns. The only difference being the alien abductions, but even these aliens are using lassos and looking for gold.

Favreau has experience working with comic books and knows what he needs to tell a good story. I never read the comics but in Cowboys and Aliens he provides very little depth to the story and focuses on hitting all the right beats. Much like Westerns of the past there is very little downtime for our characters, as soon as one problem is faced the next obstacle presents itself in the very next shot. It felt almost overwhelming trying to squeeze everything in. And while there were plenty of beautiful landscapes to film as they rode across the Arizona territory we learn very little about our characters as there is no time to explain let alone time for exposition of Harrison Ford's character.

There are a lot of cooks in this kitchen with big names like Spielberg, Grazer and Howard just three of the 16 producers on staff and a story written by eight different people. Yet they still follow the same formula of Western story telling. The aliens more or less just seem to be a replacement for Indians just harder to kill and cooler looking. The genre rules don't really seem to meld together until the aliens start appearing more often on screen.

Our movie opens on Daniel Craig, our mysterious outsider, we know little about him and he probably knows less about himself. From the outset we learn he has little to say and can handle himself in a fight as you would expect from any cowboy sporting a white shirt. I couldn't decide if Daniel Craig wasn't talking because he was going for a Steve McQueen cool of letting his actions do the talking or if he felt he didn't readily master the Western accent. Whatever the reason, it adds to the mysterious persona of our hero who does a fine job displaying gritty toughness.

Second billing goes to Harrison Ford who has been trying out the tough guy with the heart of gold act for a little while. Here he plays the hardened army officer turned cattle herder who seems to control the town with an iron fist as he is the only source of income. He is fine in a fairly underdeveloped role always with a little scowl on his face; I saw this character in his last few movies and am still left feeling he could be doing more. He never shows his charisma till the end of the movie playing this type of character and you can't help but feel you are missing out.

Our other actors do their job just find, and are in fact quite good performing their one note. The actors of note are Olivia Wilde who seems to be the babe of choice in movies coming out and Clancy Brown who does a great job in a small role as the preacher. Less impressive is the child actor and Adam Beach reprising his only role as Indian guide, but I suppose it’s not a bad job to have being Hollywood's go to Native American. Sam Rockwell does fine, but unfortunately doesn't have a whole lot to do with other bigger names above him on the marquee.

The premise had all the potential in the world with a cool idea and a lot of great talent behind the project. With such a blunt title and coming from a graphic novel you expect something cool and fun to watch. Instead the creative team took a hard-line on the rules and execution. Everyone took themselves far too seriously and it showed, mostly on our lead actors’ faces. C+

Captain America: The First Avenger

2011-07-31T14:52:00.000-07:00

The movie has a lot to do and very little time to do it. Captain America: The First Avenger needs to tell its origin story, explain how he got from fighting Hitler to today, and needs to set up for next summer's blockbuster The Avengers all while entertaining the audience. It has only two hours to do it in and must be done this summer to get as much revenue as possible while allowing the whole cast to be available to film the epic team up. That is a lot to ask one movie to do, and to its credit, it does just that. Much like the comic hero Captain America achieves its goals in a no nonsense manner

So how do we get there? Well for starters you need the right director, and the studio went with Joe Johnston. He has done a lot of work for kids movies but he was picked for his work on period pieces and the attention to detail he used for The Rocketeer and October Sky. He didn't fluff up the background, props, and costumes with too many effects or gimmicks (read X-men: First Class) and it looks like everyone belongs.

The only effect that may have made a difference to the viewers’ eyes is how to make Chris Evans smaller. Steve Rodgers starts as an asthmatic 90 lbs nothing and becomes a super soldier. It would be one thing to ask him to pull a Bale and either bulk up or lose weight but the visual that needed to happen here required a body double or some CGI. They went with the computer as Johnston didn't believe a body double would be able to capture some of Evans more subtle body movements. The only downside is that some of the darker backgrounds look hokier as a green screen was needed to fill the empty space. It is noticeable but luckily not too discerning as it could have easily been the 3D cameras demanding sharper focus. Once he bulks up and becomes what would probably be a poster boy for the Aryan race the 1940 visuals become clearer.

What doesn't charge is the charm and modesty of Steve Rodgers played by Chris Evans. Evans is an interesting choice as his past roles have had him playing characters with some pizzazz and wit. He is no stranger to the spandex as he was one of the very few bright spots in The Fantastic Four, and was great in Scott Pilgrim. Here he is asked to play a role that is much more noble and modest. Rodgers as a character has about the same amount of flare as DC's Clark Kent, so why cast someone known for their playfulness when you can't use any of it on screen. For whatever the reason the casting decision works out great and you believe what his character does. Evans is able to play himself down and be the man that is required for the guy behind the shield; he lets the people around him handle the flare.

The cast around Evans is fantastic. I never get tired of seeing Tommy Lee Jones and he brings the same dry wit delivery you are used to seeing him however few and far between that is. Stanley Tucci is also fantastic and appears to be having fun sporting what appears to be a “Hogan's Heroes” rendering of a German accent. Hugo Weaving is a great selection as a go to bad guy, the unfortunate part is when he actually becomes the Red Skull, we lose the facial tics that go with the baritone voice. And our 1940 beau looks like she got plucked right from the era, Hayley Atwell looks the part and stands just as tall as the Hollywood notables that surround her.

This is what you expect from your summer blockbuster. There is plenty of action and star power and the movie is fun, just not exceptional. Of all the super hero movies that came out this summer this is the best one. I don't know how much that says considering the competition it had. It certainly doesn't hold a candle to the charisma of Robert Downey and is nowhere near as good as the bat but it is a good option if you need some action based fun. Plus I'm still really excited to see what all that talent can do next year (make sure you stick around after the credits). Until then Captain America just about hits the spot. B

Crazy, Stupid, Love

2011-07-26T21:40:00.000-07:00

The movie opens with the heartbreak that drives the rest of the movie. Cal played by Steve Carell learns in the middle of a packed restaurant that his marriage is about to end and his wife Emily, played by Julianne Moore, cheated on him with a co-worker. This is not the start to the romantic comedy that we are used to, and from here it could go anywhere. They decide to keep the movie in the comedic wheel house but not without a few dramatic moments.

There is a lot jammed into Crazy, Stupid, Love but it never feels like you are missing out on anything. Dan Fogelman wrote his love story with three different generations all experiencing more or less the same thing. The first half of the movie seems to be full of punchy dialogue but as the movie progresses we lose the tart retorts and gain a sincerity and hope to the film. The emotions the characters feel seem much more genuine and their action more natural to what is going on around them even if the situations that started it all seem less likely.

While maybe not all totally believable the movie has a lot of heart and that has to count for something. The movie’s leading men hook up in a totally unrealistic fashion. There is no way some hot guy in a bar full of far too many attractive women takes a sad, pathetic 40-something man under his wings and guides him. But to be fair there is no chance a divorce ends that quickly or amicably without lawyers so it is best to just go with it. The dynamic between the male leads are great and lead to a lot of funny moments. It is not just the zingers that the actors deliver that receive audible reaction from the audience. This movie is also full of uncomfortable moments directly out of Carell’s “Office” playbook which makes sense as he also lends his hand as a producer on the film. I don’t know if I can remember a movie since Superbad that I was forced to look away from the screen by just how uncomfortable some of the funnier scenes in the movie got. The delivery is fantastic all around and there is little doubt to why that is.

The cast is full of incredibly talented people who continually get better with each role. Ryan Gosling is everything that is right with movies right now. His most recent roles have been amazing from the heart-breakingly beautiful in Blue Valentine, to the drug addled coach in Half Nelson, to the eternally romantic Noah in The Notebook. He picks amazing parts and knocks each of them out of the park. It was great to see him branch out into a comedic role and show just how far his talent can reach. Gosling is bound by nothing and it is going to be great to watch this leading man continue to grow. Carell returns to the big screen as the everyman romantic who once again spends the movie blurring the lines between being a total doofus and a complete charmer. His best scenes though are when he and Gosling work together in a Miyagi-esque relationship.

Their female co-stars don’t get quite the same detail written into their characters. After the initial outburst we learn very little about Moore’s Emily. There is a lot in the script about how Carell’s character deals with the break up, but most of Emily’s story comes from a response to the actions of her husband. Her best scenes feature her and Carell expressing the regret of their current situation. Emma Stone meanwhile plays Hannah the aspiring lawyer, and much like Gosling her character is far more interesting than the female lead. Her charisma flies off the screen especially the moments she shares with Gosling. She pops with her co-star and flaunts her perfect comedic timing. Of the four main actors, she probably gets the least amount of screen time. It is a shame we don’t see this romance till later in the story but these two young actors make every scene work.

Not only is this a talented leading group but the ensemble behind them are great as well. The third story line involves the older couple’s son who, typical of Hollywood, seems to be more knowledgeable than the adults who surround him. Also wonderful in the movie is Marissa Tomei who dials up the crazy a little bit and generates quite a few laughs herself. In fact the whole cast is able to get the audience going and it is a credit to the script that it was able to attract so many talented people.

The cast should attract a lot of people to this movie. Where it will win them over though is the amount of heart that shows on the screen. B-

Friends with Benefits

2011-07-20T22:45:00.000-07:00

If you find yourself walking to the theater and not wanting to see a superhero movie, you may turn to the romantic comedy Friends With Benefits and think to yourself I've already seen this movie. While the premise is exactly the same as No Strings Attached, FWB seems to benefit from having taken the extra time to develop their writing and the chemistry between the two leads. It is still the same movie but this version of friends who just want the physical without all the emotional baggage is better.

A lot of the success of the movie is based on the chemistry between the two leads. They are both super sexy people with a lot of charisma and are each easy to like and neither are strangers to comedies. Mila Kunis got her start on the sitcom “That 70’s Show,” while her co-star Justin Timberlake was recently nominated for his work on “Saturday Night Live.” While both have been dabbling in a couple of Academy Award nominated movies, it is nice to see them get back to what they have done so well in the past.

A big part of the success also comes from the writing team of Keith Merryman, David Newman, and director Will Gluck who creates a sharply written movie filled with witty back and forth banter. The guys were on a role and put in a lot of material for their actors to work with. The jokes came at the audience so fast it was easy to miss a couple comebacks while you were laughing at the third joke in. The first half of the movie is full of one-liners and gentle ribbing.

There is also plenty of ribbing of the very genre they are trying to succeed in. The movie goes to task on the rom-com and all the pitfalls of the genre. But almost in the same breath while shouting out all the wrongs of their genre Gluck than goes ahead and commits all his previously mentioned sins as if he didn’t know how else to execute the movie. Just because you acknowledge all of the clichés doesn’t give you full reign to commit them yourself, in fact it probably makes it worse. At the very least he seems to acknowledge the wrongs himself, the biggest ones all being committed towards the end of the movie.

One such sin often poked fun at is the music selection of romantic comedies to help the audience know exactly how they should feel at the moment. And while the song selection performs just as our characters explained they are supposed to I loved almost every song they picked and was left to humming most of the tunes as I left the theater. Except “Hey Soul Sister” that song is a worse affront to human ears than an ice pick.

The first half of the movie is fun and witty and sexy, but due to the fact that this is a romantic comedy everyone in the audience knows that this can’t last. Faster than you can say Kriss Kross the movie makes the abrasive jump to sappy romance. All of a sudden we go from great dialogue to sappy stories of family tragedy, which helps to explain blah, blah, blah.

It actually isn’t all bad; Richard Jenkins is really impressive as JT’s dad. If you allow yourself to truly get involved with the story his is heartbreaking and Jenkins does well in the role. Rounding out his family is his sister Jenna Elfman and her son Nolan Gould (the kid from ‘Modern Family’). The kid is good, but I would have loved to see a little more of Elfman doing anything besides just moving the story along. Mila’s mommy is played by Patricia Clarkson who Will Gluck once again casts for the role of mother. She is solid in the role and has some great moments but as a supporting character isn’t nearly as funny as Woody Harrelson as Justin’s gay sports editor. He is fantastic in everything he touches and has an ability to turn every scene on its head with perfect comic timing. The stand outs here are Jenkins and Harrelson but they all do a great job.

It’s tough to believe anyone as beautiful as Justin Timberlake and Mila Kunis would have such dating problems, but if you put that thought on the side the movie is actually pretty fun. There is plenty of witty banter and self deprecating jokes to make you forget some of the hokier moments in the climax of the movie. And if that is not enough the two stars are naked for a decent section of the movie, so you should have something nice to stare at for a bit. B-

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2

2011-07-13T17:18:00.003-07:00

It All Ends. With little doubt the most appropriate tag line of the franchise. After seven books and eight films the epic series of the boy wizard comes to a glorious end. The people in front and behind the camera know the expectations are high from the fans. With pressure coming from muggles everywhere the cast and crew bring their A game and provide us with a brilliant end to a wonderful series.

In front of a packed theater of Harry Potter faithful, you would expect the movie to open to giant cheer and screams of jubilation for the long awaited final project, but the film makers allow no time for cheering. The movie opens on a dark and ominous tone, the movie opens where the last one left off, Lord Voldemort standing over the grave of Albus Dumbledore, the elder wand in hand. His killer Severus Snape, now the headmaster of Hogwarts, looming over his students marching into a once happy hall now overcast with dark clouds. If I just ruined anything for you, you probably shouldn't be seeing this movie now anyway. The story jumps right in and without proper context you will be left without the emotional attachment to care who will live and who will die, and you certainly won't know what a horcrux is and why they are so important to the story.

It is a credit to the whole production team that they chose to lay it out this way. David Yates does a wonderful job once again telling J.K. Rowlings story, and picking up the pieces after Chris Columbus bumbled around with the first two movies. He understands the tone of the latter half of the stories and really runs with it. It feels as if he may have even used a gray filter throughout filming, because the whole movie features a dark frame to it. But the real hero of the story may be Steve Kloves who wrote the screenplay for every movie besides Order of the Phoenix. While he says he needed a break he has stated that he regrets not penning that movie as well. He has done a fine job courting not only the diehard fans but the casual movie goers as well. His knowledge of the source material shows and much of the credit for bringing the series alive belongs to him. Similar to Part 1 though, this film is for the fans of the series so it is important that you show up and know what you are getting into.

The movie ran at a brief two hours, I say brief because I thought it would run much longer than that, but with only half a manuscript to go on I suppose it makes sense. Lost from the first one are the explanations and explorations, all we are left with is the final confrontation. With the inclusion of every detail from the original manuscript it is tough not to feel that the movie gets bogged down a little. While watching the movie it felt as if many of these scenes could have been cut, but upon further reflection it all adds to the tension and the fear that the hero shares with his audience. If anything was going to be cut before going into the movie I wish it had been the epilogue, this was the hokiest piece of writing in the series, but visually the ploy works. The decision to stay this loyal to the book works out for everyone.

This movie is full of explosive action with the final battle taking place where else but Hogwarts. They could have gone all Michael Bay with this as that seems to be what the book calls for, but Yates has mastered the tempo of the movie. At one point of intense inner drama he even silences the battle around him which increases the sense of danger our heroes know is coming while death surrounds them. You may want to bring your hankies to your screening as not everyone is makes it out of this story alive and there were many audible sniffles coming from all around the theater. The emotional weight of the movie is high as the audience hangs on our young actors every movement.

It has been a pleasure to watch Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, and Rupert Grint grow up before our eyes, and once more see how their acting chops have developed. They have spent more than half their lives in this role so it is easy to understand why they are so comfortable now. In fact that may be why they have trouble separating from their roles to try and break out elsewhere in Hollywood. Radcliffe is at his absolute best in this one, as he allows the weight of the franchise to bear on his shoulders just as his character bears the weight of the wizarding world.

A hero can only be measured by his villain and Ralph Fiennes once again is tremendous as he who shall not be named. In this one he even seems more dangerous as Harry and Company continue their quest to destroy his soul and weaken him. Possibly the most important person to this story is Alan Rickman as Severus. With little doubt the most interesting character to the story, it always felt as if his character wound up on the cutting room floor. In this movie, we learn everything about his character and he does not disappoint. It may go a little overboard into the ridiculous during a flashback but the rest of the back story is so good that all can be forgiven. A great casting choice, he has served the character well and all while wearing the same clothes the entire series. Another character that I felt never got her full due was Maggie Smith as Professor McGonagall, and in the final act she gets a proper curtain call with some great scenes and lines in the movie. There have been a plethora of who's who of royal British Actors and while they don't all get major scenes most at least receive their curtain calls including but not limited to Gary Oldman, Emma Thompson, Michael Gambon, Jim Broadbent, Timothy Spall, Miriam Margolyes, and Julie Walters. That is quite the list to be on, and with little doubt you will be able to add the young stars of the movie to the list of great English actors.

The final film does what all that we hoped it would. It wraps up the series on a stirring achievement. It also justifies the creative split of the final manuscript as a move not solely made for monetary reasons. This is a tribute that the series deserves; it soars above being just a movie to become a cultural phenomenon. Fans of the series and of great story telling will not be disappointed. A-

Emmy Nominations: First Thoughts

2011-07-13T17:18:00.001-07:00

The Emmy nominations were just announced today and I would just like to be clear on how I see things, and I think I have always done this post the past several years so why not keep with tradition. All right lets see how it played out.

No surprise that EMMY voters are still crazy about Mad Men and Modern Family. They lead the pack on nominations with 19 for the drama, and an impressive 17 for the family. Last year was probably Mad Men's worse season and they still got all that credit. Once the EMMY voters get something in their heads....

I can't believe how much they got right. The drama category is basically a perfect pick. You could argue that The Killing or The Walking Dead maybe deserved to be there. They both started so strong but then ended on such so-so notes that I am not surprised. And it is about time Friday Night Lights got included even if this week is also the show's series finale. I'm still waiting on Justified,Better late than never. I'm just glad that fan favorite True Blood got left out.

I imagine Treme should have been included on this list, but it wouldn't be a David Simon show without no one watching it during it's original airing and thus getting no credit for its brilliance until several years after its run where everyone slowly wonders how this show didn't get more credit.

I do think we could have left Dexter off this list, as this was not its best season (that was last year's in case you were wondering). What deserved to be on the list was Sons of Anarchy, if for no other reason than show creator Kurt Sutter tweeted: “If we get any Emmy noms I’ll tattoo EMMYS RULE on my ass.” I think we missed out on a great opportunity guys.

How about them comedies. Parks and Recreation finally bust through the mold but man where is the love for Community are you kidding me?!?! Especially this year when 30 Rock was nothing special and on a down year again and with Glee not being the best of anything. The writing was bad and episode to episode there was little to no continuity. Is Glee even a comedy anymore? This Community oversight may be the biggest one of all.

And while I'm glad Community got a little love for their work with Joel McHale getting nominated where is the love for Danny Pudi, or Chevy Chase. You could make an argument for Troy or Annie as well. They have the second best ensemble on television (behind Modern Family) and some of the sharpest writing. All this Community dissing deserves a failing grade for EMMY voters

Seriously how did the entire cast of Modern Family get nominated. They are good, but the entire cast? That is just being selfish. Looking at you Jesse Tyler Ferguson. But a huge ABOUT TIME to Al Bundy who received his first EMMY nomination today.

Why do Emmy nominations matter? It Doesn't. Nick Offerman doesn't need Emmy love to know he is the best supporting actor hands down.

Louie didn't deserve to be nominated for the series, but you better believe Louie C.K. deserved it for his acting. I am actually surprised that EMMY voters got this right. Not only that but in the drama category Timothy Olyphant and his supporting cast has long deserved some love and they finally get it with four acting nominations. About time.

So we are all in agreement that Harry's Law blows right? So why is Kathy Bates getting nominated, just because she is a good actress in general doesn't mean she is good on the show. The nomination probably deserved to go to Kyra Sedgwick who won the award last year but this year isn't even nominated. There is no way the talent went away that fast.

And I am about to lose my head over Sean Bean not getting nominated (see what I did there). Alright maybe I'm not Community mad, but he was the heart and soul of a series that rightfully deserved to be nominated for Best Drama, so where is the love for the acting. And I mean it's not like they can make it up to him next year.

It's a changing of the guard in late night television as Conan and Fallon are in, while Leno and Letterman are out, but where is the love for Jimmy Kimmel. Not that it matters everyone knows Jon Stewart's already overflowing awards trophy is about to get a little heavier.

What do you guys think? Are there any snubs I left out? I don't watch Fringe but I hear great things, let me know.

Horrible Bosses

2011-07-05T22:22:00.000-07:00

At first glance this looks like a very impressive cast, it makes one ponder how they could get so many talented people in one place. Then I actually started to think about it, how they got so many big names to the table. Then that led me to wonder if any of these actors are actually big names anymore. Sure, you recognize everyone on the poster but what have they been doing? Then it came to me, nothing, they either haven't done anything of note for the past 5 years or they are up and coming actors who have yet to really do anything great on the big screen. All these actors have the potential to be great and it appears all they need is one great project to get them there. This is probably not that movie, but that talent still shines.

The movie revolves around three friends who have grown up together and each gone into a different field, and a different lifestyle. The movie opens on Jason Bateman who starred in "Arrested Development" until FOX gave it the ax in 2006 for being too funny a sitcom. His dry wit plays well here against his two co-stars go for a goofier approach. Both Jason Sudeikis and Charlie Day are currently known more for their TV work but their talent is hard to deny which is why they have been getting more work, especially Sudeikis. The two worked well off each other in this movie which is not surprising as the two previously worked on Going the Distance together and always shared screen time. So once Sudeikis and Day were done riffing off each other Bateman would usually chime in with a one liner to cap the scene and they would move on. This formula was fairly effective as all three men know what they are doing and how to make their scenes funny.

Their opposition is three actors who are no stranger to the lead performance, but instead take a backseat to the funnymen. Kevin Spacey gets most of the screen time in a role he is very familiar with. He plays a psychotic boss who refuses to acknowledge the hard work his underling is performing for him. Colin Farrel and Jennifer Aniston play the supervisors of Sudeikis and Day respectively and go against type to do so. Jen faced a lot of criticism for none of her recent work being any, what’s the word, good. Typically cast as the good girl, she goes against the grain by spending the whole day hitting on her dental assistant. That's where the writers hope to get most of her laughs; by putting this typical good girl in some really raunchy situations and hope that it makes you scratch your head and wonder if she really just said that. I'm not sure what is most ridiculous about her character, that someone would have a problem with a babe like Aniston hitting on them, or that she would be singling out a guy like Charlie Day. A good lookin guy no doubt but Jen shows off her body in this one, and she has it all going for her and would clearly not be as hard pressed for sex as her character may believe she is. Colin Farrell rounds out the bunch, and while he did amazing work with In Bruges in 2008 has not had a box office hit in some time. He went against his norm by rocking a potbelly and a bald cap which really allows him to step out and be a huge douche. Both Aniston and Farrell make appearances in the beginning and are great in doing so but then go for a third of the film without another sighting. While Spacey is good and it is a pleasure to see him take his dickhead approach to another degree it would have been nice to see the other two antagonists a few more times.

So if the stars all do well then what is the problem with the movie? The writing is fine, granted the characters have no depth to them but the movie is only 100 minutes so it is tough to fit in a lot of complexion into an ensemble piece. There are a bunch of solid one liners and funny scenes in the movie which is what the writers are supposed to do. The director has a little problem of when to move on with a joke or when to stay on one a little longer, but he has been doing a lot of television lately and the pacing there is different. It’s nothing that bad, really just a knit pick as the typical TV director does a fine job of getting out of the way and letting his talent and creative team do their jobs.

There is nothing really wrong with this film, there is also just nothing great about it either. The stars are great when they are riffing on each other, the writing is solid, but there is just no laugh out loud moments in the movie. Rather it is full of small chuckles where one can note to themselves, 'hey that was funny,' but then they will most likely just move on and wait for the next movie this cast finds themselves in. C

Dark of the Moon

2011-06-27T19:20:00.000-07:00

I don't believe Michael Bay has ever met a special effect he didn't like or an object he didn't want to blow up. For those fans of Michael Bay you are gonna get more of the same, maybe even a little darker than his attempts before. For those of you who are fans of non-stop action and that is all you need from a movie than by all means stop reading here and enjoy the film. I am not a Michael Bay fan and maybe that bias gets in the way, but good lord was this a dumb movie.

The film opens up with the audience discovering that the reason we went to the moon was to find Cybertronian technology before those damn Sputniks. With the back story out of the way we find ourselves cut back to present day with an up-skirt shot of Rosie Huntington-White. She represents the new beau in the movie since Megan Fox was replaced, and I can only imagine Rosie was cast due to her extensive acting past. Well she just so happens to be pretty easy on the eyes as well and Bay makes sure you get plenty of gratuitous shots of her throughout the movie.

After she finishes climbing the stairs in just a button down shirt we see that our hero Sam Witwicky is in a difficult situation again and despite saving the world twice still cannot find a job. Somehow despite having incredibly hot women at his feet and a talking car at his fingers he always opens the movie like a whiney little bitch, and this time he may be at his whiniest. Not only does Shia Lebeouf return as our leading man, but he is also accompanied by annoying miniature sidekicks again. This time they are not the semi-racist mini coopers from the second one, but rather they are even tinier, mostly pocket sized. While frustrating that Bay still felt he needed to include campy sidekicks in this movie, at least this time they aren’t as annoying.

Not all the actors in the movie are completely atrocious. In fact there are a lot of big names in bit parts that seem to be in on the joke and are completely okay with hamming it up and being a little extra ridiculous. John Turturro, Frances McDormand, John Malkovich, Ken Jeong, and a personal favorite Alan Tudyk all have some great moments in the movie and help bring some intended laughs to the screen.

There are plenty of laughable moments in the movie, mostly due to the writing of Ehren Kruger and the one liners delivered by the cast. Throughout the movie there were many cringe worthy moments that had many people laughing at what was transpiring on the screen. It was as if Kruger’ had just watched an action movie marathon and tried to hit as many cliché action movie lines as possible. Noticeable guffaws also came when, for no particular reason, Bay chose to just have his leading lady standing still, hair blowing in the wind while explosions are set in the background. You could almost see the smile I assume was on his face as he was shooting this scene.

If the writing wasn’t bad enough for you than maybe the music will be. Anytime they want to try and push the emotion to a new level they try and insert some emo-soft-rock. It is the same type of music you heard in the last movie, but it is still just as annoying if not just as cheesy as before.

Not only does he love his music selection but as mentioned before Michael Bay loves his special effects. If one is really cool, but there is a chance you may miss it, don’t worry. Chances are he’ll slow down the action so you can take in everything and be mesmerized by the things his CGI team can do. Most of the effects in the movie are pretty cool, the battles are great and somehow he is able to make these robots in disguise seems real. The moments that check you back into the theater and make you realize you are watching something on a screen are his attempts to use the 3D technology. Reportedly Bay originally has hesitant about using the technology as he believed it to just be a gimmick, that’s right even Michael Bay believes that 3D technology is cheesy. But when the studio said they were going to use it no matter what at least he attempted to control the situation. The scenes in question occur whenever Shia gets thrown towards the audience, and it seems to happen fairly often, the trade off of using the 3D image is usually a less clear image which is an immediate reality check. Hopefully one day they will stop with it entirely, until then though we are stuck with higher ticket prices for a less polished product.

These battle sequences take up a predominant portion of the movie. If you thought it took a long time to destroy Egypt, just imagine how long it would take to destroy a major U.S. city. I wish I had brought in my timer to let you know just how long the final battle takes place, but even Spielberg capped ‘Saving Private Ryan’ at 30 minutes for the opening battle, this finale runs much longer. I hope you don’t have anywhere to go, because to tell his story this movie runs at an impressive 2 hours and 37 minutes.

I rag on Bay a lot in this movie blaming him for a lot of his choices, and while all the criticism, positive or negative, deserves to be tossed his way because he is the director, I don’t hate him. His brand of film making is just not for me, I prefer things like story and writing and character development. While he prefers making the exact type of movie he wants to. And no matter what I or any other critic say chances are you are going to see this movie. Truth be told I’m just jealous of him, and all of the people out there that can sit back and really enjoy this movie, I am just not one of them. F

Bad Teacher

2011-06-23T15:43:00.000-07:00

Growing up I don't know if I ever had a teacher who didn't care one bit. All of my teachers, at the very least, could put on a show so I was none the wiser. It was tough to tell what to expect from the movie, most of the trailers just featured the same one liners that weren't all that funny to begin with. The premise was good and had the potential to be hilarious if it was written from the perspective of a disgruntled teacher, it wasn't. While expectations were low the movie still had all the possibility in the world to offend but never quite gets to that point.

Cameron Diaz plays Elizabeth Halsey, a teacher that we all wished we had while we were going to school, a hottie who likes to show movies all day. She is just trying to get by until she can find a sugar daddy that can make all her dream purchases come true. Elizabeth loses out on plan A, and figures as she is getting older the best way to snag herself a man and compete with all the younger trim out there is with bigger breasts. All of a sudden a new substitute teacher, who comes from old money, rolls into the school and it seems her problems are solved. Now all she has to do is fend off a perky teacher from across the hall and a gym teacher who has the hots for her.

All the actors do a fine job in the movie, but that is probably them at their best, doing a fine job. All the actors seem to play a caricature, but none of them really go for it. We know that Justin Timberlake can be hilarious as seen on SNL, but can probably only go as far as the script takes him, I'm not sure if he knows how to take it to the next level yet. And Diaz gives it her all, but the problem is once again the writing. It is unclear if they wanted her to be as devious, as say a “Bad Santa,” or become the likable lead. They get close to both but excel in neither. In an unrelated note, I wonder what it was like for Diaz to have her character pursue a real life ex.

The better performances come from Jason Segal as Russell Gettis the gym teacher and Lucy Punch as Amy Squirrel the goody-goody teacher from across the hall. They do well playing the opposite ends of the spectrum to Diaz's character. Segal has done great as a completely likable guy and while his character is not perfect, he seems like the only one in the movie who is relatable. Meanwhile Lucy Punch seems to be the nicest character of the bunch which means in a movie called "Bad Teacher" she will be the chief antagonist. As she allows her character to get tipped over the edge she becomes far more interesting to watch than any of the names above the title. Punch goes for it all and it results in some of the funnier moments in the movie. Had all the characters had the same reign as she did, which on paper was probably written the same as the others, this movie could have been much better.

The two latter characters written about are the saving graces of the movie, and probably how they should have written the other two lead characters. This movie advertises itself as a black comedy and while it does have a couple funny moments to it, there is nothing really worth raving about. It is a perfect movie to go see and then no longer have the burden of remembering anything about it. D

Super 8

2011-06-12T22:37:00.001-07:00

It won't be for everyone, it won't be for those looking for sci-fi action flick. It is a fair expectation from the few details we gathered from the trailer. In that regard it has every opportunity to let you down, but if you are looking for strong story telling with a loving nod to film makers delivered in the hands of children than you are in for a treat. It has been a while since a movie has come out without any marks of irony, sarcasm, and pop culture references leaving only a well done story about a simpler time, a simpler time of monster attacks.

If you are ever going to steal/pay homage to anyone's film career, you might as well get their blessing before you do so. That may have been what J.J. Abrams was doing when getting Steven Spielberg on as a producer. Perhaps the logic was Spielberg has dabbled with movies concerning aliens and children before so he may offer some sound insight. The truth is they had known each other for some time and both had been looking to do something semi-autobiographical about growing up and playing with Super-8 films. It shows on the screen, while J.J. may be in the directing chair you see a lot of Spielberg influence on the screen from the soft music, to the ambivalent close minded single parents, to the use of a crane to tilt up on a close-up of our hero's face. Spielberg's influence is all over this film, and that is not necessarily a bad thing.

The story is a convergence of two ideas that balanced each other out as neither was enough to fill out a movie. The original idea was one about kids growing up in the seventies and making movies, but the problem was they didn't believe the audience would care. With both having a clear interest in science fiction they then started brain storming about aliens, Area 51, train crashes, and getting it all caught on film. Suddenly they had two films rolled into one with both ideas being in their wheel house.

This movie has caught a lot of flak for never really explaining what it was about, and while the previous post doesn't ruin anything for you, it does give you a better idea of what you are dealing with than any of the trailers have. While neither director wanted to give away too much of the film the lack of details may be working against them as no one knows what to expect. Last time J.J. employed this technique was during 'Cloverfield' and while it did well in the box office it left many audience members with a bad taste in their mouth, probably from the motion sickness. So audiences may not be jumping at the chance to see this new science fiction collaboration.

Really the monster functions as a plot device to get to the real heart of the story. The best parts of the film center on the kids making their movie. The kids are all interesting characters and the interactions between them seem genuine. They play off each other well and it comes off very naturally. Plus Joel Courtney is a dead ringer for a young Henry Thomas, if the connections to ‘E.T.’ weren't clear enough already. Watching the filming process go was a treat. While everyone else in the town is wondering about the strange going ons, the kids are left to finish their project while analyzing the information they have gathered about the crash. I would be hard pressed to believe that any movie lover or movie buff didn't enjoy this movie for this part alone. I'm sure most, if not every film lover out there, played behind a camera before so they can appreciate the young cast doing all they can to create an interesting story. It was these small moments of pure joy that won me over.

The movie lives and dies by the child actors in the movie, and normally I hate kids in films as mostly I just find them to be annoying, but these kids did great. The only name of these rugrats that you may recognize is Elle Fanning, younger sister of Dakota, playing the cute girl from across the tracks. The other youngsters were all grabbed from obscurity, but are all perfectly cast into this endearing group.

The effects in the movie are great and all there for reasons even if they may run a little long, seriously how long can a train crash for. Also useful are all of Spielberg's trademark moves of camera angles and music. If you are going to mimic a style why not borrow the style of one of the greatest directors of all time. The soft music helps to enhance every emotion while each angle seems to reflect whether we are dealing with our kids or our troubling monster and the moment that surrounds them.

The opening hour of the movie was so enthralling I felt myself going through a full gamut of emotions. Reflecting back on the movie I find myself still smiling as the overbearing director/sidekick goes over film making 101 with his make-up artist/our protagonist and then watching as J.J. follows his own rules to a T, it would be rather embarrassing if he didn't. These emotions carried through as the second half of the story focused on our monster which wasn't as compelling. But the care and love of the story shows through the screen and makes it worth going beyond the shroud of mystery to see this movie. B+

X-Men: First Class

2011-06-06T22:09:00.000-07:00

Before becoming enemies Charles Xavier and Erik Lehnsherr were allies and good friends. That is till they realized that their views on human-mutant relations were so inherently different that they could no longer work together. You don't need to be a fanboy to know this. Anyone who has seen the previous movies know just by watching, which any decent screenwriter will tell you is the objective, show don’t tell. However the producers decided this was neither clear enough nor a completely profitable explanation. So they have given us the back story to all of the questions no one ever asked. And you still think that the World War Three was avoided through diplomacy during a very tense thirteen days. Pssh.

Matthew Vaughn takes the helm on this version of X-men. Bryan Singer returns to help with the story and while he was offered the directing chair had to turn it down due to other commitments (Jack the Giant Killer). It would have been nice to see what he could do with the story. The first two movies helped propel superheros from men in tights to stories that could crossover into mass appeal. Expectations were high for Vaughn who did good work with ‘Kick Ass’ if you’re into watching a 12-year-old swear like a sailor and get the shit kicked out of her, and who isn’t. With all of these elements and a high rating on rotten tomatoes it seemed the series was making a return to what we loved. What we got instead was a movie that seemed over run with characters, nostalgia, and alienated minority metaphors.

The movie opens with both men as children feeling isolated, not knowing there are more out there just like them. That changes very quickly as Vaughn likes working with as many characters as he can, that way if he feels that the action is moving too slowly he can just switch over to another story. Besides Mystique, who is overshadowed by her leading men, most of the other recruits are one note characters that you could probably understand as soon as you hear their mutant name. Meanwhile Kevin Bacon takes on the role of super villain Sebastian Shaw trying to rid the world of the dominant species and make room for the next evolution of mankind. He takes up most of the screen time for the opposition force, well besides January Jones playing the role of Emma Frost, her casting in Mad Man as the empty porcelain doll housewife Betty Draper is now completely clear. I would have liked to see more of, or at the very least one line of dialogue, from Bacon’s henchmen Azazel and Riptide as they have some bad ass scenes. There are so many characters that come in and out of the movie that it is hard to keep track of who and where they are, and even tougher to feel any level of connection as a member of the audience.

The movie isn't all bad; in fact there are moments that are downright enjoyable. A big part of that are James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender performances. When they are allowed a little wiggle room to riff off each other it seems like there is great potential for the movie. Even in some of the goofier scenes, they make it work. I mean they can't work miracles, forcing McAvoy to put his fingers to his head to show that he is using his telekinetic powers still looks silly and something Patrick Stewart didn't have to put up with. The scenes of them together debating competing philosophies were wonderful, but even when the scene or music, which was so often too cheesy for its own good, called for something ridiculous the two men still had enough charm for the scene to not seem out of place.

The most frustrating part of the movie was trying to follow all of the rules that prequels feel the need to follow: trying to explain everything. When the movie was allowed to just be, and tell its story it was much more enjoyable then when the writers needed to show why Beast was blue. But at the same time, I'm sure there were plenty of fan boys mad that we didn't see Magneto and Charles build Cerebro themselves. So that is a tough line to walk, and it seems the producers were looking to appeal to fans of the X-men more than a wider audience so questions needed answers. I suppose this desire for more original story really goes back to the last paragraph and my enjoyment of seeing these two actors together. I would have loved to see the movie deal more with these two competing philosophies than the creation of the X-men, but I didn't write the script so I'll have to take what I can get.

Don't mistake all the criticism to think that I didn't enjoy the movie; it was fun and a good popcorn flick. Maybe I just had this movie on a pedestal from all the high expectations I had going in. There wasn't too much to laugh about in the previous ones, which I enjoyed in the originals, or at least the laughs that were to be had all fit the characters who were delivering them. There are a couple very funny scenes, including a great cameo and a well placed F-bomb but 'First class' gets a little too campy to be taken seriously. C-

Kung Fu Panda 2

2011-05-26T22:18:00.000-07:00

Po returns to battle evil with his improved kung-fu skills and this time he will be rocking out in another dimension of awesomeness. Dreamworks, never one to let a franchise die until the last drop of profit and respect is drained out of the series, plans to make this a six-part series. While an action movie can usually extend itself as long as it has a credible threat from a powerful villain, one can't help but think how many times you could hear Jack Black as a panda. Well on the plus side, two is not that number because it is still fun to hear his voice behind this butt-kicking bear.

Po returns with the aid of the furious five as Tigress (Angelina Jolie), Monkey (Jackie Chan), Viper (Lucy Liu), Mantis (Seth Rogan), and Crane (David Cross) are set to do battle with a peacock. One may ask how a peacock can be considered a credible threat; the answer is easy: give him the mind and voice of Gary Oldman. And with the development of fire power he plans to put an end to kung-fu and conquer all of China. Now that is one evil peacock.

At times the story seems over run with characters and there is just not enough screen time for all of them. The Furious Five seem to have been combined into one character with Jolie doing most of the talking for the group. If Jackie Chan says more than three lines of dialogue I would be surprised. While we may not hear from many of the characters from the original, the new characters leave their mark, namely the aforementioned peacock and Michelle Yeoh as The Soothsayer.

Also infectious is Jack Black who seems to be the perfect fit as the hero. Po still seems to be an awe of his skill and action. His character can't seem to believe that he is living out the fantasies he once acted out with action figures in his bedroom. His character doesn't seem to be allowed to riff anymore but maybe that is because the original writing team decided to deal with his parental issues so he has a lot more on his panda shoulders.

Po's quest to find his birth parents and who he really is allows the movie to mature a little bit and distance itself from the goofiness of the last movie. For those of you bringing the children along, the memory flashbacks can be a lot to take in and may even spark some questions from the youngsters. Not that this should be a deterrent, and not that we see anyone actually get hurt but it should be noted they do let loose on this part of the story and allow it to become a little dark, and for the really little ones these scenes can be intense. Rest assured everything works out because this is still a kid’s movie and lest we forget they are trying to make another four of these movies.

Besides realizing the need for a good plot to go with their talking animals, Dreamworks is one of the few studios that really know how to properly take advantage of 3-D. They were able to do it in 'How to Train Your Dragon' and do a good job with it again. There are some classic moves of things flying out at the audience, but it also enhances the Chinese landscape. The most effective use of the technique is the end credits and the flashbacks, the artists do a great job enhancing these scenes. The soundtrack also does a wonderful job to enhance the tension and inner peace our protagonist finds in the film. While I was watching I couldn't help but be impressed and then I found out that Hans Zimmer did the score and suddenly it all made sense, the man knows what he is doing.

'Kung Fu Panda' does a fine job entertaining the audience with a new story from a loveable character. It is easy to revert to the last movie and take all the points that were successful from the original and apply it to the new movie (read: Hangover 2), but the second Panda movie decides to branch out and try something new and I think it works. The fireworks fly in this movie and it is always a treat to find a movie that both children and parents can enjoy. B

The Hangover Part II: How does this keep happening?

2011-05-24T07:27:00.000-07:00

They keep asking this question throughout the first half of the movie, and I found myself asking the same thing through the second half. In 2009 Todd Phillips had the highest grossing R-rated comedy of all time, so asked himself why change a winning formula, and for those looking for more of the same, the answer is he didn't.

What was great about the first one was that, you had no idea what was coming. Each moment they tried to up the ante. Phillips had a hand in writing this one and I'm not sure what he did, but it looks like he took the last script and copied over all the big points and put them in the exact same spot. I'd be interested to see what would happen if you screened the two movies together side by side, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the same jokes hit at the exact same time.

But for what it's worth, this time it's not Doug that is getting married it’s Stu, played again by Ed Helms. The bride to be is not Heather Grahmn's character but rather a very nice Taiwanese girl named Lauren, played by Jamie Chung. And as a favor she asks Stu to bring along her brother Teddy, who plays the role of Doug by getting lost in the city. Phillips may think that by moving the location to a foreign city that this is enough to increase the danger, but really all it does is force them to ask for directions a lot.

Bradley Cooper is back as the leader of the wolf pack, while Zach Galifianakis is back as the stay at home son. All three men do a fine job reprising their roles; Galifianakis is a little more on the annoying side this time around, but the other two male leads play opposite him so graciously that it still works. Ken Jeong is around a little more this time as the effeminate gangster and it is a welcome addition to mix things up a little bit, he adds to the chemistry of the crew and takes some of the jokes that would be delivered by Galifianakis which is a welcomed new delivery.

With Mr. Chow now part of the crew Paul Giamatti is playing the role of the gangster they need to help. And that isn't the only substitution they have, Stu still has his song, but this time he is rockin out on the acoustic guitar. Playing the role of the tiger/baby is a chain-smoking drug dealing capuchin monkey. This year Stu's missing tooth was played by Mike Tyson's tattoo which I'm sure most of you saw in the trailers. They still go to a strip club where Stu falls in love with one of the dancers, which while repetitive leads to one of the funnier moments in the movie.

But really who am I to judge just this past weekend I woke up in my clothes wondering how the night finished off only to find out that my buddy almost got raped, my other friend fooled around with some girl on the floor, I hit on a bridesmaids relentlessly while enraging her big black boyfriend, broke a door at a hotel, and then as retribution most of my crew including myself got punched in the crotch Johnny Cage style. So I could probably ask myself the same question, how does this stuff keep happening, and then I remember, it's because I am looking for a good time. The movie is ridiculous and repetitive, but if you know what you are getting into before you walk in, it can be a good time and really funny. C+

Thor

2011-05-18T14:30:00.000-07:00

The superhero movie has been a staple of the big budget studio blockbuster for a decade now. They always make it one of their tent pole movies; and even if it gets bad reviews the studio always gets their money back, and then some. Since movies like ‘The Dark Knight’ and ‘Iron Man,’ the bar is now so high it may not be possible to just crank these movies out. Unless you are looking to only use this plot as a jumping off point to a huge ensemble undertaking next year that already have fanboys excited in their pants. Then maybe it’s acceptable, maybe.

Marvel's newest addition in preparation for next year's ‘Avengers’ epic is ‘Thor.’ One of the more boring heroes in the Marvel Universe, the Norse God, much like others who share his mythology, are defined by what they oversee. The God of Thunder is a warrior who wields a powerful hammer, and that is about it. But he has always been a part of the Avengers so why not give him his own movie.

The story breaks down into two different narratives, one while Thor is on Asgard and one while on Earth. While they do overlap, they also seem to be fairly different in tone, which may well be explained by the stable of writers that worked on the script. While on Asgard he is set to take the throne until his father Odin realizes his son is an arrogant shit and banishes him to Earth. While on Earth he tries to adapt to his new life. There is a lot more to it, stuff involving a hammer and his brother but I don't like giving away too much in these reviews. And frankly the story is kind of all over the place with the objective of the movie changing every 20 minutes or so realizing they need to do something else.

I saw this movie in 2D and am glad I did, as there is rarely an instance I feel the need to shill out more money for a pair of glasses. That is until they re-release ‘Apocalypse Now’ into theaters in 3D. The computer generated worlds were very impressive, I wonder if they looked better in 3D or if it lost some of the sharp contrasts in the conversion. Asgard seems like a wonderful place to live especially with Anthony Hopkins as your leader, I don't think I would have a problem living under his rule. While I may have a problem living under the rule of Stringer Bell, I don't think I would have as much of a problem as these people did. But the stand out deity in the film is Loki.

Loki has always been kind of a dick, both in Norse mythology and in the Marvel Universe. Tom Hiddleston does a great job making him a little more complex than that. One of the very few things I knew about the Thor series was that Loki was not only Thor's arch-nemesis, but his half-brother. Hiddleston does a wonderful job capturing Loki's evil ways but also conveying the love he has for his family. The jealousy he feels for his older brother is something that siblings everywhere can relate to making this villain one of the few I have ever felt sympathetic for, an impressive piece of acting.

Hiddleton may have had the upper hand landing this role as he was working at the West End Stage with his future director Kenneth Branagh. It was an interesting choice having a director typically associated with Shakespeare to take on a superhero movie, but maybe considering the source material it wasn't that far off. Branagh takes what he is comfortable with and applies it to his blockbuster; 'Henry V' is about a young prince who goes to war while courting a girl from a different country, sounds a lot like what I was watching the other day.

Branagh was also essential in snagging Natalie Portman who was quoted as saying "I was just like Kenneth Branagh doing 'Thor' is super-weird, I've gotta do it." She, much like Hopkins, didn't add too much to the story except for a name on the poster. Her role was fun, but all she was asked to do was to look sexy-smart and to give her hero the googley eyes. Mission accomplished.

The best part of the Earth portion of the story was Chris Hemsworth. The lead didn't have too much going for him in the opening part of the story. He had his hammer and that was about it. He does his best as a god trying to fit into a mortal world; it is there you see glimpses of charm and charisma which is why he landed the role. Oden was right to banish his son, it definitely made Thor a better person, or at the very least, more interesting.

As a standalone movie it really is nothing but fluff. This is fine for an early summer flick to get us ready for the other blockbusters. It also helps build the anticipation for 'The Avengers.' While some people are getting sick of all the hype already I am not one of them, I mean come on it’s being directed by Joss Weadon. Hopefully the other superheroes of the summer will have a little bit more to say than Thor did. C

Bridesmaids

2011-05-16T22:54:00.000-07:00

Kristen Wiig has been a stand out in the Saturday Night Live cast for some time now, and for those of us unwilling to stay up late for a show that is erratic at best we may have been missing out. Her talent has been noticed by Emmy voters recently, but it was in 2007 that Judd Apatow cast her as the snarky E! executive. Since she has grown into quite the starlet and has put all her talents together and teamed up with executive producer Apatow to star and co-write, along with Annie Mumolo, in the new comedy Bridesmaids.

Many may be quick to compare this movie to The Hangover but for women, and that is just not the case. While it is about one gender group before a wedding, The Hangover formula is completely situational and bases itself of making each moment bigger than the one before it. And not to say there aren't some great gross out moments to this movie, the oddly out of place dress shopping scene comes to mind, but that is not what this movie relies on. This would also seem to imply that this is just a movie for women, definitely the impression I had before taking my seat. While the characters may connect more with the womenfolk in the audience the humor sprawls across the genders.

Bridesmaids takes a buddy movie and makes the moments feel genuine. Movies about female friends have typically been about two girlfriends going after the same thing, whether it is a man, a job, or prize. That doesn't appear to be the case in this movie as Maya Rudolph plays the bride to be Lillian, while Wigg plays lifelong best friend Annie. The strain in this case seems to come from the paths each character is taking, while Lily seems to be achieving the American dream, Annie is struggling with life. At one point she had it all: her own business, a boyfriend, but with the economy playing a role she just as quickly lost it. Now she is stuck at a job she hates, living with an odd brother sister tandem and the occasional late night fling with an awfully handsome man played wonderfully by Jon Hamm. Without looking too deeply into the situation this seems to be an examination of class and how success can affect relationships.

Adding to Annie's stress is the new BFF on the scene. Trophy wife Helen, played by the perfectly cast Rose Byrne, is seeking to steal all of Annie's thunder and usurp her as the Maid of Honor. She is the type of girl who probably never got rejected and always made sure she got her way. She is the type of girl that almost everyone in the audience will immediately dislike. If you don't you just may be that girl, and if that's the case, blow it out your ass. Lillian seems to be drifting towards this lifestyle and away from Annie, compounding Annie's frustration.

The scene stealer in this movie is Megan played by Melissa McCarthy who you may recognize from the CBS comedy Mike and Molly. When you are not watching Wigg it is hard to watch anyone but McCarthy. She nails all her one liners and all the physical comedy in the movie and without a doubt generates most of the belly laughs. She outshines the other two bridesmaids played by Wendi McLendon-Covey from Reno 911 and Ellie Kemper from The Office. Wigg allows all these previously mentioned actors to be and lets them affect her until she finally lashes out. It is when she falls furthest that we feel the strongest for her character.

This comedy tells a genuine story of how the success of others can affect you, and takes an honest examination of what competition between two friends can look like when you are not actually competing for the same thing. And having seen the way girlfriends act around each other and when apart, I can gather this may be more accurate than the laughs let on. Wigg is brilliant in this movie and while she does great putting toether strings of jokes that could have any audience laughing for 5 minutes straight, she can also play it a little sweeter and show off a softer side. There have been a lot of people complaining about the newest cast of SNL, which is always the case as whenever you are watching it is inevitable that you will think the previous cast was better. But this recent ensemble has delivered quite a few movie stars and Wigg will surely be the next one to shine. A-

Arthur

2011-04-06T13:41:00.000-07:00

There are those that will cry foul on this movie. That a remake of Arthur during a recession is unseemly and any attempt to try and recreate the brilliance of Dudley Moore would be fool hearty. Sure all of that is true but the original is about a drunk with one liners, that movie has been redone so many times why not try to re-share the story for a new generation.

Both old and new Arthur focus in on a drunken millionaire living up the high life, but he is forced to marry a woman his family believes will finally make him grow up. Right before he pops the question he meets and falls in love with a working class girl and now must choose between a life with money or one with love.

There was little to no chance this iteration was going to be as good as the first one. It was exactly 30 years ago when the original came out and not only was it nominated for four Oscars (winning two) but it is on AFI's top 100 comedy list. In order to enjoy this movie it is best to keep the original out of your head.

Russel Brand does his best to do just that, while both leading men come from across the pond, Brand makes the character in his own image. You imagine he didn't have to dig too far back to gather the necessary inspiration to portray the title character. It was not long ago when Brand himself was a wealthy womanizing alcoholic, that is till he met Katy Perry. I'd probably give up the drink to be hittin that as well. He injects himself into the character and delivers Arthur's famous one liners perfectly. It is tough to tell how much of his humor is written in the script and how much is improvised.

Those behind the scenes decided to do a couple gender role reversals, most likely in an attempt to highlight Arthur's immaturity. I doubt the choices hurt the film any as Brand's female co-stars do admirably in their roles, but certainly don't elevate the movie to any great heights. Both Helen Mirren and Jennifer Garner's characters are written as very strong female foils to the lead. Each character receives their own batch of one liners and jokes to deliver but neither nail the deadpan delivery to get the big laughs. Meanwhile indie star Greta Gerwig plays the love interest which serves to highlight the best points of Arthur's childlike naivety. She plays the role as written but there is zero pop in the performance.

All of the clever zingers get left behind in the second half of the film and are replaced with attempted heartfelt complications. This shift in tone ruins any aspirations the movie may have had of leaving a mark on the movie goers. Any Russel Brand fans out there may just want to wait until this one comes out to DVD, or better yet find the original on Netflix as they have it in their instant viewing section. There is nothing in this movie that can't be seen elsewhere without the cost of a movie ticket. D+

Happythankyoumoreplease

2011-03-29T16:30:00.000-07:00

Josh Radnor makes his directorial debut in Happythankyoumoreplease which he also wrote and starred in. Radnor takes some of the lessons he learned on his hit TV show How I Met Your Mother and applied it to his movie. The outcome is a pleasant story amongst like minded people moving towards adulthood.

While this is a cute story, there is a lot wrong with this movie. First off that title, oh god that awful, awful title. And you know that title is gonna come with an indie hipster feel, including the soundtrack. Second the soundtrack, maybe it was bothersome because you knew the second he pulled out his man purse there was going to be a whole lot of acoustic guitars and whiney male vocals. More likely because the song just kind of seemed to be slapped into any old moment. I know this is a movie and things are supposed to be fictionalized but if anyone could fill me in on how struggling writers and wanna be artists can afford a one bedroom, one kitchen apartment in New York City please let me know. And finally that title, I know I mentioned it already but seriously whatiswrongwithusingspaces?

That being said the movie also do some things right to make this indie romantic comedy enjoyable for the audience. The movie has a Woody Allen feel to it, without the breaking of the fourth wall and more believable dialogue. Radnor wrote a script that could be casually heard on the streets, including the snappy retorts. The only time the dialogue seemed less believable was when the characters would go on heartfelt monologues, but every rom-com needs that cliché in order to help the protagonist.

While Radnor may star in this one, like a typical TV episode, he chose to separate the movie into three separate story lines all with a different romantic twists. Radnor takes the male lead and is counterbalanced with rising star Kate Mara. Radnor plays Sam, an aspiring novelist, who finds a small black child on a subway and decides to take him home. Just as I assume most hipsters in Williamsburg do so they can tell people they have a black friend. While this orphaned child is sleeping unsupervised on his couch he goes to the bar to hit on Mara who plays aspiring singer Mississippi. There is not too much friction between the two actors, which translates to little chemistry but they are both charming enough that it works. Mara is multi-talented and I doubt this is the last time she will be taking a lead role.

Sam's friend Annie, played by Malin Akerman suffers from alopecia so her character is bald, but Akerman's beauty glows through her bald cap and decorative scarves she wears. Radnor definitely could've taken this story a different way, but really the only thing her disease leads to is poor judgment in men. That is until she meets Sam #2, played by Tony Hale. While their story is not well developed both of their characters shine. Their little moments between each other and Sam #1 all seem genuine. The only downside is they are forced to be the moral compass for the story, so deliver all of the previously mentioned monologues. And while Hale delivers his wonderfully, Akerman probably lays it on a little too thick; despite this one flaw both characters are wonderful.

The third story line features Sam's cousin and friend who are at a fork in the road. Do they stay in New York or move to the west coast. Fortunately you won’t care that much as this is clearly the C storyline, the characters are not developed and there is very little audience investment in the story. It seems to be just thrown in to add more to the running time.

The movie doesn't have the glossed over touch that a big budget romantic comedy might but it works for the story as it is all about struggling artists. They also tend to reuse a lot of the same camera shots, including one too many close-ups but it is easy to get past.

Despite all of the trite moments contained in this little indie film, it has much more heart than any of the big budget flicks in the same genre. It takes an honest look at this weird new age group between post collegiate life and adulthood and what steps need to be taken to get to 30. While I hate the title, it seems to fit the film as the final frames leave you wanting more. C+

2011 Oscars: Best Picture

2011-02-25T15:01:00.000-08:00

It is time. If there was a year to have 10 best picture nominations it is definitely this year. Unfortunately they started this trend last year when there were not 10 great movies. But all that has changed and now after having seen all of these movies it is time to whittle them down to see what is the best picture of the year.

Black Swan
The Fighter
Inception
The Kids Are All Right
The King's Speech
127 Hours
The Social Network
Toy Story 3
True Grit
Winter's Bone

It is tough for small independent movies to get noticed in a world full of blockbusters, its even harder when the movies debuted early in the year. Which is why the nominations of "Winter's Bone" and "The Kids Are Alright" is so impressive. Both movies were smash hits at Sundance last year and that kind of kudos never usually carry over. For Kids the acclaim has not stopped, winning some major awards from the foreign press. But for small films like this they need to pack a lot of punch for them to overcome huge budgets and a much larger pool of talent to work from. Bone moves far too slow for anyone to not fidget around, and while an honest look at a bigger problem without self examination it probably didn't blow you away. And comedies, well as we all know comedies are very rarely deemed artistic enough to be certified with the highest awards. Kids won't walk away with any major awards because of such fierce competition from more dramatic categories, and until a comedy comes out with a lot more to say, one will probably never win in best picture. There is no need for the Oscars to split the genres like the Golden Globes does as that would water down what it means to be best picture, it’s just something we will have to deal with.

The same genre discrimination happens with animation. Are you telling me that "Lion King" wasn't a better movie than "Quiz Show"? Or that Wall-E didn't have important critiques of society just because it was done by robots. Any movie that can go 45 minutes without dialogue and still tell a beautiful story has done amazing things. But alas only three animated movies have ever been nominated for best picture and if the category hadn't been expanded I doubt "Up" or "Toy Story 3" would be in the running. Last year was a weak year for movies and they were trying to correct an injustice from the previous years. "Toy Story 3" is without questions one of the best movies of the year but with so many other quality live action films I doubt they would have received the recognition they deserve. The movie had everything; there was action, comedy, drama and heart. There were moments in the movie where I was afraid for the well being of the toys I have gotten to know so well. Anyone who tells me there wasn't any water leaking from your face you are either a liar or soulless, both options kind of suck. Pixar has changed the game and now require children's movies to appeal to an older generation as well. It also forced the Academy to increase the number of movies they nominate.

Nolan also had a hand in that when audiences and critics agreed that "The Dark Knight" also got the snub treatment. Nolan has done amazing things with a camera and I would implore everyone to see all of the movies he has done as there is not a dud among them. This meteoric rise to prominence is what has alienated some of the voters. It is without doubt one of the most original movies of the year, but without any nominations in acting or directing it shrinks any legitimate chances of winning, even though I could see this movie getting a fair share of the votes. It should clean up in most of the technical awards but that will be it.

Had the category not been extended I am not sure that "True Grit" or "127 Hours" would be receiving this honor. These two movies, more so than the independents that I mentioned earlier, are probably closer to the edge of the bubble. They were both really good movies, but I don't know if I would classify either of them as great. Danny Boyle and the Coen Brother's both recently won and for better works I doubt that the Academy will look to reward them again so soon.

Now here are 4 of the 5 that would be on the list had the Oscars chosen to keep it short. "Black Swan” is a beautiful art house movie that was transformed into a blockbuster using special effects. Critically, this may be the actual best movie of the year. It could go round for round with any of the four movies that are left, but I am not voting, and neither are the critics. This is an old man's game and it was a weird movie. And if you are not into the psychological frenzy that comes with turning into a big black duck than I doubt this is a movie for you. Plus the weight of it all is entirely on Natalie Portman to assure this movie does well, she has a solid cast around her but the acting block, which is the largest group of voting members in the academy, didn't deem any of their performances worthy enough to also be nominated.

All the acting kudos went to “The Fighter,” and justifiably so. The cast is fantastic and coming from Boston I can say they captured the essence of the town. Not Boston proper per say as that is full of rich people and college kids now, but the suburbs of Boston, which is actually where the movie takes place. While usually not as telling as the Director's Guild, the Screen Actor's Guild's best ensemble award and Best Picture have been in sync about 50% of the time. It also helped to predict major upsets in the past. Many thought that "The Fighter" would win for best ensemble, which is not surprising as three of the supporting players are also nominated for Oscars and two are heavy favorites. I would argue that the cast for "The Fighter" is the best this year, but the voters chose "The King's Speech" perhaps confusing the honor for what they perceive as the best movie of the year. Speech does have a solid cast but it isn't nearly as deep or as powerful as the one from Lowell.

With only two movies left, these remain the popular movies to win the night’s biggest award, the heavy favorite being "The King's Speech." After winning the SAG for best ensemble many thought that David Fincher would win the DGA award but it was not meant to be as the director's involved chose Tom Hooper as their recipient. The Producer's Guild also rewarded Speech which made it a Triple Crown winner. This has happened only six other times and of those six times five of those movies won the best picture award. The only time it didn't happen was when "Apollo 13" lost to "Braveheart." But 'The Social Network" also has some major awards as well winning the Golden Globes and Critics' Awards big prizes. The Facebook Movie had all of the early momentum but that has since vanished to the other side of the pond.

This is a classic match up between the youth and the older vote. And that is how many of the battle lines may be drawn with an assist from the Brits supporting a movie about the crown. Historical dramas with an uplifting message have always done well in this category, but in the past decade there has been more of a sway towards grittier movies with appeal from the critics. The past three winners "Hurt Locker," "Slumdog Millionaire," and "No Country for Old Men" have not been typical Oscar winners. They have even been nominating towards a younger and hipster crowd, with nominations like "Juno" and "District 9." But did it go too young with a movie about college kids being smarter than you alienating voters.

This also sets up a rematch and possible vengeance for producer Scott Rudin. Harvey Weinstein has always been one to go after Oscars and in 1999 he pulled off one of the biggest Oscar upsets when "Shakespeare in Love" beat "Saving Private Ryan." Now there is little doubt over which is the actual better movie (if any of you say Shakespeare send me your address so I can slap the taste right out of your mouth) but campaigning helped and won him the award. Now it is Rudin who is knocking on the door of the man who won all three of the guild’s awards. It would not be anywhere near the same kind of upset but it would still be impressive.

Any fan of this writer knows who my support is behind. "The King's Speech," while a very well done movie, just tried following a winning formula. Academy members love historical dramas and love to humanize monarchs. A successful formula to follow, but it was a wholly unoriginal story and idea. The performance of Colin Firth is sublime as His Royal Highness; he submerged himself in the role and helped to make a historically unimportant role seem regal again. The praise it received from the guilds and an Oscar for best acting should be enough. "The Social Network" is without a doubt the best picture of the year, it is current, it is fresh, and god damn it, its American. It had all of the best parts to it. The writing and directing will no doubt win but Jesse Eisenberg is also nominated and at one point there was talk that all three supporting actors could get nominated, and maybe they all deserved it. Tell me it wasn't impressive that one man played both Winklevoss twins. All of the interactions between each character were amazing. Not only that but Trent Reznor did a fantastic job with the score. It was the best produced movie of the year with all of the parts contributing to a masterpiece. A direct correlation between this movie and "Citizen Kane," arguably the greatest movie of all time, is impressive as well. Even if this movie were to lose in the end it would still go down as the more important film of our time and much more telling of our era.

What do you think? Do I have it wrong? Will you even be watching? I personally can't wait. And to those of you who made it to the end of this extremely long article and my others thank you for reading and I hope you enjoy the show.

2011 Oscars: Director

2011-02-24T15:34:00.000-08:00

Over the past 50 years the best director and best picture award usually sync up. Makes sense the director is there from start to finish and he usually crafts the way the movie is to be made. Unless you have pissed off your editor. So with the big night just a couple of days away let’s look at the best directors of 2010

Darren Aronofsky, "Black Swan"
David O. Russell, "The Fighter"
Tom Hooper, "The King's Speech"
David Fincher, "The Social Network"
Joel Coen and Ethan Coen, "True Grit"

First and foremost HOW IS NOLAN NOT ON THIS LIST. I know people in the business have been going on and on about this snub, but it has justification. I mean come on, could anyone else in the industry make a movie like this. And why, because he didn't go to a few luncheons. Seriously. Alright I'm better, let’s continue.

Many speculate that it was the Coen Brothers who knocked off Nolan for the nomination (I know I said I was done bitching about it but this has a point, just wait) so that would make them the last ones invited to the party. I love their treatment of the West and they are at their comfort level in a rural atmosphere. Also working against them is they just won three years ago, and this film is not nearly at the same level as No Country for Old Men so I would have to suspect that they have probably the least possible chance to win.

I really enjoyed both Black Swan and The Fighter but these two movies are pretty much on the opposite ends of the spectrum. For every person out there who loved the almost noir style of the movie, there is another older voter out there who found the movie creepy and unwatchable. This movie is far too polarizing to win. The Fighter is a much safer watch with a happy and uplifting ending for all of the characters involved. But there is nothing to it visually. Russell pretty much just lets the actors be and allowed them to take over the scenes. This will get the movie a couple acting awards but makes it less likely for the film to win for its directing.

Now we are down the big two movies of the year. Tom Hooper has all the stats behind him. His movie is heavily favored to win best picture and he won the Director's Guild's award which also has a 70% carry over rate to repeat a win. So the easy pick would be Hooper to win as best director, but this may be a year to buck the odds. This relative new comer has already won Emmy gold and with the most nominations of the year this movie is going to walk away with some of the biggest awards of the night, but not this one.

The Social Network is an obvious choice for best adapted screenplay and rightly so, everyone notices the fast paced poetics that fly out of the actor's mouths. But the movie is also visually striking. Even in the day light hours there is a dark tone that is present through the entire film and I can assure you this is not done by accident. With the underhanded dealings and all the betrayals going on it the story the lighting captures the mood of the story. The pacing of the movie also has to do with just how the movie is put together. There are a lot of quick cut and close ups that allow you to become intimately involved with the characters. The framing of the story allows for the flow and it never feels like it is being rushed, but rather the time flies by in the movie which is always an accomplishment given so many people's short attention span. The Social Network had such early momentum that was all snagged up by The King's Speech but traces of its early domination can still be seen. The Academy will look to award David Fincher the award for best director, an award he deserves to win for what he did with the movie.

Will this win for Fincher be a telling sign of things to come for the nights last award, will all the Oscar predictors get it right with Speech, or will one of the other eight movies pull an upset and bring everyone on stage, we'll examine that tomorrow.

Hall Pass

2011-02-23T16:27:00.000-08:00

It has been a decade since the Farrelly Brothers have made a comedy worth watching. After late-nineties hit Something About Mary the guys tried their hand at some PG-13 comedies to try and win over a younger audience. But as these boys mature so must their humor. So after a couple big whiffs the boys returns to where they belongs, to a theater where kids under 17 need to be accompanied by an adult.

Your interest in this movie depends entirely on your attitudes towards vulgar comedy. Personally I love watching movies where our hero gets his balls zippered above his penis but that's me. So if you are not into that sort of thing then it is time to move on because this won't be a movie for you. But for those that enjoy dick jokes read on.

Owen Wilson and Jason Sudeikis star as Rick and Fred respectively. These two
suburbanites while lovingly faithful to their wives, can't help but ogle the women around them. Finally, their wives fed up with their frat boy thoughts, give their husbands the week off of marriage to do what that want, no penalties attached.

The story is rather flat, there is not a whole lot going on past the initial explanation. It is almost as if the plot is used as a way to get from joke A to joke B. Not that there is anything wrong with that. There are some hearty belly laughs during this movie. The laughter was often so loud through the theater that it was tough to hear the next several lines of dialogue. It came in all forms, from the spoken zingers to the physically outlandish. And call me crazy but I see some potential in some of their new made up terms. I don't think they'll be used by too many but keep an ear out for fake chow.

To that point Jason Sudeikis proves he can be the leading man. Anyone who saw his stint on "30 Rock" has probably known that for quite some time, but now it is shown for all to see. He shows off confidence in the role and gets many of the big laughs in the movie. He switches from creep to caring almost effortlessly. His delivery isn't quite deadpan because he always has that smile on his face, and that’s part of his charm and why he never loses the sympathies of the audience even when he is doing his best to debase the other sex.

Since Sudeikis gets to be the sidekick that means that Owen Wilson needs to play the straight man. His role in this movie is very similar to his role in The Wedding Crashers but just not as loose. Most of his humor comes from his awkwardness; with his character having been domesticated as long he has Rick no longer knows how to act when let off the leash. Having been around parents I know what a life full of Disney and Dora will do to you socially, so it makes sense for the character. It is just unfortunate as Owen Wilson can be so versatile when he is allowed to create the situation rather than just react to it which is what this role calls for.

Their wives aren't left out of the picture as the trailers may have indicated. The ladies also are out on the prowl, and they appear much less confused on how to handle a similar situation. Maybe more could have come out of this storyline but when the pens are in the hands of men, it is easier to write for their gender. Lucy and Ethel they ain't, instead they are used as foils to their husbands' stories. Also under utilized are the guys’ friends. Richard Jenkins, Larry Joe Campbell, and Stephen Merchant have some great moments in the movie but are only in scenes used to show the evolution, or devolution, of our protagonists.

This movie is at its best when it is at its raunchiest and that is why I liked it. There is a lot of lull in the story between the big laughs. It is still worth the viewing if that's what you are in the mood for. The Farrelly Brothers have had some big whiffs recently but these guys just enjoy making a movie and it shows. And I enjoyed watching it. B

2011 Oscars: Actor

2011-02-22T12:46:00.000-08:00

A couple more guys who have already won the Golden Globe, SAG, and BAFTA awards will be looking to continue their hot streak heading into the Academy Awards. First let's look at the highly competitive Best Actor category.

BEST ACTOR
Javier Bardem, "Biutiful"
Jeff Bridges, "True Grit"
Jesse Eisenberg, "The Social Network"
Colin Firth, "The King's Speech"
James Franco, "127 Hours"

Colin Firth is going to win. And frankly his performance alone may vault this little British movie to Best Picture. More on that Saturday. Moving on.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Christian Bale, "The Fighter"
John Hawkes, "Winter's Bone"
Jeremy Renner, "The Town"
Mark Ruffalo, "The Kids Are All Right"
Geoffrey Rush, "The King's Speech"

Like any race it really comes down to two nominees. But all men deserve and did fantastic jobs in these roles. The only role I would even think to toss out is Mark Ruffalo, as he is out shined by his co stars and the rest of the men in the category. His character's laid back attitude doesn't really have enough pop to claim the night's award. Josh Hawkes and Jeremy Renner are both held back by the politicking of the event. For those who have not seen Winter's Bone, Uncle Tear Drop starts as frightening then evolves to sympathetic as the movie progresses, but unfortunately not too many people saw it, so he's out. It is tough to pull out the best part of The Town, but Renner was definitely the best actor in it. His character was great and his flirtations with anti-hero and villain stole the show but The Town received so few nominations that it would be unlikely many will vote for him. Worry not, this young actor will be nominated many more times before it is all said and done.

This leaves as always two actors left to fight it out. As I mentioned in my past reviews of both The Fighter and The King's Speech both men were fantastic and deserved awards for their performances. But since the last tie happened in 1969 this is highly unlikely. Christian Bale is the odds on favorite to win and it is completely justified. Bale has always been known to immerse himself in the role. His method acting has finally paid off as this bug eyed druggie both elevates and deflates his brother's boxing career. The entire audience felt the gamut of emotions as he was likable and hated in the same breath and that is what made him so interesting. His performance brings out the best of the other actors as they try to keep up with his energy. Much like Bale elevated the cast around him Colin Firth better remember to thank Geoffrey Rush for all the give and take in their performances. Rush provided the levity to Speech that was so desperately needed to give the film some heart. Bale's performance was the second best of his career (Patrick Bateman being the obvious best) and he deserves the statuette and should come out on top. But if anyone is going to play upset it will be the speech therapist.

What do you think, will the British men be taking away all of our gold with them across the pond or do you see someone else winning. Is it possible for the host to win the award? Let me know what you think. Tomorrow I will look at the director's which is historically one of the biggest precursors to who will win the night’s big award.

2011 Oscars: Actress

2011-02-21T21:42:00.000-08:00

One would think that the lead actress role would be locked up by now, but some people in the industry are seeing a late surge that could change some voters’ minds late in the game. Before that let’s look at the supporting actress category.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Amy Adams, "The Fighter"
Helena Bonham Carter, "The King's Speech"
Melissa Leo, "The Fighter"
Hailee Steinfeld, "True Grit"
Jacki Weaver, "Animal Kingdom"

First let’s get a couple of these out of the way. The King's Speech is as patriarchal as you can get. This movie is all about the men, and while The Queen Mum has an important place in history, she had little or nothing to do in this film, so she's out. Not everyone takes their role of Academy voter as seriously as Sir Elton John so if there is a movie people are going to sit out it will probably be the Australian import Animal Kingdom. If you haven't had a chance this movie is definitely worth a spot on your Netflix queue. Then it comes down to two movies The Fighter and True Grit. Melissa Leo did fantastic in the movie and I thought her performance would go unnoticed behind that of Christian Bale but boy was I proven wrong with that. Melissa Leo has already won Screen Actors Guild and Golden Globe gold for her performance as the selfish mother. She has been acting since the eighties and has paid her dues. But then comes along this little 14-year old girl to muck the whole thing up. Hailee Steinfeld not only held her own in True Grit but at times outshines two past Academy winners. One could argue that she isn't really a supporting actress but rather the lead with Jeff Bridges. I doubt she had much say in the whole thing as this is only her FIRST MOVIE (I think at 14 I was growing a mullet). Compound the fact that Melissa Leo took out ads for herself just as people were starting to talk about the kid. Put the performances next to each other and I think Hailee Steinfeld did more to help Jeff Bridges grow as a character than Melissa Leo did for Wahlberg. All the big blogs out there go with an upset pick. So I'm going with Hailee Steinfeld to upset the veteran actress.

BEST ACTRESS
Annette Bening, "The Kids Are All Right"
Nicole Kidman, "Rabbit Hole"
Jennifer Lawrence, "Winter's Bone"
Natalie Portman, "Black Swan"
Michelle Williams, "Blue Valentine"

This was supposed to be a lock, no one has been hotter than Natalie Portman and frankly that helps. Usually the Academy will deal out Oscar to the next big PYT (read: Hallie Berry, Reese Witherspoon, Charlize Theron). Natalie Portman has been steaming up the scene ever since The Professional (that's a joke people). She has gone from child actress, to blockbuster starlet, to indie queen and this Sunday she seems poised to grab the statuette. And rightfully so, the performance is frightening and the movie will stay with you long after you have left the theater. But recently there has been an upswing in support for Annette Bening in The Kids Are All Right. Now I personally thought that Julianne Moore had the better performance in this movie, but this time Bening won't be competing against her co star because Moore was not nominated. While the Academy tends to not support comedy movies they do love gay movies, as one Hollywood observer noted "If you play gay or retarded you get an Oscar. I'd take in the ass for an Oscar." The now four-time nominated actress will eventually win the award, but this is not her night. Portman's performance is too captivating to go unrewarded plus Oscar also loves to break up marriages (read Hallie Berry, Reese Witherspoon, Sandra Bullock). The recently engaged and knocked up Portman may walk away a winner Sunday, but the tabloids will make sure to bring her back down within a couple of years.

Tomorrow we'll look at the men. Who do you think will win for Best Actor (hint: it rhymes with Colin Mirth). What about this category, do you smell upset? Let me know what you think.

2011 Oscars: Writing

2011-02-21T15:49:00.000-08:00

It's my favorite time of year. The time when my true elitism can come out and I can look at some artsy-fartsy movies and debate with fellow film lovers who deserve to win. Through the next week I'm going to look at each category. Let’s start with screenplay.

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
127 Hours
The Social Network
Toy Story 3
True Grit
Winter's Bone

Besides Best Actor and Actress aside this is the biggest lock of the major awards. The Social Network won the Writer's Guild Award and it will no doubt win the Academy Award. The dialogue is fast paced and quick witted. The story moves fast and engages you the whole way through. All five films are extremely well written and interesting stories but the lightning pace of words that flow off the screen give The Social Network the clear edge. And the fact that Sorkin has never been nominated for an Oscar before, most notably for A Few Good Men is a mistake that the Academy will look to remedy. Count it.

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
Another Year
The Fighter
Inception
The Kids Are All Right
The King's Speech

When a movie is pegged as a favorite for best picture usually the voters will get swept away and just assume that this movie has the best everything. That is what will likely happen with The King's Speech this year. The story is extremely interesting but would often get looked over because of some of the other larger than life characters that came out of the Second World War But then that was it, no one was talking about it, and people would comment that Colin Firth was amazing but not really comment on the story. And frankly I hate considering movies based on real life events as an original screenplay. It was based on the story of King George VI and while still a slight exaggeration of history it was much more accurate than The Social Network which is in the adapted screenplay category, tell me how that makes sense. The movie that had everyone talking was Inception, the story was interesting, it had everyone engaged and while Nolan may have made it complicated for the sake of making it complicated people could not stop talking about it. And that fucking top. But people in the Academy hate Christopher Nolan and they have not hidden this fact, most notably with his snub as best director. Members of the Academy don't like awarding new comers and believe that there is a process and people need to earn the award through a career of work. Plus Nolan hasn't been campaigning, but rather working on the third Batman. Does Nolan deserve the award, I think so. Will he win, not a chance. The award will go to The King's Speech and later on in life we'll laugh about this.

Hopefully I'll be doing one of these a day until Oscar time. Let me know what you think of the writing category. Tomorrow I'll take a look at the women of the silver screen. Melissa Leo better put up one hell of a fight if she wants the award. Ah I love puns.

I Am Number Four

2011-02-17T22:05:00.000-08:00

I Am Number Four is based on a young-adult novel that spent six weeks on the children's chapter of The New York Times Best Seller list. It is also the first part of a six book series. No wonder this book was snagged up to make a movie, I imagine all the producers heard was ka-ching. And with producer Michael Bay on board how could this not be a hit.

The movie is about a teenage outsider named John Smith, how outside, well he's from space. He and his eight other Lorien friends are being hunted down by another alien race called the Mogadorians. Three others have already been killed and he is next on the list.

It is never made apparent in the movie why they have to be killed in numerical order, or for that matter why these Mogadorians are hunting them down. I think they tried to explain it, but really it just boiled down to them being giant douche-bags because that's what they do, kill children. But I'd probably be pissed if I had weird gill things on the side of my nose too so I'll let it slide.

Once number three is killed John Smith is escorted out of Florida and on the move again to Paradise. Ohio that is. And there he meets the other hot outsider of the high school Sarah. She used to be a cheerleader, but now is into photography and as we all know photography is the kiss of death in your high school social life. But it was all a matter of time, because everyone knows that Sarah should be spelled without an H, but what do I know. He also manages to piss off the quarterback and befriends the school nerd.

Alex Pettyfer does a solid job as the lead character John Smith/Number 4. If I was going to cast a brooding alien teenager I would probably cast a former GAP model as well. He has already done quite a bit and while he may never reach the teen heartthrob level of Robert Pattinson he could definately become a Channing Tatum. I'm still not sure if any of that was a compliment or an insult.

The movie is at its best when it is dealing with issues of Puppy love. It does well with teenage angst and doesn't linger on it too long before it becomes annoying. Dianna Argon does a terrific job as the love interest. With a couple more roles like this one to prove she can be cutesy and create on scream chemistry, she is probably the most likely of the Glee kids to break out into the film industry. Hopefully not too fast, they still need to win at regionals.

They seemed to have the timing down for this movie, because just as I was starting to wonder when the action sequences were going to start our hero meets his villain. Kevin Durand plays our Mogadorian Commander and has become a staple in popcorn action movies. He plays this character a little over the top, but it's only a little annoying, as it appears he just seems to be having fun with the role. The action sequences are also over the top, but that is to be expected with Bay. Really the most out of place part is that our hero's hands can turn into flashlights. That super power is almost as lame as the kid on Captain Planer who got heart. It also probably explains why he feels the need to flick his hair back so often rather than go and be a tough guy.

Timothy Olyphant obviously does a stand out job as the guardian for number four. He takes over as the bad ass of the film, but his trademark style from Justified is toned down a little so that the kids could shine in this one. Which is unfortunate because if he had been allowed to let loose a little this could have proven to be a darker movie that maybe more of the adult crowd could get into.

But it was never going to be that movie, this movie was put out fast to grab a quick buck and tried to follow a formula. Take the teenage angst of the CW, add the action and love beats from Twilight, find people who love Abecrombie and Fitch, insert some major explosion and you should have a winner. Basically just focus on the aesthetics of the project and everything else should follow. They paid no heed to the overacting of some of the actors and the stale writing.

Thats not to say it is entirely bad, I actually enjoyed the movie. It reminded me a little of Smallville which is a guilty pleasure of mine. I should probably feel a little ashamed of watching it but the story is usually interesting and its trashy enough for me to enjoy it and then forget about it as soon as it's over. I imagine that is how most people will feel about this movie so I doubt we'll get a chance to see this franchise continue unless the box office numbers are staggering. B-

Biutiful

2011-02-16T14:58:00.000-08:00

This movie isn't intended for people who plan to see Just Go With It or The Eagle. This movie is entrenched with misery and tragedy and followed by death. Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu leaves nothing to chance in his effort to display tragedy of the human spirit. Everything about this movie from the characters to the environment is falling apart and there is little to do but sit there and be weighted down by people just trying to survive.

Inarritu tells the story of a Uxbal, a low level criminal who recently finds out he has very little time to live. He needs to get all his affairs in order and at the same time come to grips with the finality of his life. He also must provide for his young children all while his brother screws him over at work and his bipolar wife tries to reenter his home life. His life is a mess and he has very little time to fix it.

We are introduced to Uxbal as a man who can communicate with the dead, and ease the transition for both the deceased and the loved ones they leave behind. This story line is probably inserted to enforce the perception that no one knows how to properly face death. While it enriches the character, it adds nothing to the story. I understand why the director wanted to keep that part of the character in the movie, but it serves no purpose in advancing the story and even detracts a little from the character.

This is just one example of the clutter that is involved with the movie. We also see juxtapositions between deported African dealers and imported Chinese slave labor. His detached nature from his father, wife, and brother while at the same time trying to leave a lasting legacy and protection for his children. It seems that not only is Uxbal trying to do too much in a short amount of time, but those behind the scenes are trying to jam so much social commentary that it all seems forced. Inarritu is trying to weigh the audience down with the tragedies that occur in the third world, but because he is trying to say too much, it's tough to hear any of his message.

The messenger and mouthpiece of all this tragedy helps to grab the audience and keep them engaged while everything else around the story seems overwhelming. Javier Bardem is in his comfort zone when tragic conditions look to envelop his character. The look in his eyes can tell you everything you need to know about him. He is not evil, although involved in some underhanded schemes to make money, you never question the morality of the character, although you probably should. He does all he can to do right by the people around him and still tragedy and suffering follow him wherever he goes. Bardem owns the role and carries the film on his shoulders. His character is heart wrenchingly devastating, and draws you into the story even when it seems to be trying too hard.

The scenes with his children as he prepares them for his departure may be the most touching moments. He does all he can to create lasting memories so that he will be remembered unlike his own father who he is quick to dig up and make a quick buck off of. But instead some of those scenes seem to just get lost in the clutter of the story. Inarritu has a tendency to overload his story with movies like Babel coming to mind.

Really the tragedy of the film is that it does not achieve its desired effect. Had it not been for Bardem who shoots this movie into the academy awards it would have just been lost in the other art house films that are out now. C+

127 Hours

2011-02-14T21:05:00.000-08:00

A true story, that had only started to fade from our memory was brought back to our attention by James Franco and Danny Boyle and is now up for a couple of awards. 127 Hours tells the story of Aron Ralston, a 27-year old climber, who trapped his right arm between a boulder and the wall of a small slot canyon in the vast Arizona desert. While your choice to go to this movie or to stay away may be based on the climax, you would be foolish to judge this movie on that scene alone.

When this story first emerged I doubt anyone thought to themselves, wow i can't wait for them to make a movie out of this. It's about a guy who is trapped in one spot for five days. How does one even make an interesting movie about that. Luckily for the audience Danny Boyle was brought into the fold, and he loves to use interesting landscapes, different camera angles, and many flashbacks.

It all starts with the script. James Franco's monologues seem so genuine, I have never been in a situation that I felt my life was in danger like Ralston, but I still find myself thinking and talking to myself in the same way as the protagonist. It speaks to the writers on just how realistic this all feels. His regrets, his joys, the moments in his life he kept reliving as he was put through hell, are all things anyone can relate to which makes the fear much more intense.

James Franco does a great job with the character. He leaves little doubt as to why he was nominated for an academy award. Franco uses his charm and enthusiasm to embody the climbers love of life and all things nature. But within the same film he is able to slow himself down and take a look inward as the character understands his own hubris and choices led him to this moment and this situation. It is a very sobering fact to realize that everything you have done has led you to the problems that face you. With nothing but time and his thoughts, Franco is really able to delve into the character's psyche and examine himself.

Even though it is the moment everyone in the theater is waiting the climax of the film takes up a relatively small amount of screen time. There have been much gorier scenes in movies past, what makes the scene is the knowledge that it actually happened. Even when screening this movie so late after its initial debut people were still wincing during the scene where he is breaking his own arm. While there are rumors of people passing out during the initial screenings, the scene is handled well. It does not look to overboard with the violence but really it is the way the scene is put together that makes you flex your own arm to make sure you still have the use of it.

The movie isn't just about being physically stuck, it's a psychological study of what one must do when put in such a situation. So many movies about people being trapped in get it wrong when they focus on the physical conditions, when really the story is about whether you have the will to do all that is necessary to continue living life. That is a challenging inward examination tied in with some nerve-cutting intensity. This movie is tough to watch, but certainly worth a look. A-

Blue Valentine

2011-01-27T15:46:00.000-08:00

This movie was never going to have a happy ending, I knew that going in. All I kept hearing was that was the most depressing movie of all time. Knowing that I took this to be a classic who done it? Like most people I want a fall guy, I want to know what happened here. I want to know why these beautiful and crazy kids are doomed to fail.

Enter Ryan Gosling as the care-free Dean, i doubt he had too much going for him before this story starts and is not too worried about his future. While talented at many things he lacks any ambition and just enjoys the moment. His partner in crime is the recently nominated actress Michelle Williams as Cindy. She seems much more cynical, promiscuous, and is always looking ahead to accomplish more. While opposites may attract these two philosophies of life seem to be at odds in the film.

Dean found everything he needs in this little family, instantly making him the more likable character. He treats his daughter like a princess and shows her all the adoration she could ever need. But apparently The Beatles were wrong and a little bit more than love is needed. Cindy has grown into the woman she had to be to help the family survive as a middle-class family in Scranton, Pennsylvania. Dean is more immature and found a job that lets him drink in the middle of the day and be there for his family.

These two actors are constantly looking for challenging roles, and in this movie it appears they have found one. How does one portray, in a believable fashion, a six year difference where everything has changed, it would be too much and unbelievable to go from one extreme to another so rather they both rely on subtly, Williams more so. There also seems to be a lot of free riffing and improvisation such as the scene on the Brooklyn Bridge.

Gosling is experienced with this kind of acting as he has gone out of his way to find strong independent movies. He easily could be making boat loads of money with huge box office numbers but has always gone after meatier scripts. He plays this role well with a lot of professional experience. His couterpart Williams seems to draw her inspiration more from her own past. At the time this movie was supposed to be made Heath Ledger passed away and out of respect to her and her daughter they delayed shooting. Upon learning this you have to wonder if some of this life experience went into the performance. She rolled effortlessly into this role and played it with such quiet strength, while maybe not the more likable of the two, the performance is stunning.

Writer/director Derek Cianfrance wrote this story in 2006 and in two parts. He says the beginning is a love story and the ending is a tragedy, but this isn't split into two distinct halves. Rather the stories are spliced together using high def digital video for the present, while the beginning of the relationship (which is always a little fuzzy) is shot on 16-mm film. This story telling helps to accentuate each moment.

But what is never seen is the middle, what happened between these two moments that left these people like this. To the story those moments are not important, it's not important to place blame but rather an examination of how two people can meet and what little it takes to fall in and out of love. Still the effect it can leave on you is overwhelming.

Much like a real relationship both sides have their demons and both sides contribute to the end. It's frightening how truthful this movie feels to watch a couple just fall out of love. And Cianfrance doesn't show us his hand, he may lead us in certain directions, but we never see how Cindy and Dean have come to this point in their lives after overcoming so much. Much like in real life they never say where it all went wrong all we are left with are the biggest moments of any relationship, the beginning and end of it. A-

Oscars 2011: First Glance

2011-01-25T08:11:00.000-08:00

It's Oscar Season. Followers of this blog know that I love this time of year and like to draw it out as much as possible. So while I do plan on doing a post on my predictions for the awards, first here are a few things that caught my eye.

I knew that The King's Speech would be Oscar bait, I didn't think it would be leading the pack with 12 nominations. I thought it would be The Social Network. But the movie leading with all the best picture awards already didn't even garner second place. True Grit, which is a fun movie don't get wrong, took second with ten nominations.

This may be because of the glaring omission of Andrew Garfield as Supporting Actor. I genuinely thought all three men, Garfield, Justin Timberlake and Armie Hammer all deserved nominations for their performances, but that wasn't legitimately possible. Instead none get nominated and that is unfortunate.

Where was Nolan's nomination for director? Two years ago they expanded the Best Picture field to include blockbusters that don't get love from the Academy. So while Inception is rightly included in the best picture field it didn't get any love in the directing field. Nolan probably deserved more accolades for his directing than his screen writing. But if it were the other way around I'd probably still be bitching about it.

For lead actors Ryan Gosling got robbed. His performance with Michelle Williams is symbiotic, how is it possible for one to get nominatted and not the other. I imagine it was Javier Bardem who took his spot. Like most of America though I haven't seen Biutiful but I plan on getting to the bottom of this. I hear good things though, and to his credit Bardem becomes the first actor to be nominated as solely specking in Spanish throughout the film.

Call me crazy but I enjoyed Julianne Moore's performance more than Annette Bening's from The Kids Are Alright. Both deserved nominations and if only one was going to get the honor everyone knew it was going to be Bening but I thought Bening had a one strong moment where as Moore was consistently good throughout the movie.

Wasn't Waiting for "Superman" supposed to be the documentary everyone had to see to save our children? How did this movie not get nominated?

I love that Melissa Leo earned a nomination as the maniacal mother in The Fighter but where is the love for Barbara Hershey an equally if not more sinister parental figure for Black Swan because I'm not actually even sure if she was that evil or not.

Everyone is saying that The Town deserved more accolades. And with ten pictures being nominated for Best Picture it is really hard to snub a film anymore when it really only comes down to one or two films. What about directing or the screenplay. I actually agreed with the Academy on this one, and while it was a fun movie, unlike Nolan (who I would gladly substitute for Tom Hooper) I couldn't take anyone off the directing list for Ben Affleck.

What did you think. Am I wrong in any of these nomiantions? Is there someone else you thought got snubbed? Let me know

The King's Speech

2011-01-21T12:50:00.000-08:00

Well if this isn't Oscar bait I don't know what is. A movie about the British monarchs that comes out in December. The only thing that is holding it back from pure gold is that it is actually doing well in the box office, people are going to see it.

It seems that come award season a couple movies always make it across the pond and infiltrate the system. This movie follows the same formula as the ones before it. It humanizes the monarch while still telling a story of perseverance. Already nabbing a couple awards it is sure to win a couple of Oscars as well. Had it not been for the suburb acting in this movie I'm sure this would just be another British film nabbing awards that no one would see.

The title of the film references two things. Both the slammer that Albert Fredrick Arthur George (His Majesty to you) possessed since an early age. It is this stammer he must overcome to deliver his most important address to the nation at the dawn of World War II with Hitler knocking on the doorstep.

But Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush make it worth it. Firth plays the stammering king who lives in the shadow of his father and brother, hauntingly played by Michael Gambon and Guy Pearce respectively. He once again dives into the role that calls for quiet restraint. He has become known for this type of role and continues to flourish with it. But his best moments are when he steps out of his quiet demeanor and stands up for himself. He is a shoo-in for best actor this year.

Firth's strong performance of the damaged son lacking confidence allows for his supporting cast to step out and excel as they try to raise him up. Helena Bonham Carter does well as the Queen Mum, her strong personality fits well as she interacts with some of the commoners. Her role is more limited in this story so most of the accolades not given to Firth will likely be given to his other costar. Geoffrey Rush steals every scene as the eccentric speech therapist who believes in his king. He delivers most of, if not all the laughs in the movie (Timothy Spall has some as Winston Churchill but I'm not sure if that's the writing or the fact that Timothy Spall is playing Winston Churchill). There is little to no nuance to the performance and while it may be the big named actors that get you in the theater it will be Rush who keeps you in your seat.

That seems to be what the problem with so many other English movies, they are often so serious that they keep fun loving American movie goers away from the theater. The performances and writing in the movie will keep the viewer engaged. All the characters are believable and it isn't until the final sequence that all the king talk really hits home, it is less about the monarch and more about the man looking to fulfill his duty.

Writer David Seidler had been looking to make this film for some time. And although he didn't need to, he asked for permission from the Queen Mum to make the movie. She in turn asked him to wait till after her death as the memories were still to fresh for her. After she passed away at the age of 150 he was finally able to tell the story of a man who fell by the wayside with so many larger personalities during this time period.

The story is an interesting one, but the execution is what brings the movie down a peg, it is formulaic. Fortunately the formula is how to win a lot of awards so it is a good path to follow. Even more fortunate are the male leads in the movie as they take the this story over the top which will have one of these men (though both deserve it) walking away with gold in February. A-

The Fighter

2011-01-05T17:08:00.000-08:00

Recently it seems like a lot of movies are moving Northeast. The cities here seem to have split personalities from hoity-toity, ivy league elitism to gritty drug filled cesspools. Seeing this movie in Boston added a little something special to the screening. Boston often gets depicted as a tough place to live with a lot of characters who tend to be rough around the edges. The Boston accent is one of the most notorious out there and often gets butchered as actors try to pick up the nuances of Boston, but really just turn into a caricature of the city. The accent even trips up people who previously lived here, looking at you Affleck. It has been tough for Boston to shed this image even though Lowell, where the story takes place, is actually 30 miles north of Boston.

Cut to inside the theater where a man in his 60s is smoking the same unfiltered camels he has clearly been smoking for the past 40 years. A fight almost breaks out on the left side of the auditorium over the incident. Sorry Menino, the caricature is hear to stay, time to embrace it. That is exactly what director David Russell does with The Fighter, he allows the city of Lowell to breathe and really come into its own. Whether it's them walking down the street, talking with everyone they pass, or its the training they do in preparation for the fight. Lowell is heavily featured in this movie, for better or worse.

In fact one of the most subtle performances in the movie comes from the man who has tried to get this movie made for four years. Mark Wahlberg (here to be known as Marky Mark) stars and produces in this movie about the Irish boxer Mickey Ward looking to keep his career going as long as possible. He trained everyday for four years in preparation for this film to look and understand the part. He also shopped the film around to as many people as possible including Martin Scorsese. It wasn't until Russell came along, whom he previously worked with on Three Kings and I Heart Huckabees that all his efforts came to fruition. For all the effort Marky Mark puts into his film he chooses to stand aside as the lead character and let his co-stars do the heavy hitting. It is to his credit as his understated performance really helps the movie excel.

The hardest hitting performance in the movie is hands down Christina Bale as Mickey's half-brother and trainer Dickie. Just as Dickie stole the spotlight off Mickey in the family, Bale steals it away from Marky Mark. He is infectious, loyal and tragic all rolled into one as Dickie is cursed with addictions to both the lime light and crack that nearly destroy him. In his past life he was able to knock down Sugar Ray Leonard and it seems to be in that life that Dickie wants to live, and almost everyone is willing to cater to that. There is no one out there in Hollywood who would be better suited to take on this character. His method tendencies, which have gotten him in trouble in the past is what makes him perfect for this role in what is sure to finally get him a Oscar Nomination, and most likely be the heavy favorite to win among the Academy. Seriously how has Bale never even been nominated for the award?

Although it may be tough to see past Christian Bale, Melissa Leo also pulls out a fantastic performance as the mother of the boxing duo. She is trying to manage Mickey's career but it is never clear whose interests she really has at heart. It would be silly to try to cast her singularly as the monstrous mother as she is so much more than that. She is strong and determined to make sure the family stays together and has an army of daughters to ensure she achieves her goal at whatever expense. Opposing his mother is Amy Adams as the underachieving girlfriend, she proves her versatility as an actor branching out from her typical sweet demeanor. In this movie she shines as a character hardened by strife and the only one strong enough to pull Mickey away from the talons of his mother.

It is the relationships in Mickey's life that drives the heart of the movie. All the characters seem to know what is best as they battle over Mickey's soul. Marky Mark understands the talent he has surrounded himself with and it is to his credit that he decides to step back and allow the chemistry of the project to take over.

Inside the ring the cinematography differs from other boxing movie. In Rocky, for example, every hit seems to be a haymaker and for the most part that is what the audience wants to see, but not how a real boxing match takes place. To capture the feel of the fights Russell chose to use Beta Cameras, which is what would have been used to capture the fights in the early nineties. They also received help from the HBO film crews whose years of experience around the ring helped the fight scenes feel more plausible than previous boxing movies.

Boxing as a sport seems to be headed to the wayside with the emergence of mixed martial arts. Leaving most of us to only admire times and stories gone by. Wahlberg proves that he cares about this project and his passion is projected off the screen to the viewers. A-

Black Swan

2010-12-20T22:41:00.000-08:00

The beginning of the movie, is the movie. It tells the whole story of what is to come the rest of the way. Unlike the movie it takes place while our main character is asleep so we know that this isn't happening, the rest of the way the audience can never be sure what in the movie is real and what is not. From there we dip in and out of the mind of Darren Aronofsky as he places Natalie Portman in prime position to win an Oscar.

SYNOPSIS

Portman plays Nina Sayers, a girl with the singular obsession of becoming the prima ballerina at her New York Company. She works the hardest and her technique is perfect making her the best choice for the White Swan but the artistic director has decided to combine the White and Black Swan into one role and she lacks the passion to play the antagonist. Enter Mila Kunis, the sexy, free spirited transfer from San Fransisco. Her character Lily is everything that Nina wishes she could be and embodies the spirit of the Black Swan. In any other production the casting would be clear, in this production Nina must take Lily in as a rival, friend, and mentor.

FIN

The movie entices you in the opening sequence, the music will keep you entranced. Clint Mansell was brought on to score the film, and has worked with Aronofsky before. For Black Swan he created the entire score using only elements from the original 1876 ballet. The music elevates every sensation during the movie and hits at all the right times. While many will want to forget some of the things they have just witnessed it will be impossible to leave the theater without Tchaikovsky's original composition stuck in your head.

Portman's performance as the singularly minded professional is haunting. The character's transformation to reach perfection seems almost effortless. The most challenging part of the performance was no doubt the ten months of dance lessons along with the 20 pounds she needed to drop to look like a dancer. It pays off as Portman looks solid doing most of her own dancing. Her own transformation helps makes the character's transformation more believable. If she had not gone through ten hour days of training, seven days a week her performance may have suffered. Instead we get nothing but intensity. The rise of evil is a story not usually shared as it tends to do so poorly box-office. Plus there are many of us who have been Disney-fied to believe that all stories have a happy ending, when in actuality the story of Swan Lake itself is a tragedy. Nina seems to suffer from an idealistic state of naivety exemplified by her pink room filled with dolls. She is forced to go through both a psychological and physical transformation to achieve her ultimate goal.

The people Nina surrounds herself with do little to help with finding the correct balance to achieve her goal. Vincent Cassel plays the director pushing her to embrace her sensual side to become The Black Swan. Her desire for his approval allows him to take full advantage of his pupil, Nina speaks highly of her director yet we see her being treated in a poor manner. It's tough to tell if this is a power play and deception or a brilliant artist looking to get the most out of his players. The ambiguity leaves the audience to wonder whose side is he on, is he playing the part of Prince Siegfried or von Rothbart. In all actuality it is probably intended to be a combination of both, much like his leading lady.

Nina still lives with her mother, played perfectly by Barbara Hershey, and is a former ballerina herself, who no doubt pushed her daughter into this career path. Her mother simultaneously tries to coddle Nina and subvert her as she is envious of her daughter becoming more successful than she could ever be. The other older figure we see is the former prima ballerina, forced into retirement. Winona Ryder shows our lead what happens after the limelight is taken away, and what could be awaiting her. Her presence in the film adds to her fear of being overtook by another actress in the company.

Then there is the seductress Mila Kunis, who mirrors Portman in almost every facet. The difference being the free-spirited nature she posses which threaten Nina as the prima ballerina. Lily is the most difficult character to decipher in the film as Nina may be influencing the audience by projecting onto her rival slash fried. Lily leaves the audience enchanted and unsure what to believe as she shares the same ambition as Nina and seems willing to do what is necessary. She, along with some of the other ballerinas, highlight the competitive nature of the theater and adds to the pressure of the protagonist to excel or risk being bypassed. It is a delicate balance of ruthlessness and friendship that Kunis shows well on the screen. Rarely are there many movies that deliver so many strong female characters, it is a credit to writers Mark Haymen and Andres Heinz. Oh and the girl on girl stuff is hot.

Taking away from the character development and evolution in the film is some of the dialouge. There is little to no subtlty in this film. Darren Aronofsky has a certain way he wants his viewers to feel and then beats you over the head with it. The writing also possess this trait by having the characters around Nina scream things at her that the audience should be inferring for themselves. This is in direct conflict with the rest of the film as Aronofsky rarely gives up his hand in showing what is real.

Similar to The Wrestler, Aronofsky chooses to use a hand held camera for most of the movie, using a lot of medium and close-up shots. The shakey camera work adds to the rocky experience that embodies the transformation. It forces the viewer quickly to encompass the style of movie and emerge yourself completely into the film or risk being left by the wayside. And no one wants to walk out of a movie disheartened, especially after spending all that money on popcorn. The movie at points is very ridiculous, in its premise and writing. To fully enjoy it, much like the performers in the play the directors ask you to submerge fully into the art, allowing it to take complete control.

The movie is all about artistic obsession and if the art is supposed to reflect the artist than you have to wonder what is going on in Aronofsky's head. Especially considering so many of his films deal with a protagonist reaching for greatness in their career at the cost of everything else around them (read: The Wrestler, Pi). I just want someone to make sure he is okay, and let him know that people like his stuff. A

True Grit

2010-12-16T12:01:00.000-08:00

The Coen Brothers know their way around a film. That much has been established over the years. And after a few films that were not seen by too many, they return to the West, but this time around with the clock set back a few years.

True Grit is based of the 1968 novel of the same name. And while it shares its source material with the 1969 film that won John Wayne his only Oscar, it would be unfair to call this a remake. Lost is the tone of the previous film, it loses some of the laughs and but increases the darker parts of the Western lifestyle that was featured in the novel as Wayne still had an image to maintain and could not be as dirty as the original text intended.

That is not to say that this movie is not heavy on some outstanding deadpan writing and delivery, far from it. The Coen Brothers excel with their character introductions showing in the first frames what we can expect the rest of the way. Our first introduction to Rooster Cogburn sets the tone and his scene in the court room goes on to solidify it. He shows off a great balance of comedy and badassary that only Jeff Bridges could pull off, The Dude was the perfect replacement for The Duke.

This movie also differs with the original in that it does not revolve around The Duke/Dude, but rather a 14-year-old girl. Usually I can't stand child actors but Haliee Steinfeld does a fantastic job as Mattie Ross, who is looking to avenge her father's death. Her introduction to the audience features a confrontation with a store clerk over money. In this scene she proves that not only can she hold her own in the Western frontier, but this young actor belongs in the company of these big time Hollywood names.

Not enough can be said about how the Coen's handle this movie, their strength lies not only in their writing but in their ability to gather the best talent to achieve their goal. Cinematographer Roger Deakins highlights the Western backdrops, both its vast frontiers and deep inside the forest. Carter Burwell uses an elegant score to highlight some of the more serious notes in the movie. Thankfully the music in this movie is all instrumental and the people behind the camera choose to leave out the singing cowboys.

Much like any movie that takes place in the old West and involves searching for someone across great distances this movie does have a tendency to drag on. But all the points prior should make up for this. If you are either a fan of the Coen Brothers, a fan of the actors, or a fan of the genre or any combination there of you should enjoy this movie. B+

Yogi Bear: The Alternate Ending

2010-12-14T11:16:00.000-08:00

Yogi Bear comes out this weekend. While I don't want to ruin the movie for any fans out there an alternate ending for the movie has been leaked onto the web. I believe it to be my duty to at least allow you to see it. Enjoy.

The Tourist

2010-12-11T13:02:00.000-08:00

For some reason with so much star power and Oscar winners working on the script I somehow expected more from this movie. But now it seems the reason this movie was signed on by so many was for a paid vacation to Venice. Not to say I blame them, but I would hesitate before I indulge their fantasies, unless of course you want to get away a little yourself.

This is a classic tale of a female temptress and a bumbling hero. Angelina Jolie fills the role, and every part of her dresses, perfectly. While there aren't too many wide shots of Venice there are plenty of Jolie posing and strutting from place to place, which seemed to be the only requirement for this role. She is not asked to show off any of her acting in this one, but rather just allow the camera to follow her, both the movie's camera and the ones from the surveillance teams that are following her.

Johnny Depp plays a math teacher from Wisconsin who gets caught up in the whole game by looking similar to the man that everyone is trying to find. Happens to me all the time, they tell me George don’t you have to get ready for your show in LA, I’m quick to clarify. For a role that requires him to jump into a canopy and subsequently into a fruit cart he plays this role pretty straight, and takes it probably more serious than he should.

The supporting cast all fall into cliché parts. From the cops that are after them to the mobsters who want all their money back. Both sides of the law seem to have the aim of stormtroopers, so it is very clear that no one at any point in this movie is in any real danger. The most telling part of their acting is the nonchalance these characters take to capturing the two leads, which reflects the effort put in by the people who wrote the script.

I could go into what happens in the movie, but it doesn’t seem to be all that important to the people who worked on it, so why should you concern yourself with it. The script was written by Oscar winners all around which makes me wonder what happened. The screenplay is done by Christopher McQuarrie and Julian Fellows who won Oscars for their writing of "The Usual Suspects" and "Gosford Park" respectively. And the director, Florian Henckel von Donnersmarch, just won an Oscar in 2007 for best foreign film. My theory is they are using these awards as paper weights to keep all the money they got for this movie from flying away.

I'm not entirely sure what this movie wants to be, I'm not sure if they are trying to make this an amazing action movie, a farce, or one that keeps you guessing throughout the movie. In all honesty the movie fails in all of these categories. Fail may actually be too strong a word, in all actuality the movie just doesn't succeed. But on the plus side for the cast and crew they did get a paid trip to Venice. D

Love and Other Drugs

2010-11-22T13:17:00.000-08:00

Sometimes life can feel a little unbalanced as you try and find just that, balance. Through the harder times that you may face people will look for ways to avoid thinking of the turmoil you may face using laughter and maybe if you’re lucky the comfort of another person if only for a little while. There are a lot of people out there who will critique this movie for being unbalanced. Considering the material, I think that is exactly why I liked Love and Other Drugs.

The story features two actors who feed very well off each other, which is probably why this is the second time they are being coupled up. Having previously knocked boots in Brokeback Mountain, the two seem to try and make another Academy run. While this one will fall short of any nomination, that doesn't stop the two actors from lighting up the screen.

Based in the nineties Jake Gyllenhaal plays Jamie Randall, a man who is currently trying to find his calling. While passionate about whatever he does, he often lets his passions get in his way. Until his charm is able to help him in a billion dollar industry with pharmaceuticals. It also allows him to meet Maggie Murdock, played by Anne Hathaway, who suffers from Level 1 Parkinson's. Both are looking for a casual encounter, to help them keep their minds off the heavier stuff.

The movie tries a little too hard to capture the era with some of its music selections but we'll give it a pass since visually the nineties don't look all that different from today. From there the movie fluxuates between a comedy, romantic comedy, drama, and then back to romantic comedy. Not to say that many Rom-Coms don't try and do just that, but it seems like director Edward Zwick is not sure what story he wants to tell. He starts with a romantic comedy featuring a lot of naked Anne Hathaway, I mean a lot of naked, but if I looked as good as her naked I'm sure I wouldn't mind bearing it all either. From there the movie shifts towards a look at how people with a life altering disease and those around them cope. What seems like two different stories may be attributed to the movie coming out of two different source materials. The movie is based loosely on Jamie Reidy's memoir "Hard Sell: The Evolution of a Viagra Salesman," along with Zwick and his buddy Marshall Herskovitz contributing a love storyline.

MINOR SPOILER ALERT (I TALK MORE ABOUT TONE)

While the bulk of the movie was enjoyable, even with two different messages occurring within the flick, the end retreats back to a cliché romantic comedy and ends in a very cliché way. The rest of the movie was different from what has recently come out of Hollywood and had something to say, even if it wasn’t defined. But because the movie was so unclear, I think Zwick, who also helped with the screenplay, had no choice but to retreat back to a formulaic approach to the movie, leaving the viewer with a bad taste in their mouth walking out of the theater.

SPOILER OVER

Gyllenhaal and Hathaway don’t have to do this all by their lonesome. They get some big help from a solid supporting cast. Oliver Platt stars as a mentor to James Randall showing him the ropes of the traveling salesman; Platt’s character follows along with the storyline showing off both a funny and softer side. The main sales target for these two is Hank Azaria playing Dr. Stan Knight who can be bought off for the right price. Then there is James’ brother Josh who is set for life and introduces him to the business, but then doesn’t really have too much reason to be in the movie. While getting more screen time than his other co-stars, after getting his brother the job Josh doesn’t serve much of a purpose besides being the occasional comic relief. He does a good job in the role, but even Jamie eventually asks his brother why he’s crashing the couch.

Yes, the movie loses its way but its hearts in the right place. Not only that, but the two young actors’ charisma help outshine any problems that the story may have. I liked this movie a whole lot, as there were some moments that really hit home, but can understand those who just felt lost in the jumble. B-/C+

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows — Part 1

2010-11-16T19:26:00.000-08:00

The final chapter is here. When they first movie came out the high school seniors now were in first grade. We have grown alongside Harry Potter and now his final task is upon us in what will no doubt be the biggest hit of the holiday season. This series both has left its mark on our culture both with the written word and cinematically. While I have never enjoyed the books, I appreciate that it got kids to read, and in a day of growing technology there is not enough one can say about J.K. Rowling’s feat. The movies have also had their ups and downs but here I am pretty confident when I say this movie is one of the up moments.

The decision to break up the final book into two movies was a decision made by Rowling so as to not leave any part of her manuscript out. But you can guarantee that the studio had no problem receiving even more money from a franchise that has already garnered over five billion dollars.

This movie is not for those who have never seen the others. There are so many name drops and so much terminology from the others that I was relieved that I had rewatched the previous one before entering the theater, but there were moments that I still felt overwhelmed. And this one jumps right into it, showing our three leads looking ahead to the daunting task ahead of them and the sacrifices they will need to make. We never step foot into the comforting halls of Hogwarts in this one, the dark theme is set from the opening title sequence and the skies never really clear from there.

The cinematography and musical score play a huge part in setting the tension for the movie. Once the previous cinematographer declined to return, worried he would repeat his work, Eduardo Serra took the helm. The dark and ominous lighting never leaves the screen and even when the sun is out there is always something dimming down the light. Meanwhile, while John Williams expressed an interest in scoring this movie as he did the first three they decided to go with Alexanre Desplat. While I will never speak ill of Williams, Desplat does a fine job making sure the audience is never quite comfortable. There is rarely a moment of relief in this movie as there has been in the others, and much of the audiences’ tension can be attributed to the fine work of these two men. On a side note I would love to go back and look at the other films to see the evolution of the lighting and music as Voldemort power grows through the series. With little doubt I can say this is the darkest movie yet.

The supporting cast is an All Star English team that could rival any ensemble that Team America could dream of making up including: Helena Bonham Carter, Ralph Fiennes, Michael Gambon, Brendan Gleeson, Jason Isaacs, Bill Nighy, Alan Rickman, Fiona Shaw, Timothy, Spall, Tom Felton, and Peter Mullan just to name a few.

With the book being broken up into two parts and everything being left in we are left with sequences that would usually be cut or at least shortened due to time constraints. Instead left in are our three heroes journeying across the English countryside looking for horcruxes and avoiding death eaters. The scenes rely heavily on Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, and Rupert Grint and they do not disappoint. It’s been a pleasure to watch these three actors develop their craft and while Radcliffe and Watson have been performing well for quite some time now Grint has finally come into his own. The scenes which have them dealing with their emotions and love for each other, both platonic and otherwise, are gripping and a testament to the casting and development of these three youngsters. Often the other movies have been swallowed by CGI and while there is probably a different foe attacking these children every ten minutes or so, it's the scenes where they are left to their own devices that are truly magic.

For those familiar with the book one of the more impressive/startling sequences in the movie is the retelling of the story of the three brothers. The style and content of the story is a perfect example of the maturity displayed throughout the movie, especially when comparing it to the earlier movies. This series has been all about the rise to evil so there is little doubt that this movie isn’t intended for the younger Potter fans.

The movie ends with plenty of still to come, including a final face off between hero and villain. The world of Harry Potter has changed over the course of seven different stories, times are bleak and Harry and company are rarely far away from danger. It’s been over a decade of people watching and waiting to see how it would all come to an end, and while most of the audience will already know how it all plays out it’s never really been about the ending, it’s about the journey. B+

Unstoppable

2010-11-02T18:47:00.003-07:00

Tis the season for Oscar bait, and with that comes added depth to the movies coming out this season. Unstoppable doesn't contain a single extra layer. You know exactly what you're getting. A train you can't stop dangerous chemicals on the tracks, headed towards a small blue collar town, with a train full of children coming in the opposite direction. We're one horse and a sweet mustache away from a Dudley-do-right cartoon. Cue the woman tied to the tracks.

Not that there is anything wrong with this formula. If this is what you want when you are going to the movies then director Tony Scott is going to give you exactly that. It's full of the train running through things which always impresses me as to how things still remain on tracks. Despite whistles, bells, and a track signaling the exact path of said train people still manage to leave shit in front of it. Really that is a credit to the writers of the movie, but that is the only kudos i will be handing out to the team who was able to churn out gems like "We're talking about a missile the size the Chrysler building" and then go to lunch feeling good about themselves.

This movie has almost every cliche you could think of right down to the actors playing their parts. These are just two ordinary men hopping from car to car on a runaway train trying to protect their loved ones who live in the town the train is headed towards. It features the chiseled old employee, Denzel Washington, who is being forced to retire and train the new employee, Chris Pine, who is just trying to find his calling and make amends with his astranged family. One can only hope a high pressure situation will fix all of that. Denzel Washington has worked with Tony Scott in five previous films so they clearly enjoy working with each other. And I think after Denzel wins awards for acting, like the TONY for Fences he enjoys doing mindless action flicks where he can get a nice paycheck. Meanwhile Chris Pine should be on everyones list of actors to watch before he gets even more expensive to cast.

Besides the train barreling down to kill a school of nuns, the antagonistic forces in this movie are the suits worried about minimizing their costs. Everyone plays the roles and fits into the subsets that they need to. The middle man is played by Miss Rosario Dawson who has yet to blow me away in any of her performances but she does the job and I never regret seeing any of her films.

There are a lot of laugh out loud moments in this flick whether that is intentional or not. Much of it stems from the live news coverage of the story to further convey that the movie is based on real events. All of the news outlets privy us to awful coverage and ridiculous graphics which is probably the most accurate portrayal of the story.

For all the flack I have given it, my opening statement is true. These guys give you exactly what you want. It follows a B-movie formula and will actually get your heart pounding if you let yourself become immersed in the ridiculousness of it all. B-