Avatar

Today, I am disappointed in the movie nerd community. This is a group that I have been proud to be a part of for many years. Whenever a good movie slips past the general public and is danger of falling into obscurity, the movie nerds give it the respect it deserves. Without movie nerds, I never would have seen Brick, Oldboy, or the Pusher trilogy. They're also responsible for turning me onto such television shows as Veronica Mars and Battlestar Gallactica, both of which now rank amoung my all time favorites. But as I said, today I am disappointed, because they have allowed themselves to fall victim to Fox and the James Cameron hype machine, to forfeit the need for plot and characters and drama all in the name of some pretty pictures. Avatar may be pretty, but it is dramatically inert and as emotionally hollow as the Na'vi home tree (for those who haven't seen the movie, it's a hollowed out tree.)

I don't want to come across as a James Cameron hater. There are many of them out there, but I am not one of them. Up until recently, he was my favorite director and had he chose to keep making real movies rather than take a 10 year hiatus to make documentaries, he probably still would be (the title now goes to Christopher Nolan.) Cameron is responsible for my two favorite movies of all time (Terminator 2 and Aliens), but that is not enough to make me see past the failure that is Avatar. Yes, I said failure. Any movie that takes a decade and close to $300 million to bring to fruition should be something spectacular. What we are given is far from that.

I'll get to the tech Cameron used in a minute, but as it should have been in the movie, I'll start with the foundation elements, plot and character. I made the assertion to someone earlier that the movie had no plot, only to have this person give me the Webster's definition of plot, so, yes, it has a plot in the technical sense, but not in the sense that matters. This is basically a reshashing of Dances With Wolves, The Last Samurai, or any other white guilt movie ever made. The focus of Avatar is a paraplegic marine named Jake, who through a crazy random happenstance becomes part of the avatar program on the distant planet Pandora. This program is designed to mix human and alien DNA to create synthetic aliens which are remotely driven by humans. If it sounds complicated, it's not, and is all explained in one line of dialogue. Through his avatar, Jake is given the ability to walk again and he slowly begins to infiltrate the Na'vi (10 foot tall blue cat people who make up Pandora's native race) to find out all of their secrets. Surpisingly (read: not suprisingly at all), Jake begins to connect with the aliens and realizes they are not savages at all, but really nice people. For $300 million, we deserve a lot better than this as a story.

Aside from being the most unimagined story ever, it is just filled with things that don't make sense. For example, the first thing that we are told about the Na'vi is that they are very hard to kill. If by hard to kill, they mean just shoot them with a gun, than yeah, it's true. Also, the year is 2154, we have the tech to create artificial aliens and drive them iwth our minds, and yet wheelchairs are still the exact same thing. Oops, didn't think that one through, did ya Jim? These are just more examples that show the script came second to the visuals, which should never happen.

Maybe, just maybe, this simple and cliche story might have worked if every character in the film hadn't been flat and one note. Sam Worthington is good as Jake, but there is no reason behind anything his character does. It's as though he's supposed to do certain things to move the "plot" along, though neither he nor audience really understands why. Neytiri, the alien warrior princess, is the most interesting character in the movie and probably gets the closest thing to a character arc in the film (yes, more happens to Jake's character, but it's all bullshitl.) Zoe Saldana gives an excellent performance and thanks to Cameron motion capture tech, we are able to see the few instances of emotion in the film (but sadly, we don't feel anything.) The best performance is the live action one of Stephen Lang, the film's bad guy, Colonel Quarrich. Quarrich is a buffed out, scarred, Ryan Seacrest looking soldier who is hell bent on solving every problems with guns and thinks humans are awesome and alien sucks. Never has anyone done so much with such garbage lines ("You're not in Kansas anymore. You're on Pandora.") Rounding out the cast is Sigourney Weaver, who's horrible, and Michelle Rodriguez, who's good.

The reason that this film took so long to make is the tech that Cameron used. It is an evolution of the motion capture tech we've seen in Lord of the Rings and King Kong. Never has it been done on this scale and never has it been done as well as Cameron has used it here. We see every twitch of the Na'vi faces, and it is really something to behold. The problem is, at no point do we ever forget we are watching mo-cap and it creates a buffer between the film and the audience. It's just hard to care about something you know isn't real at all. It's also tough to care about the Na'vi when they are nothing more than blatant stereotypes of native americans. Again, you spend $300 million creating a world and the creatures, and then you give them no traits of their own. That's just bad writing.

Not only did Cameron create the race with mo-cap, he also used digital 3D when creating the entire planet of Pandora and all of its other creatures. The various alien animals are impressive and look good, but the designs are nothing more spectacular than Pan's Labyrinth. Also, creating a world, while never seen on this scale in movies, has been done in video games for years. And that's really what Avatar is. It's a video game you can't play, and that's no fun.

At the end of the day, when you advertise your movie as a "game changer" and your tagline is "Movies will never be the same" people will expect things from your movie, and Avatar doesn't just not deliver on it, it's just a average movie by any standards. Don't get me wrong, it's very nice to look at, but if you're someone who likes a little more than some pretty pictures moving on screen, then you should probably look elsewhere.

UPDATE: Upon rereading this, it feels as though I'm saying I am the only person in the movie nerd community who sees this movie for what it is. That's not the case. There are some very good bloggers out there who have written articles on Avatar's problems, mostly notably CHUD's Devin Faraci and Cinematical's Elisabeth Rappe. There are others, and I did not mean to paint the community as a whole, though I am still disappointed in the vast majority.

Invictus

Clint Eastwood used to be a badass. Really, this guy was awesome. He's responsible for Unforgiven, which could be the best western ever (yeah, I said it.) He also made Mystic River, a great movie that would have won a ton of Oscars if not up against the juggernaut of Return of the King. Since then, he's made a movie about lesbian boxers, a WWII double feature that was only half good, a period piece that nobody saw, and a horrible movie about racist old men and his neighbors who can't act very well. So, instead of going back to smaller movies that have worked well for him, or possibly going back to westerns where he could eventually become an all time great, he makes a period piece about rugby. Damn, what happened to this guy?

Invictus suffers most from being just plain boring. When you can explain the entire movie in a sentence, you've got problems. Don't get me wrong, things happen on screen. But if you ask yourself exactly what important events happened, you realize there weren't any. Eastwood obviously didn't read my article about how to make a good sports film, because he went against pretty much everything I said, except for not casting Dennis Quaid (thank god).

Not one character in this film has any sort of depth. It took me a while to realize that I wasn't watching Morgan Freeman's character from Robin Hood, but rather a movie about Nelson Mandela. Eastwood throws some character traits about Mandela at us, but we're just told them, never allowed to see them blend in with the character and feel real. Yes, he has good intentions and wants to unite the country, but we never see what's below the surface. At least Freeman actually does things in the movie. Poor Matt Damon was a glorified extra. He gets a few lines of cliche dialogue and that's about it. His accent was pretty good though.

Another thing I said about making a sports movie is don't make it all about the big game. Good thing this movie isn't all about winning the rugby world cup. Oh wait, it is. Well shit. All we're told to care about the whole movie is this game, not the players, not the country, but this game. Luckily the actual rugby games aren't really awkwardly shot so I have no clue what's going on. Oh wait, they are. Well shit again. At least we don't have to deal with another "slo-mo, ball in the air for the final shot" cliche ending. Wait a minute, we do. What the hell Clint?

The best way to describe Invictus is that it's a movie that never had to be made. Nothing good comes from it. It'll either be forgotten in years when Eastwood gets back on track or it'll be the movie that defined him as a mediocre filmmaker for the rest of his career. Either way, nothing good. Eastwood is in a rut right now, and I really hope he gets out because he's got an eye for making certain movies. Go back to westerns Clint, and remember, nobody cares about rugby.

The Fantastic Mr. Fox

As a English major, I like to think of myself as someone who is good with words and can be an eloquent writer when I so choose. I'm also legally old enough to not enjoy various alcoholic drinks (anyone who says that alcohol is better than yoohoo is a liar), so that means I'm mature, or at least I should be. I'm going to throw both of those out the window in my broad generalization of stop motion animation as "moving poop." Yes, it's juvenile, but out of all the various statements I've made on film, I don't think I've ever said anything more accurate. So, now that we've got my feelings on stop motion out of the way (seriously though, it's like some colored poop and it is moving, but I digress), let's address the film at hand, The Fantastic Mr. Fox.

Throughout this horrible excuse for a movie I found myself trying to understand the origins of the title. Is it supposed to be ironic, because it's the exact opposite of fantastic? Don't worry, my lawyers are already drafting a letter to director Wes Anderson's people to deal with this blatant false advertising. While I await a response, why don't I tell you why it's so bad? From the first frame, I knew this wouldn't be a movie for me. While this is not claymation, it is still stop motion which is just the most aesthetically off-putting visual style I can ever imagine. Maybe if there was a plot or or humor or emotion then I could see past the visuals, but none of that is existent in the movie. Instead we are presented with dry attempts at humor and a plot that any 5 year old child can see through. I've never been the biggest fan of Wes Anderson's humor, but I laughed during Life Aquatic, so I can find it funny if it's done right. Instead, TFMF is a serious of zany comments and off beat jokes. From a plot standpoint, it's about a family of Fox's that keeps digging deeper to get away from a group of hunters above them. How about you stop going down and start digging sideways to get away?

While I may hate this movie (yes, Mom, I know hate is a strong word; I wish there was a stronger one), I am still enough of a movie man to be impressed when something is done right. I certainly appreciate the work that went into the animation in this movie. Each hair on the animal is an actual hair. That level of work is insane, I just wish it was used for a better movie. Anderson has a few continuous shots that impressed me and for those seconds, I forgot how much I hate stop motion. The most interesting thing that came out of this movie is something that we will never see, but is rather how Anderson got the voices. Rather than place the actors in a sound booth, he brought them to a farm and had them act out the movie. This creates a much fluid, conversational tone between the voice actors and allows the voices to feel more natural as they are actually doing the things that their animated characters are.

Whatever good things this movie has going for it are overshadowed by the dumbass narrative song sequence in the middle of the film. Remember that dance sequence in (500) Days of Summer? Well, this is the opposite of that. It takes the movie from "hmm, this is pretty bad" to "oh my god, this is horrible." I could probably come up with a witty ending to the article, but I'll leave you with what the kid behind me kept saying: "Mommy, why is that funny?" I wish I knew.

The Road

Earlier this year, I opted not to review Watchmen because I didn't trust my ability to separate the movie from my love of the source material. The same argument could be made about The Road, but I think I'm a much more awesome and accomplished blogger now (wouldn't you agree, my 5 readers?) and this is a movie that will definitely be in the awards conversation at the end of the year.

Really the quickest way to cover what I think about The Road is to say it's very good. It's right on the cusp of greatness, and I would never fault anyone for saying that it's great, or that it's just good, but as it stands now, I view it as a very good movie that lacks rewatch value. That probably comes off sounding like a shot at the movie, but it's not. The Road is a slow, dark, depressing movie that packs an emotional whallop. It is made to weigh on you well after you leave the theater. If you could watch this multiple times in a week or month, I'd say the filmmakers failed to do there job. Any movie I like as much as this, I usually see about 2 or 3 times during it's theater run. There is no way I will watch it again until blu-ray because I just can't take that much drain again.

If this sounds like a bit too much for you, then you can stop reading now (but stay and read some of the other stuff.) Everything about this movie is deliberately done. The world that director John Hillcoat creates is most realistic representation of a post-apocalyptic world I have ever seen (Yes, even more realistic than McG's Terminator Salvation.) Everything is covered with dirt and devoid of any color, including the people. The violence and visuals are uncompromising and graphic, exactly the way the book intended them to be. It is a style of filmmaking that just wears on the audience, but it is really something special to watch.

Despite taking place in this dreary, run down world, this is not an adventure movie or your typical post-apocalyptic movie. At it's heart, The Road is a film about the bond between a father and a son and how they survive once the world falls apart, which is why this film would die without outstanding performances from it's leads. Thankfully, Viggo Mortensen and Kodi Smit-McPhee are perfect. I'll make an official prediction list closer to awards season, but Mortensen will get a nomination. His interactions with McPhee are great, and he has other fantastic moments with the other inhabitants of this world, but it is Mortensen's eyes that will get him nominated. In all my year's watching movies, I have never seen more expressive eyes. They carry all the love, sadness, and hope his character has and it is truly beautiful to see. All of the other actors are great as well, but special mention goes to The Wire alum, Michael K. Williams. His one scene with Mortensen makes for one of the most powerful in the film.

The one knock that I have on the film is that it is slow. I'm fully aware that this is not the fault of the filmmaker; I would make the case that it is Hillcoat's intention for the film to be slow. But the fact remains that the movie moves at a very slow pace, and it does not have any sort of usual plot structure. Events just unfold at varying speeds and then the film ends. This is mainly due to the novel, and I'm not faulting the film for this, just if you go to watch it, be warned. As a fan of both the book and novel though, I can say this is a near perfect adaptation, and I really couldn't see the film be done in any other way.

If it seems like my tone on this film is dark and unsure, let's pretend I'm a really good writer and I made the tone of my article mirror that of the movie. Truthfully though, this is a movie that everyone should see, because it will stay with you for days after seeing. Whether or not you like cannibals or post-apocalyptic movies, The Road is about love and family, and that is something we all can relate to.

The King Speaks: How to Make a Proper Sports Movie

Hey folks. It's been a while since I wrote something and even longer since the last (and first) installment of "The King Speaks." Sadly, I've already used the "lack of reviews is my review" joke, but the very low quality of movies during this post-summer lull has really taken it's toll on me. Couple that with having actual school work to do and working on my own short movie (I promise to post links when it's done and I promise you'll be underwhelmed), and I just haven't had the time to make it to the movie theater. Anyway, after Thanksgiving linner, I was in the mood for an uplifting, semi-cliche, family movie and The Blind Side was everything I wanted.

Now, that probably wasn't the best way to sell the film to you, but stick with me for a moment while I explain why it's not the normal cliched sports crap we usually see. The modern sports movie involves a rag-tag band of misfits who could never play together or a rag-tag individual who has a different skin color/hairstyle than the other players. Eventually, they are all united by a coach who plays by nobody's rules, not even his own, and they make it to the big game. Either they win the big game, or (more often nowadays) they lose the big game, but are winners in life. Apply this formula to Remember the Titans, Coach Carter, The Express, or Friday Night Lights and you'll see that they're all pretty much the same movie.

Enter The Blind Side, which from the trailer, looked to fit this mold, with the addition of a fiesty, southern Sandra Bullock (more on her in a moment). In actuality, TBS is a movie about a character who happens to play sports, rather than about the sport itself. After being mentioned in the first few minutes, sports don't show up again until mid to late second act. This isn't about a football player and his sport. It's about Michael Oher and how his life was changed with the help of a caring family. This isn't about the big game. We aren't even shown the big game, but rather told how it ends. Any time we're given glimpses of a football game, it has a purpose. It shows us who Michael is and how he is growing as a person. What a pleasant change it is to not have to sit through another drawn out, slow-mo, ball in the air climax, but rather get a character driven climax that has nothing to do with football. The movies message had nothing to do with sports (although sports precipitate the message) and that is quite the feat for a sports movie.

It also helps that the movie is anchored by good performances. Newcomer Quinton Aaron plays Michael and does a very good job. He has the tough task of delivering the movie cliched lines and does them in the least cringeworthy way possible. He also does a spot on Michael Oher delivery, and gives the performance without allowing it to become an impersonation. Aaron is good, but the movie dies without Sandra Bullock. I've never been a Bullock fan, and I absolutely crushed her earlier film of '09 (The Proposal) and I would have crushed All About Steve if I had seen it. That being said, she was great in this. For the first time I ever, I viewed her not as Sandra Bullock playing a part, but as Leigh Anne Tuoghy. She is the driving force of the entire movie and delivers a believable performance in a role that could have very easily earned a spot in the cliche Hall of Fame. This performance moved me from "not a fan" to driving her Oscar bandwagon. Yeah, Sandra Bullock is in the Oscar discussion. I'll give you a second to let that sink in.

So there you have it folks, the new formula for sports movies: start the character, and move outward; have a strong presence other than the main character; have a message that isn't sports related; and have strong performances in all the roles, which means never have Dennis Quaid in your movie (I'm looking at you The Express and The Rookie). All that really matters is that The Blind Side is a great movie that you should all go see.

DVD Rundown: What a Horrible Week in DVD

I'm fully aware there's no wit to that title, but since I thought Up was coming out today, the fact that it's not has me looking down on all of this week's movies. Damn do I hate the post-summer, pre-award season lull.

G.I. Joe (full review)

What a poorly put together piece of crap. I went in with my expectation level at 0 and was still disappointed. Not even Joseph Gordon-Levitt could save this one. Maybe if I was 5, I would like this movie. Then again, that's kind of insulting to 5 year old Bryan. That kid likedTerminator 2 and Aliens at that age. What awesome taste. I wonder what happened? FINAL VERDICT: Um, it sucks.

I Love You Beth Cooper (full review)

I stand by my original sentiments that this movie, while not good, was not the god-awful piece of trash that everyone seems to say it is. There were a few laughs, and some solid sentiments in it. Not offensively bad, and not a complete waste of time. FINAL VERDICT: There are some redeeming aspects to it, but at the end of the day, not enough to check it out unless you're a big fan of someone involved (the main reason I saw it is Hayden P.)

The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 (full review)

This is a solid thriller that is worth one watch. Denzel and Travolta are both very good and had they switched rolls (and maybe hired a new screenwriter) this could have been up there with Tony Scott's other films. Based on that statement, maybe my liking this movie has more to do with that I like Scott's style than the movie itself, but who cares? FINAL VERDICT: No rewatch value, and extremely predictable, but good rental for general audiences (so much condescension in that term).

Where the Wild Things Are

If you're looking for someone to wax nostalgic or talk about how many times I cried (spoiler alert: zero) during Where the Wild Things Are, then you've come to the wrong place. Yes, I read the book when I was younger, and I took the time to reread all 10 pages the other day in the bookstore. Maybe it was because I wasn't a dumb child or because I'm not a late 30's hipster now, but I have no affinity for the book, so I was watching the movie for what it was: a movie, not some love letter to a very overrated children's book, and as a movie, WtWTA is an absolute mess of a movie.

The first twenty minutes or so are actually pretty great, which makes the end product all the more disappointing. Max Records is pretty great as Max, the rambunctious, bipolar little pain in the ass who we follow on his journey. Through the opening, we see everything that we need to know about Max. His relationship with his older sister who is more concerned about her friends. His relationship with his mother and how he is affected by her relationship with Mark Ruffalo. There are some great character moments in opening, especially Max's reaction to something his sister does. It was beautifully heartbreaking and made me wish that we get could get a movie all about Max's life that doesn't involve massive puppet orgies.

Sadly, like most wishes I make, it fell on deaf ears and I was subjected to 90 minutes of wild things. I respect director Spike Jonze more than I could ever explain on this blog (more on that in a moment), and I respect all the work he did to get his passion project to the big screen, but the biggest problem is that WtWTA is a movie that never should have been made. There just isn't enough story and plot to drive the movie along in any sort of satisfying way. Maybe Jonze should have teamed up with Charlie Kaufman for a third time. I'm sure that would have brought about a satisfying script, though I doubt kids would have any interest. Nothing about the wild things was comelling in any way. Look, a giant dirt fight. A ball-shaped house. Really weird owls. I get that this was not an adventure film, but is more about emotion. And I get the allegory of the wild things, but that doesn't mean that I have to care. There are some good commentaries on childhood, but it is all just kind of left hanging in the end. There is really no satisfying resolution.

Back to Jonze, the guy has a great vision for movies. He's extremely modern, and likes weird, off-beat stuff, but his previous two films have been great. Technically speaking, his third film is great too. The cinematography is wonderful and the fact that the wild things were done using puppets really blew me away. The eyes were so amazingly expressive, that I almost cared about the monsters. Then I realized that they are all so one note and predictable that I didn't. The practical effects and action scenes were also visually impressive, but still emotionally hollow.

At the end of it all, I really don't know who this movie is for. It's all about kids and their issues, but it is in no way a kids movie. It's too boring and unconventional for mainstream audiences. It feels to me like an opportunity for older movie nerds to look back and go "That's right, I was a child. Thanks Spike!" Looks like the artsy kids and the bearded weirdos can have their day in the sun. As for me, let me know Where the Wild Things Are, so I can stay as far away from there as possible.

DVD Rundown: Land of the Proposal from Hell

Drag Me To Hell (Full review here)

You might know this movie as the one you saw the trailer for and thought "Hmm, that looks terrible." Well, that's true. The trailers were terrible because they advertised a straight horror movie, which this is not. What we got was a fun horror comedy that I absolutely loved. I love this movie so much I'm surprised that I didn't try to make out with the screen after it was over. The combinations of gross out gags and actual scares might be off putting to some (mainly those who don't enjoy fun), but I really believe this is a horror movie that transcends the genre. Also, Alison Lohman might be the cutest person of all time. FINAL VERDICT: I've already bought both the standard DVD and the blu-ray, but you should probably rent it first to see if it's for you. But rent it right now.

Land of the Lost (Full review here)

While Land of the Lost is certainly not laughless (nearly impossible to contain Ferrell and McBride for a whole movie), there is really nothing redeeming about it. The entire movie is a mashup of weird sketches that lack any cohesive narrative. For a $100 million, we deserved a lot better than this. FINAL VERDICT: Not offensively bad, but not enjoyable. Skip it

The Proposal (Full review here)

Ugh. This piece of shit again. While it probably isn't the worst movie of the year, and isn't "one of the most unrealistic representation of human beings I’ve ever seen", but it is really not good. It is just sloppy across the board. Every joke and plot element is choreographed for a mile away. Then again, I tend to view movies with a harsher eye than some of my simpler readers, so it might be the thing for you. FINAL VERDICT: If you are looking for characters, humor, or enjoyment, then you should look elsewhere. Otherwise, it's worth renting.

Zombieland

Aside from slasher flicks, zombie movies might be the most overused and unoriginal properties out there. Now, I'm not referring to Romero's classics or even Snyder's remake of one of those classics, but to whatever crap zombie movie Romero is making now or Resident Evil: Redundancy. Peruse the horror aisle at Blockbuster like I often do on Saturday night, and you'll see that there are even more bad zombie films out there than you could possibly imagine. There are so many bland takes on the genre, which is why it is so refreshing to see a movie that deals with zombies in a fun and original. Welcome to Zombieland.

While I doubt the lead role was actually written for Jesse Eisenberg, it fit him so perfectly that it might as well have been. As the meak, cowardly, extremely phobic Columbus, Eisenberg rattles off a continuous list of rules for how to survive in Zombieland. Not only is this list funny, it is presented in an even funnier way, making for one of the more enjoyable opening 10 minutes of a movie in recent memory. For my money, I'll take Eisenberg over Cera in a battle of who can be more nerdy and awkward. Cera may be funnier, but Eisenberg gives a heart and emotional depth to his characters that I have never seen from Cera. Equally as good as Eisenberg is Woody Harrelson, who is basically as far opposite of his counterpart as humanly possible. Yes, it's a simple buddy movie formula, but when it is surrounded by zombies and executed to flawlessly, it leads to the perfect framework of the movie. On the flipside, the best things I can say about Emma Stone and Abigail Breslin is that they don't make Eisenberg and Harrelson worse. The performances are very solid, especially since they aren't asked to do much, but the characters feel kinda flat and one note, and their actions throughout the film make absolutely no sense at times.

Though Zombieland is being advertised as a horror comedy, it is certainly more of the latter, and almost none of the former. I can think of maybe one scene that had an actual scare in it, and it wasn't anything special. While I'm saying the movie is not scary, I don't mean it as a bad thing. It is so funny and so well executed that it might be the best comedy of the year. Juxtaposed to that humor is some crazy violence and tons of gore. The kills and blood are certainly not for the squeamish. By the time the third act rolls around (more on that in just a second), we are witnesses to one of the better and more original movie shootouts.

At the risk of sounding like a Zombieland hater, there are problems with this movie, and most of them come in the third act. Since the tone of the movie is light and comedic throughout, when it tries to become darker and more intense later, it feels forced and unbelievable (although, there is an emotional scene earlier in the film that deals with who Harrelson was before the outbreak that is perfectly done). To be honest, the entire third act feels forced due to actions by some of the main characters that just don't make sense. It is as though the writers realized they'd wrapped up the story and then had to throw a plot device in there just because it could be cool (and it is, for the most part).

Regardless of the criticisms I have, I still love the movie. It is fun, original, comedic, gory, and violent. I really don't know if there's a better combination for a movie out there, and when it's executed as well as Zombieland is, it makes for a great time at the movies.

DVD Rundown: Away the Monsters Go

Away We Go

This was one of those movies that I stayed away from at first because I don't like indie comedies and Sam Mendes previous film, Revolutionary Road, had really left me bitter towards him. When I saw it, what I got was a near perfect little comedy. John Krasinski and Maya Rudolph are both great in a heartfelt movie that also delivers on the laughs. FINAL VERDICT: An absolute must see. One of this year's better films.

Monsters vs Aliens

While the concept may sound silly, the execution is awesome. Just an all around fun movie, it is fantastically animated and very funny. FINAL VERDICT: Do you like fun? Then watch this.

Surrogates

Ugh, it's times like this that I kinda hate my job. That job I'm referring to is of course that of a volunteer movie critic, which I've had officially since around January, and unofficially for as long as I remember (just ask anyone who's seen a movie with me about the rant I go on standing outside the theater). Since I've only been writing reviews since January, I haven't had to experience the post-summer September lull before. I was fully aware that movies in September are usually stinkers, but having to review movies that are the epitome of boring and average is really tough. Those two words perfectly describe Surrogates, but I'll do my best to describe why without turning my review into a boring, average mess.

Without Bruce Willis, Surrogates is a straight to DVD movie. With Bruce Willis, it's a straight to DVD quality movie that also features Willis wearing a bad hairpiece. The concept of the movie is interesting enough: people live vicariously through robots so they can be who they always wanted to be. When someone starts killing surrogates with some crazy new weapon that also kills the person operating the robot, shit gets real and they call in Willis, who is wearing what appears to be 5 layers of CG. That washed over, fake look might work, given that this is robo-Willis, but his partner is also a robot and she looks normal. It's not till later that you relize the look is given to Willis and some of the other surrogates because the actors playing them are older. If the actor is of the right age, they just act like a robot, which in this movie, pretty much entails not smiling. The consistency amongst how surrogates look and act is abysmal. Some show no emotion, others show tons of emotion. Some look plastic, others look normal. At first, I chalked the wooden acting up to them being robots, but then even the real people showed no emotion. I'm sure there's some jerk out there who will try to rationalize this but it's just lazy filmmaking.

I referred to this as straight to DVD quality earlier and that's mainly because of the script. While I've never read the graphic novel upon which this movie is based, I'm sure that all they took from it was the general concepts and the title, which are solid. Where Surrogates struggles is when it tries to make these great social commentaries about being alive or what it means to be human. The dialogue is so scripted and on the nose that whatever is trying to be said is undermined by stupidity. One has to look no further than Moon to see a movie that deals with weighty issues and does so in a subtle way, relying on character development and tones rather than lines of dialogue that tell the audience exactly what they should be thinking.

Luckily for me, right after seeing this I saw Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs and loved it, so I didn't have to think very long about surrogates. Sadly, I had to write this review (I put it off as long as possible) and relive my experience, but you can just go see Cloudy not have to deal with the very pedestrian Surrogates that can be described in one word: meh.

Jennifer's Body

WARNING: This review was written by a boy. Yes, a boy, and as Erudite Chick has pointed out, that means I have no soul, and therefore cannot enjoy this movie. Read on at your own risk.

All kidding aside, reactions to Jennifer's Body are almost entirely split down gender lines, with each side's reaction being quite extreme. I'm the first too admit that I find movies or TV shows with female protagonists to be less enjoyable than ones with males, but I like to think that I am a smart enough moviegoer that I can still watch a critique a movie where the two main characters are female. I believe that if the movie had been called John's Body and starred that messy haired, English asshole and the good looking Indian guy from Twilight, I would still feel the same way about it, and the girls (real girls, not dumb Twilighters) would dislike it as well. Maybe that's because the relationship between two girl best friends is so much different than that of two guy best friends, or maybe it's because this movie isn't actually good, but is just written in a way that girls will love it.

I've also made no secret that I am neither a Diablo Cody or Juno fan. There is a fine line between original and dumb, and I see both of Cody and her brainchild to be standing on the dumb side. It's kinda sad, because I think she could be a great writer. She has good characters and some really good dialogue, but she also takes it too far, and to the point that anyone with a brain gets kicked out of the movie. JB suffers from the same Cody-esque dialogue, though we only have to suffer through it during conversations between the two leads. People have tried to rationalize it by saying that it's supposed to be over the top and fun, to which I respond that it's neither over the top nor fun, just stupid. There are times when other characters in the movie poke fun at the dialogue, so the over the top argument might make sense, if not not for those same characters using even stupider dialogue five seconds later. Seeing this movie just proves that anything good that came out of Juno was from Jason Reitman's direction, and not Cody's Oscar winning screenplay (I just threw up a little).

While JB is being hailed as a horror comedy, it is only half of that. It is a comedy that riffs on horror tropes, without having any actual horror in it. Drag Me to Hell was a horror comedy and is ten thousand times better than this. JB is more of Scary Movie, but with no black people. There are only two moments that try to be horror, and the key word there is try. They are so set-up that you know exactly what's coming, and then it's not even well-executed. It's clear that the director has no idea how to handle the tone of these supposedly scary scenes. Then we don't even get to see the kills. They either occur off screen or are shown in shadow puppets and it's all just a giant tease with no payoff.

Where girls seem to be digging the movie and I seem to be panning it is on the relationship between the two best friends, Megan Fox and Amanda Seyfriend. I'm a fan of Fox despite what she says about Michael Bay and I think Seyfriend is one of the more underrated actresses in Hollywood. At least I can say that they both deliver good performances. Fox proves she isn't just the piece of eye-candy Bay has made her out to be, and that she can convincingly play a beautiful, slutty, bitch (who would have ever guessed?). She delivers most of the dialogue well, but there are times when she has to be menacing that are laughably bad. Seyfried delivers a better performance, but she also has more to work with. Where I have the problem is that I found their relationship to be entirely implausible. Aside from the fact that we're told they're best friends, nothing on screen shows that. So they sit next to each other in class and they make out in the bedroom, but there was connection between them that I could see, which is a problem because all of the emotion comes from buying into their friendship. The climax of the movie invokes this idea of them being best friends in a way that I found to be so unbelievably corny, but my female counterparts have said it was soul crushing in its magnitude.

To really prove that is a male oriented blog (I can't help how I think), I want to say that my two favorite performances were by Adam Brody and Kyle Gallner. Everyone knows Brody from The OC (well, not Zach, but he's just too much of contrarian), and he does a similar schtick here, but also does a lot more. He was also the most interesting character when he talks about his motivations and what he'll do to be famous. Brody is truly great and Gallner (a Veronica Mars and The Shield alum) is quite good as the goth student who becomes a focus of Jennifer's attention.

Sadly, Jennifer's Body has no horror, and it's comedy is overshadowed by pretentious garbage that is veiled as some sort of genius. To really sum up my thoughts, I'll give it to you the way Diablo Cody would write it: "I totally wanted Jennifer's Body to be super salty, but the double dash of green green jello just couldn't juice the kool-aid. Honest to blog. Something something dot org."

Editor's note: If you want to check out a less male perspective, check out Erudite Chick's review of Jennifer's Body over at All Thing Fangirl. It's basically the opposite of everything I said, but it's still good. Also, Scarlet Scribe has a great one you can read here. (We debated and she handed the king his ass.)

The Informant!

Despite the exclamation point next to the film's title, let me assure you I am far from enthusiastic about this movie. Not because of it was bad per say (I can't tip my hand this early in a review), but rather because there is no energy to the movie at all. That punctuation mark is probably the most invigorating thing the movie has going for it, which is disappointing because I thought the trailers showed a movie that would be a fun romp through corporate deceit. What I got instead was a light-hearted character study of a man who didn't deserve anything light hearted at all.

Someone turning informant on their company has never been a subject that I find particularly interesting (you guys really think The Insider is good?), and The Informant! really does nothing to change that. The movie just chugs along at a slow pace as we watch Matt Damon's Mark Whitacre get caught up in the whole process with the FBI. He goes on some trips, does some recording, and bumbles his way along, all the while failing to captivate the audience and convey why we should care about what we're watching. By the time we realize that it's not the plot, but the man we should be watching, half the movie has gone by and we're left wondering "What was the point?"

Where the movie does really succeed is Damon. After packing on the pounds to play the role, he needed to turn in a good performance, and he does. He is thoroughly convincing as Whitacre, pumping life into a movie that would otherwise have none. He shows Whitcare's ups and downs, and when the movie shifts into a complete character study, it is Damon's performance that keeps things going. The other performances in the movie are good as well, but none really stand out either way.

I consider myself to be a Steven Soderbergh fan, but it was his direction that brought the film down the most. There is a light-hearted, jovial tone over the whole movie, but the actual movie doesn't merit that. The music and screen-text harken back to an older time, as does the whole movie, and I wouldn't have had a problem with that if what was happening on screen felt the same. I'm not one of those people that thinks every movie needs to be dark, and I'm certainly not saying this about this one. It's just that what the movie was trying to make me feel just didn't line up with what it actually made me feel.

All in all, it certainly wasn't a bad trip to the movies, but it is nothing more than ok. If The Informant! shows us anything, it's that that great run of summer movies is now officially over.

DVD Rundown: Next Day Origins

Next Day Air

I’m so excited that this has finally be released on DVD. Not because I want to see it again, but because I can bring back that hilarious joke I used in myTerminator Salvation review: “…like Next Day Air (more like Crap Crap Air)…” I know. My humor is very mature and really shows that I’m about to turn 21. Seriously, though, that joke is funnier than the movie. Also, Armond White liked it. FINAL VERDICT: Do I have to explain my joke? I called it Crap Crap Air because it sucks.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine

Those of you who’ve been reading my ramblings since May (and for that, I’m quite appreciative) may remember the massive nerd-out I had uponWolverine’s release. Since then, I’ve talked to numerous non-comic readers who thought the movie was quite good. After resisting the urge to punch them in the face and tell them how wrong they are, I realized that the concensus amoung general audiences (and yes, I mean that negatively) is that this movie is good. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m gonna go throw up just thinking about the amnesia bullets. FINAL VERDICT: Non-comic book reading, action movie fans should find a lot to enjoy, so give it a rental but I cannot actually type the words that recommend people give Fox more money for this abomination.

Also, be sure to read the aformentioned nerd-out.

Twitterized Review: Whiteout

Dumb. Dumb. Kate Beckinsale is gorgeous. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. It’s really cold and there’s a killer. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. Boring trash. Dumb. Dumb.

Twitterized Review: Sorority Row

Editor’s Note: I see pretty much every movie that’s released (I don’t consider what Tyler Perry makes to be movies), but I don’t always review them. Why? Well, some movies no one cares about, and others don’t deserve a full review. Recently, I got to thinking “Isn’t there some way I can give my thoughts on these movies without writing a full review?” A lazy idea, yes, but without further delay, I bring you the debut of Twitterized Reviews. Because sometimes all you need is 140 characters.

What a deliciously crappy movie. Hot girls (and Rumer Willis), solid kills, solid scares, and Carrie Fisher with a shotgun. I had a blast.

9

In an age where 3-D animation has almost entirely replaced 2-D animation, and where the recent purchase of Marvel by Disney has led to rumblings of a Pixar animated Avengers film, we’ve come to wonder if a good animated movie can be made that’s not for kids. Now, some of the more hyperbolic critics out there will claim that Wall-E or Up fit this mold, but they’re wrong. As good as those films may be, they’re kids’ movies that adults can also enjoy. 9 is the first major 3-D animated release to be PG-13, and therefore the first non-kid one in my book.

9 tells the story of 9 little rag doll things that are the last remnant of life on the planet after machines have destroyed everything else. In the flashback sequences, we see giant armies of machines going around killing folks (something this movie did better than Terminator Salvation), and yet there’s only a few robots moving around during the actual course of the movie. Where they all went, I have no idea, which you’ll see is a big theme for me. The plot of the movie is a good mix of simplistically straight forward and head scratchingly stupid, or as I like to call it, Quantum of Solace syndrome. The entire movie, you’re never really sure exactly what’s happening, and then we’ve got a pretty good grip on the situation, you realize that it’s just dumb.

The biggest problem 9 has is that it really doesn’t know what it wants to be. It is stuck in a tonal limbo, unsure of whether it wants to appeal to kids or be a balls-out, dark, adult film. The solution was to have some dark images, with lighter music behind it, so you don’t really know what to feel. It’s really too dark and not funny to appeal to the really young ones, and it’s certainly not adult enough to appeal to general audiences. I will be though that tweens think it’s awesome.

One of the things also boasted by the crack marketing team was a big cast of voice actors. I should have realized this probably wasn’t a good thing since the great animated films don’t have big Hollywood casts, and movies like Ice Agedo. It’s much better to have great voice actors than people who are good screen actors. There was such a disconnect between the voices and the movie it was unbelievable. There was no flow or connection with the dialogue. Pretty much every line was said in a vacuum. At no point did I ever feel like these characters were actually interacting. It was rather that it was a group of actors getting an easy paycheck sitting in a sound booth doing two takes of their lines and leaving.

One thing that the movie did get right was the visual style. I’d certainly go see another Shane Acker directed film based off the way the movie looked. As the film progresses, we see more and more different creature designs, and they get better each time. The cobra-baby doll thing was kinda awesome and the brain robot was expertly designed and animated. The thing is though, I’m not some 12 year old kid who thinks he’s cool because I’m hanging at the theater without a parent there. I need more than just cool (okay, very cool) visuals to make the movie good.

At the end of the day, I’m really not sure if we can say that 9 is the first animated movie to cross that line between adult and kids’ film. That was certainly the intention, but the result is not that. While they certainly didn’t make a kids film, they didn’t make an adult one either. All I know is that if this is the future of PG-13 3-D animation, I’ll say thanks, but no thanks. I’ll be over in the next theater over surrounded by little kids and parents.

DVD Rundown: A High Voltage Dance Flick

Crank: High Voltage

This is hands down the most ridiculous, ludicrous action movie you will ever see. It is so over the top and out of control that your mind will never be the same. This is the defintion of a balls to the wall, B action movie, and it delivered exactly on that promise. FINAL VERDICT: Rent it for action fans (it might be too much for even some of you); an absolute skip for every one else.

Dance Flick

There is really nothing worse about movies than what has become of these spoof movies. I wouldn’t waste a second of my time even thinking about seeing Epic or Spoof or Scary Movie, and I definitely won’t spend time onDance Flick. To show you how much I detest this movie, I actually broke up with a girl because she said it looked good. Straight up. FINAL VERDICT: Did you read anything I just wrote? You’re better of watching GI Joe

Gamer

Man, it’s been two weeks since I’ve written a review, so bear with me I’m not on top of my game. To those wondering why I didn’t review anything last week, the answer is the choice to not review anything was my actual review (did I just blow your mind?). Now that I’m back doing real reviews, I’m given the task of reviewing Gamer, the latest from crazy s.o.b.’s Neveldine/Taylor, a movie that really doesn’t lend itself to reviews.

Gamer is basically a remake of Death Race or The Running Man or any other movie with the overused plot of death row inmates involved in some crazy killing game that allows them to eventually earn their freedom. This game is called Slayers, and in it, people have the ability to control the death row inmates (through mind control technology, of course) in a free-for all shootout. Is it a great plot? No, but I loved what N/T did with the first two Crank movies, and this plot seemed like the perfect vehicle for them to blow everything up on a large scale.

What I got instead was a slow, boring, poorly shot film that at times took itself way too seriously, which is a shame, because one of my favorite things about N/T is that they don’t take themselves seriously at all (or so I thought). Gamerfollows Kable (Gerard Butler) who you know is a bad-ass because he spells his name with a K. Butler delivers another very solid performance. The guy deserves to be an action star who does Clive Owen like roles, not Jason Statham roles. Michael C. Hall’s performance has not been received well and I really disagree with that. If you just his performance as compared to performances in real movies, then it’s not good. But if you judge it for being in a N/T movie, it was exactly what I wanted. It was deliciously over the top, with Hall just hamming up his southern accent the entire time. There’s a slew of other actors who were in the movie for about two seconds, which was really strange, but to me, the best of them was Milo Ventimiglia as Rick Rape. With a name like that, I really don’t have to explain the character.

I still maintain that the framework to an awesome action movie was there. There are three slayer sequences, which should have ranked in the most ridiculous things I’ve ever seen, but instead rank in the most boring action set pieces I’ve ever seen. They’re not shot well, and there is never any sense of tension or conflict, which I wouldn’t mind, if they had been out of control, which they weren’t. This may sound strange, but the violence just wasn’t gratuitous enough for me. Whenever there was violence, especially in the beginning, it was connected to slayers, and therefore part of the plot. Never did we get a scene where I thought, “that action doesn’t need to be here” or “that violence is too much” and the problem is I wanted to think that.

My biggest gripe with the movie was that it tries for serious themes and emotions, and that’s just not something that N/T can do, or something that people want from a N/T movie. There were aspects of the movie that were super weird (namely an entire section of the movie known as “society”) and they were awesome. It was exactly what I wanted out of the movie. The aforementioned Rick Rape could have been classic if the movie around him wasn’t so mundane. I even bought into the song and dance sequence that proceeds the climax (a climax which really sucked, I might add), and no one else in the world seemed to have liked that.

As much as I went to the theater wanting to love this movie, I can’t even go as far as to recommend anyone see it. Gamer promises us action and uber-weirdness but delivers us boring set pieces and just basic weirdness. The morale of the story is, don’t ever see anything Ludacris is in (Luda!). That rule never fails.

DVD Rundown: State of Play

State of Play

This is one of those instances where whoever cut the trailer to this movie deserves to be fired. The trailer makes the film out to be a crazy, whodunit thriller with Russell Crowe running around doing crazy shit. The actual movie is a much more subdued, politicalized thriller that is quite enjoyable. Yes, there are elements about the movie that are laughably bad (the statements about bloggers vs. print journalists) and yes, it goes one twist too far, but not enough that you’re experience will be ruined. FINAL VERDICT: Rent it, watch it once, and forget about it.

DVD Rundown: Adventureland, Duplicity, Fighting, and Sunshine Cleaning (Oh My!)

Adventureland

Following Superbad, anyone who went to Adventureland expecting a raunchy comedy found themselves getting something entirely different. Hopefully, they were open minded because we got a heartfelt and realistic coming of age story that has some good character humor in it. A far superior film (not necessarily funnier, but better) than Superbad, Adventureland is a movie that pretty much everyone can find something to enjoy. FINAL VERDICT: A purchase for movie fans, a rental or general audiences.

Duplicity

Is there really anything worse than a movie that does absolutely nothing? I’d say no. I’d rather a movie be horrible than be bland and boring. Duplicity is the latter. Despite having extraordinary talent all over the project, the movie fails to elicit any sort of response from the audience. Things just kinda happen, and there’s some twists, but you never care. FINAL VERDICT: There are much better movies out there that do pretty much the same thing. Skip it.

Fighting

The TV spot for this DVD reads “Starring G.I. Joe’s Channing Tatum.” Do I really have to say anything else. FINAL VERDICT: Skip it.

Sunshine Cleaning

This is the perfect movie for people who want to go a bit outside mainstream movies, but couldn’t handle venturing too far into Indie waters (like Alejandro Adams’ Canary). It’s got a great cast, anchored by Amy Adams, who despite what people may say about all her characters being somewhat whiny and shrill, I really think she’s going to be the closest thing this generation has to Meryl Streep. FINAL VERDICT: It’s definitely a rental, but one that you might end up keeping from Blockbuster.

Inglorious Basterds

It’s been a little over two years since the Grindhouse debacle. Now, I hear what you’re saying. Yes, a lot of that movie works. Plannet Terror is great, gory, escapist fun and some of those fake trailers are fantastic. I’m calling it a failure because the movie performed poorly at the box office and Quentin Tarantino fans left the theater saying he had lost it (well, this fan did at least). Death Proof has all the elements that define Tarantino movies (extended dialogue scenes, brutal violence, and feet), but it lacked that undefinable something that makes his movies so special. Death Proof comes off feeling like it’s made by some newbie trying to immitate Tarantino’s style, rather than Tarantino himself. The movie was so off-putting that people began to wonder if the man behind such masterpieces as Pulp Fiction and Reservior Dogs had become nothing more than a charicature of himself. With Inglorious Basterds, Tarantino proves that he still has one of the most unique visions in Hollywood, and that his best may be yet to come.

IB is exactly what it promises to be: WWII as interpreted through the eyes of Quentin Tarantino. If you want history or realism, this is not for you. If you want to see a war movie that I promise is unlike anything you’ve seen, then you’ve come to the right place. To call IB a war film is proably inaccurate. It’s a spaghetti western that’s set in Nazi-occupied France. As you’d expect, the movie is told in segments, and not always in the right order. Still, this could be Tarantino’s best screenplay to date. On one side, you have Shoshana, a 22 year old Jewish girl hiding out in France. On the other side, Aldo Raine and his “basterds,” a Jewish-American group of soldiers whose one job is to kill as many Nazis as they can in the most brutal ways possible. These two stories are woven together by Nazi Colonel Hans Landa and the screening of the new film Nation’s Pride. To tell you any more about the story would be depriving you of something special.

I could go on for a thousand words about the performances in the film. The one who you’ll be hearing the most about and who deserves the most attention is Christoph Waltz as the aforementioned Landa. He is pure evil in every way, yet Waltz is able to show the complexities of the character and actually make him funny at times (remember, this is a Tarantino; evil can be funny). Waltz is not the driving force of the movie, but he is involved in every aspect. He weaves in and out of both stories. This guy deserves every mention he gets in the Oscar conversation. Brad Pitt is also great as Raine. He manages to be both humorous and menacing at the same time. Despite being a “good guy”, his actions are far from good. He scalps Nazi’s and carves Swatstikas into their foreheads. You root for him, but he is not the driving force, which leads us to Shoshana. Melanie Laurent gives us the character whose arc we care about the most. It is her quest for revenge that drives the story forward. Without her, the movie would lack that human touch and I would argue this is every bit her movie as it is Pitt’s.

Every other cast member is great as well. Diane Kruger shows acting talents she never got a chance to show opposite the CAGEbot in National Treasure. Michael Fassbender is great as Lt. Archie Hicox. Fassbender is an intricate part in my favorite scene, a scene that could have fallen completely flat without him. I don’t know the names of the actors who played Hitler and Goebbels, but they are quite good. Keep in mind, these are not historical representations, but rather humorous ones. Both men are played for laughs (you laugh at how disgusting they are). The only actor who didn’t work for me was Eli Roth as “The Bear Jew”. Maybe it was the Boston accent, or maybe it’s the fact that the man is a director and not an actor, but I wanted more out of the character. The part was originally offered to Adam Sandler, and had that happened, we would be dealing with an all-time classic character.

Directorally, Tarantino is really at the top of his game. There is a lot of great cinematography in the movie, especially in scenes that you wouldn’t expect it. The score is also classic Tarantino, with a combination of classical music and more modern songs. What really stands out though, is the dialogue. There are numerous scenes of extended dialogue, that aren’t adding anything to the characters or the narrative, and yet you don’t want it to stop because it is so good. Even though nothing is progressing, all of the conversations seem deliberate and create a wonderful mood to the film. There is also the violence that also culminates these scenes. As usual, it’s brutal. I’ve mentioned the scalpings and the carvings, but there is also death by baseball ball and some graphic shootouts. Like I said earlier though, despite being graphic and brutal, it all has a very speghetti feel to it, so it lessens the effect.

With the faith of his fans hanging in the balance, Quentin Tarantino has returned to form and delivered one of the best, albeit most outlandish, films of the year. Inglorious Basterds is fun, emotional, comical, brutal, and weird. Or in other words, everything I want out of a trip to the movies.

Paper Heart

A Sundance darling? A documentary that interweves fictional and non-fictional elements? Michael Cera in love? Sounds great, right? Sadly, Paper Heartworks much better conceptually than it does on the big screen.

PH is a simple set-up. Charlyne Yi doesn’t believe in love and sets off on a quest across America to discover what it is. Don’t know who Yi is? She’s that annoying Asian girl from Knocked Up, but you’ll know her now as the annyoing Asian girl from PH. That’s probably PH’s biggest problem. Yi is more annoying than cute, and more strange than relatable. She’s a comedian, and not an actress, and it shows. During the actual documentary parts of the movie, she is a funny narrator. It is during the non-doc parts that Yi (as well as everyone else in the movie) struggles.

That leads into the other huge problem with the movie. That interview parts of the movie feel like an actual documentary, from their content to the way they are shot. They feel real, and even if they aren’t, it is presented in a believable and convicing way. The other parts of the movie, the section where Yi begins a relationship with Michael Cera, feel very staged. Not only do Yi and Cera both fail to play themselves convincingly, the movie takes on way too much production value for us to believe we are still watching a documentary. Too many camera angles tip the hand to the fact that the scene has been run multiple times. The “director” of the movie isn’t even the director, but rather an actor running a staged scene. I really wouldn’t have had a problem with this blend if it had been done successfully. District 9 is shot feux-doc for the first act and feels real (more real, actuallly, than anything in PH). Because it feels false, it loses whatever it was trying to accomplish in this style.

I did enjoy the interviews, especially the one with the children on the playground, and would have much prefered if the movie was a straight documentary. As is, Paper Heart doesn’t know what it wants to be and becomes a hodgepodge of boring and weird, that fails to compel the audience in any way or elicit any sort of emotion, in a movie all about find one.

DVD Rundown: The Last House on the Left is Tyson's

The Last House on the Left

Who out there says they don’t like a good revenge story? Look around at who’s raising their hand and don’t talk to them again, because they’re liars. Everyone loves watching a good revenge flick, even if it’s buried deep in your subconscience. The Last House on the Left is a nice change, especially in a time where all we see is bad people doing bad things to good people, because now we get to see good people do these bad things to bad people. There’s the jumps and the gore you’d expect out of a modern horror film and it’s pretty well-made. Heads up though, to my more squeemish readers, there’s a very graphic rape scene. FINAL VERDICT: A good rental for horror fans or revenge fans or people who just love violence.

Tyson

Critical acclaim be damned, whether or not this documentary is for you boils down to a few simple questions. Do you care about boxing? Do you a care about Mike Tyson? Are you interested in a psychological profile and first hand accounts of some of Tyson’s most infamous moments? If you answered “yes” to any of these questions, then you’ll find a very good watch in a well-made documentary. If you’re like me, and you answered “no” to all the questions, it doesn’t matter how well-made Tyson is, you still won’t like it. FINAL VERDICT: Pretty sure I just answered that.

The Goods

The world “terrible” is thrown around a lot these days, especially by me, but most of the time it is more “comparatively terrible”, meaning it is bad by my standards. Then there are movies that are truly terrible, that literally are not watchable. Say hello to The Goods.

This is a movie that is just painfully unfunny. It is just poorly written and even if there is something potentially humorous, it is poorly executed. There’s some good talent in this movie but they are hampered by a horrible script and direction. Everything is just so stupid and weird. James Brolin walking around with an erection? I’m sure that does a lot for his legacy. There is just absolutely no flow or timing at all. It’s just people making over the top weird comments that aren’t funny but acting like they are.

Every man has his limits, and The Goods pushed me beyond mine. I have sat through many, many terrible movies this year alone, and I’ve done it so I can get you (you know who you are) a review. I’m willing to give even the worst movie 30 minutes before I walk out, and even that was painful in this movie. Let me just say “The Goods? More like The Bads.” The sad part is, that horrible joke is better than everything in the movie.

District 9

Who says originality is dead in Hollywood? After being bombarded all summer by sequels, prequels, reboots, remakes, comic book adaptations, and movies based on toys, salvation has come in the guise of a South African sci-fi mockumentary. Neill Blomkamp shows us that sci-fi can be mainstream, that an action movie doesn’t have to be dumb, and that you don’t need $200 million to make a great and visually stunning movie.

The premise to District 9 is simple. Twenty eight years ago, an alien space craft appears over Johannesburg. Unlike every other movie with this plot, these aliens (called “prawns”) are not here to start shit, but rather they need our help. From there, they are hoarded into slums and discriminated against by the native South Africans. Blomkamp grew up in South Africa during apartheid and has admitted that as an influence on D9; the parallels between the treatment of prawns and the treatment of blacks are very apparent. Aside from racism, the film also comments on conglomeration, capitalism, and the military, but can be viewed entirely seperate from these ideals. It is not a message movie, but rather a great movie that also has messages.

Where D9 really becomes special is the faux-documentary style that the first 30-45 minutes are shot in. Using a combination of talking heads, old news footage, and footage of MNU’s current plan for evicting the prawns, Blomkamp creates a believable and realistic world for the prawns to live. The news footage and interviews feel exactly how things would be if there were aliens running around in Joburg. I’ve talked before about how documentaries create a connection with the audience because it feels real and intimate. Blomkamp uses doc style through the first act of the movie to create this connection between characters and audience and makes the audience feel as though they are watching something “real”, even though the movie is far from reality. The doc style interviews reveal information about the prawn back story, but also plot points about the movie’s ending, which is a very interesting technique.

Even once the film transitions from faux-doc into a regular movie, it is still shot in doc style (shaky cam). This allows for the movie to transition between its styles without the switch being to jarring and while still keeping that up-close and gritty feel throughout. This style works especially well when the film cranks up the action around the middle of the second act. After spending the first half creating a world and advancing the plot, Blomkamp shows off his action chops and delivers some of the most satisfying and original action sequences I can remember. I can’t remember the last time my jaw dropped so many times during a set piece.

Blomkamp made his living prior to this as an SFX supervisor and it shows. The special effects in the movie are fantastic. There have been some great instances of CGI in this past year (Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen andStar Trek) but D9 one ups the work of ILM with the creation of the prawns. CGI has never looked as good when it is making something fleshy and organic. The Hulk never looks as real as Optimus Prime does. The prawns inD9 look real and interact with their environment as though normal aliens would. I was most impressed with how expressive the prawn faces were. You can read the emotion on their faces; you can tell when they are happy or sad or scared or angry. This becomes pivotal because it makes you care for the prawns rather than have them be a group of wild animals.

The cast is made up of unknown South African actors who all do a fantastic job. Sharlto Copley stands out above the rest because he plays the films protagonist, Wikus van de Werve, but also because he has no prior acting experience. Copley is conveys a very scared and flawed character perfectly and gives a better performance than most Hollywood actors could. The fact that he is an unknown adds to the characters persona as an unassuming every-man who is thrown into an extraordinary situation.

I really can’t put into words how lucky we are to get a movie like this. It is a sci-fi movie that addresses important issues, doesn’t feel the need to spell everything out to you, and has amazing action. Last week, I said (500) Days of Summer was the best film of the year so far. I hope it enjoyed its run, because there is a new best movie atop the list. District 9 is not only the best movie of the year, it is an instant classic that belongs in the conversation when mentioning great science-fiction.

DVD Rundown: I Love You, 17 Year Old

17 Again

A suprisingly fun and enjoyable kids that works just as well for whatever adult is accompanying them. Despite being a High School Musical douche, Zac Efron has some really great moments, especially between him and Leslie Mann. FINAL VERDICT: A good rental to watch with the family, or alone if you’re a weirdo.

I Love You, Man

I crushed this movie when it first came, focusing mainly on how it was nothing more than crude jokes strung together without character and how the final emotional punch was not earned. All of that was before I had to sit throughThe Proposal and The Ugly Truth, so I’m my feelings will have changed. FINAL VERDICT: Definitely should rent it (I’m going to re-watch it and expect an update if my feelings greatly change), but as it stands, it lacks the depth to make it anything more than a series of funny jokes.

UPDATE: So, I rewatched I Love You, Man and liked it a lot. I stand by most of what I said in my review, I just overvauled the problems and undervalued what makes it work. Has more depth than I originally gave it credit for, but still not as deep as some say it is. Worth a purchase though for fans of this style of comedy.

(500) Days of Summer

Movies are magical. They allow us to feel a myriad of emotions. They are funny and scary and action packed and depressing. They heart warming and heart breaking, sometimes at the same time. They make us think and let us escape. We can sometimes forget just how wonderful movies can be, especially after seeing GI Joe or Righteous Kill, but then there comes along a movie so great, that it reminds you of why you love cinema. (500) Days of Summer is one of these movies.

(500) takes a story that is relatable to everyone, the age old tale of boy meets girl and tells it in a fun, realistic, and original way. The story itself is by no means original or special, which makes how great the movie is all the more impressive. Had this movie been done differently, or been in the hands of another director, I suspect we would have nothing more than a run of the mill romantic comedy. Lucky for us, Marc Webb is the man behind the camera and he gives us a film that is anything but a fluff Hollywood rom-com.

In a movie all about the relationship between two characters, you need good performances. If that relationship doesn’t feel real, the whole movie falls apart (look at The Ugly Truth, The Proposal, or any other generic rom-com). Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel both deliver perfect performances. Gordon-Levitt is a great actor, one who could become the best actor of his generation (especially with Heath Ledger gone and Casey Affleck busy making rapper documentaries), and he shows his entire range in (500). We see him at his happiest and his saddest and everything in between. Not once does it ever feel like Gordo-Levitt is acting; he is always just living. Because he is so good and realistic, his emotional journey hits the audience that much harder as we feel like we are watching a real person.

Deschanel is also great. I’ve often mused as to why she is so famous, because her filmography does not denote that fame. The answer I get is that she’s cute, and she certainly is that, but she is also a very talented actress (although she hasn’t really played anyone other than herself). Like I said, her cuteness lends to her appeal, but she gives Summer life and personality. Had she just been looks, the movie would have failed. Instead, we get an equally full and believable character to stand opposite Gordon-Levitt’s Tom.

The rest cast is also superb, making up one of the best ensemble supporting casts in recent memory. Geoffrey Arend and Matthew Gary Gubler are both over the top hilarious and realistic as Gordon-Levitt’s best friends, but Chloe Moretz is the best non-couple character as Tom’s sister. It’s impressive that she is able to hold her own against Gordon-Levitt seeing as she is 11 years old (that being said, Gordon-Levitt isn’t an overbearing presence), but she also provides a perspective that is outside of the couple. They all float in and out but make the most with the screen time they are given and really make the movie feel whole.

The movie would have been enjoyable and very good just with the characters and their arcs, but it is more than that. Telling the movie is a non-linear fashion really adds to the overall enjoyment. By showing the movie mostly in order and then choosing when to weave in the flash-fowards, certain scenes are accented and given a much stronger emotional punch. Most of the movie is shot in a non-destinct manner, but Webb thows in some very beautiful and potent shots throughout the movie.

The overall tone of the movie is just fun. The voice over narration harkens back to an older time and helps add humor and insight to the movie when it is used. The humor in the movie is bountiful and organic. The jokes don’t always make you laugh, but it will make you smile. There wasn’t a line that was meant to be humorous that falls flat, which is a rarity. On the subject of fun, there is a 3 minute sequence involving dancing that could be my favorite scene of the year. I had a gigantic smile on my face the entire time.

There are also the emotional moments, which actually work better due to their extreme contrast to the humor and other light-hearted aspect of the movie. This is one of the most real representations of relationships to captured on film. You fully believe they are a couple the entire time. What really makes the movie great is how it uses this one relationship to make commentaries on relationships in general, but does so in a way that doesn’t feel forced. These commentaries arise from the characters and their actions and yet everyone in the audience connects to what is happening.

I had to think long and hard about what I’m about to say, because Star Trekwas a great movie, and I don’t want to see like I’m copying everyone else, but I can’t help it. (500) Days of Summer is the best movie of the year so far. I really don’t think it could have been better. It is superbly acted, written, and directed. It is everything I want out of a trip to the movies. It is funny, sad, fun, heartwarming, and makes great points on love and relationships. I love this movie so much that I will go as far to say that if you don’t love this movie, you must not have a heart.