CineVida

The Quartet

2013-04-14T21:58:00.003-06:00

BBC has done it again. In Quartet, they've created a quiet masterpiece. They bring Ronald Harwood's story about elderly musicians putting on a gala from the stage to the big screen with an all-star cast including Billy Connolly, Maggie Smith, Tom Courtenay, Pauline Collins, and Michael Gambon. While quite a simple story on the surface (the annual gala to save the nursing home is at risk when a new resident upsets the balance), they touch on such topics as the negatives of aging (dementia, bad hips), pride, love and loss, and finding yourself, no matter what age.

At 98 minutes, this film is short, but not a moment is wasted, nor is a scene rushed. My favorite skill of British films is the ability to tell a story, especially the exposition, without using words. The film opens quietly and has its share of quiet moments, but the story never stops being told. I guess a benefit of aging is learning to stop and smell the roses while you still can, and this film takes those moments as needed. Even though the director is not British (Dustin Hoffman), you'd never guess it from the final product. It has all the airs and affectations of a quality BBC film.

There is a much appreciated earnestness in the performances in this film. All of the stars are actually nearing this stage of their lives (in fact Maggie Smith was undergoing chemo while filming Harry Potter), and so there is no disconnect in their performances whatsoever. The close-ups, of which there are a fair share, show every wrinkle and line on their time-worn faces. And it is stunningly beautiful. In this day and age, when every cosmetic counter or drugstore is packed with anti-aging products it is lovely to see the beauty of naturally aged individuals. They have lived their lives, lives full of adventures I'm sure we do not know of, and they've earned each and every laugh and frown line. It's like a fingerprint of the lives they've lived, and I think it is gorgeous.

There's not much to analyze in this movie. The plot is simple, the performances genuine, and the story worth being told. One of the very best moments of the film comes after it fades to black and the credits start rolling. Because, you see, the rest of the cast are real musicians. Through the credits they show the musicians, as they are and as they were, along with the positions they held in various prestigious performing groups. These are miraculous individuals and filming with them must have been amazing.

My final thought about the film is this: I wish Beecham House, the nursing home, was real. It had been shown that music can help alleviate dementia in the elderly, so imagine I house full of musicians reaching that part of their lives. I know my great-aunt lived a better last few years with Alzheimer's because she played the piano every day. I think someone, somewhere, should help make this place a reality, because it would be spectacular.

5 out of 5 stars

Not Even Once: Meth or TV?

2013-03-22T13:46:00.001-06:00

I know I'm super late to the bandwagon, but Breaking Bad is seriously one of the best shows ever. Coming from Montana (i.e. the source of all those anti-meth ads out there) I really didn't care to watch a show about meth production and distribution, even if it was fictional. Well, consider me converted. The writing on this show is impeccable, and they rely heavily on character development and utilize minimal action. This is so rare, a show being built upon quality story-telling, and the writers/actors/directors are so good at what they do it's impossible not to get sucked in.

The premise is simple enough: a family-man science teacher gets diagnosed with terminal lung cancer and goes into the meth production business to save up money to leave to his family when he dies. He teams up with an ex-student who has already been working as a distributor of "glass" and boom, the magic happens. Or science, science happens. Which is part of the awesomeness of this show. It's like Bill Nye broke bad and who wouldn't love that (except he'd be a comic book villain I'm sure).

This show looks deeply at the alterations in the human psyche when you get news like "you're dying" and how one small decision can snowball and lead you in a completely different direction. It's not about asking forgiveness for the sins committed, but more about how people justify their actions and why they do the things they do. This show does not strive to distinguish or elevate the drug world like some other shows have done; in fact, they show some truly disgusting individuals and seem to be striving for an extreme level or realism. Fortunately it's still watchable even though some moments will definitely have you cringing.

This show is as addicting as the drug it centers around. What's worse is you don't have to start at the beginning to get hooked. I was simply in the room while one of my friends was watching S2:E6 and I was done for. As someone in science myself there's the added cool factor of the fact that they aren't Hollywood-izing science. They're using real reagents and tools in the correct way (or I assume so for the reagents, I don't exactly know the formula for methamphetamine). To quote Jesse: "Yeah Science!"

So if you're like me and didn't think you'd like this show, or you'd never considered watching it, do. 4 seasons are up on Netlfix. Just be warned, you can't stop at just one.

Always a Good Day for Die Hard

2013-03-19T11:12:00.000-06:00

A Good Day to Die Hard: Why? Because fuck you that's why. It's the best franchise out there and even a crappy Die Hard movie is better than any Twilight or similar bullshit. Bruce Willis is getting up there but that doesn't mean he can't still be a badass. He just might need to be a badass with a walker soon.

The most recent Die Hard installment definitely takes a different tact than the previous four. While normally John McClane finds himself in trouble in the normal course of his job, this time he ends up needing to go to Russia to help his son who is being held in a Russian prison. As usual things are not so straight forward and McClane finds himself thrown into a world of espionage, politics, and lots of trouble with his son. The plot is thin enough so I don't want to give anything away. Plot takes a serious backseat to action and violence, which in this case I'm totally okay with.

The writers and/or director definitely thought they were super witty for throwing in a lot of references back to the original Die Hard film. Unfortunately these references were far too blatant and just seemed desperate and pandering and detracted from the movie experience in my opinion. The original should remain untouched because it was not only entertaining and violent, but also had good writing and acting, something each subsequent film has had less and less of; unfortunately leaving classics untouched is not Hollywood's strong suit.

This is likely going to be the first Die Hard I WON'T own, which makes me sad. I know all good things must come to an end, but it's hard for me to admit that Die Hard is now one of them. What's more sad is that they (again, in their terribly subtle manner) have alluded to a continuation of the franchise using John McClane Jr. as the leading man. That's just not okay. If that happens expect to see a little blonde girl boycotting the nearest movie theater because NO. Just NO.

3 stars out of 5

Bill Murray's Pants

2013-01-22T20:06:00.000-07:00

It takes a very talented writer and director to create a film brimming with Hollywood A-listers that doesn't suck. If you look at the track record it's kind of a rarity; Valentine's Day and New Year's Eve are the two biggest offenders, but others like Burn After Reading and Men Who Stare at Goats are also terrible even though they have a cast full of great actors. Currently quantity seems to be far outstripping quality, so when a movie comes along with Bill Murray, Bruce Willis, Francis McDormand, Tilda Swinton, and Edward Norton leading a very small cast it might be cause for concern. Unless of course the writer/director happens to be Wes Anderson, then apparently all bets are off.

Moonrise Kingdom is a refreshing fairy tale about being in love. Through an interesting soundtrack, unique visuals, and great use of his actors, Anderson weaves a story without frills, but full of heart. Check out the plot synopsis, but the bare bones of the story is this:

A young girl and young boy have a chance encounter, begin a courtship by letter, and run away together. The adults in their lives try to keep them apart, but they overcome obstacles to find happiness. It's a simple story, that's been told countless times before, but Anderson tells it in such a unique way while not trying to fool us into thinking it's a novel concept. He also adds layers into his story that are fun if you look for them, but don't detract from the story if you miss them. For example, the two kids meet during a performance about Noah's Ark and the movie's climax occurs during a flood at the same location. It's a nice touch, but not critical to the story.

Bruce Willis, taking a break from his usual role as John McClane in a variety of movies (honestly, even if it's not Die Hard, he still seems to be playing McClane), plays a wonderful victim of unrequited love. Murray and McDormand somehow work as a somewhat dysfunctional couple of lawyers, and Murray rocks a truly fantastic array of plaid pants which kind of steal the show. Normally I'm not a fan of Edward Norton, but not only does he work in the role of Khaki Scout leader, I love him in this role. He is just campy enough to make it fun, but shows some great vulnerability and child-like qualities that make his character the most interesting in the story.

I could go into more analysis, but with such a simple story I see no need. Go see it, enjoy, and laugh at the inexplicable tent explosion initiated by the flood. Cause seriously, why?

Ignore the ax; aren't those pants just fabulous?

What's in a. . . Movie?

2013-01-22T19:45:00.002-07:00

What defines a movie? Recently I had the insanely awesome pleasure of attending the Powder Magazine Video Awards in Park City, UT, and it made me question what a movie is. I tended to categorize ski films separately from every other type of film media (major motion pictures, television). They were in a league of their own; they show the best athletes in the best sport (don't question it, it's a fact and I will fight to the death on this) in settings that are so fantastical yet so real it makes anyone who considers him or herself a powder junkie drool with delight and green with envy all at once. A great ski film has expert skiers shaking in the knees because of the extremity of the situations these pros put themselves in, but at the same time has them wanting to get there; the drive to get to that level is what propels the sport forward and keeps bringing people to the sport year after year. The Powder Awards are the Oscars to this group of individuals, where all the hard work being put into these ski films can be honored.

As much as I love these films I'd never considered them "movies" like I would 300 or Must Love Dogs (these two choices brought to you from the randomness of my sub-conscious) because I never really thought of them as telling a story. Sometimes you'll get a rare gem like Sherpas Cinema's All.I.Can (2011), but generally they are more of an action sports documentary with great soundtracks and amazing visuals. In reality I was being incredibly narrow in my scope, and very dense in my viewing. Ski films are actually the best movies of all because they are able to tell a story without words. They're visual poetry, open to interpretation and meaning something different to every person who watches. Skiers see one thing, outsiders see another. I went to MSP's Superheroes of Stoke premiere at Snowbird this year with some complete newbies this year and they came out kicking themselves for not having taken up skiing before. I came out seeing the possibilities for the season ahead. It's natural beauty in its truest form; ski films show the balance between the beauty and the destruction out there. It shows the skiers who are out there taming the soaring peak of Alaska's Chugach mountains and those who fell victim to the danger that surrounds everyone who clicks into a pair of skis.

I could wax poetic, or at least wax, about skiing and these movies until you stopped reading and permanently blocked this page from your browser for being so pedantic, but I won't. I'll leave it at this, ski films are the best movies out there, telling the truest, simplest story there is; it's just up to you to determine what.

Revolution in Filming?

2012-12-04T10:32:00.002-07:00

With the holiday season in full force it's time for the final push of Hollywood blockbuster releases before the new year. For many people this means that the movie they've been waiting years for is finally about to hit theaters; The Hobbit is almost here folks. Fans have eagerly been awaiting the prequel films to Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy, based on the books of the same name from J.R.R. Tolkien. These films were slow to get going, even losing Guillermo Del Toro as a director because of roadblocks on the way to production. For better or for worse, Jackson took the director's chair once again and the product is about to begin rolling nationwide. However, this film means more than just more money in Jackson's bank account and more time spent in dark rooms for fanboys everywhere. This film marks a potential shift in how movies are filmed, which is a topic of debate among viewers.

Traditionally movies have been filmed at a rate of 24 fps, but Jackson's Hobbit was framed at double that. This translates into greater clarity on film, and, according to Jackson, should help prevent people from getting sick from 3D movies. Unfortunately, this doesn't appear to be the case. When a sneak preview was shown at CinemaCon attendees complained that it looked like HD video, and at the premieres people have been complaining of feeling motion sick and getting migraines. Jackson has shrugged off these complaints, and other Hollywoodites, including star Ian McKellen and director Bryan Singer are praising the technology and the realism it brings to the viewing experience. It should be noted that this technology is far from new, and you can read up on the history of high frame rates here. While cost seemed to be the major roadblock to using this new technology, I have to ask: why do we need it?

Since Blu-Ray hit the scene in 2006 we've seen a similar shift to when DVDs took over from VHS: people are buying more of the new technology and replacing the old with the new. I remember throwing out VHS tapes and buying the same titles on DVD as a kid, and I've done the same thing with some of my DVDs since Blu-Ray came out (try Blade Runner on Blu-Ray, you won't be sorry). Unlike with the advent of DVDs, however, I've had to decide whether I want to see certain titles in high def. Television series like Firefly and Alphas would be awesome on Blu-Ray, but do I really want to see Battlestar Gallactica in that sort of realism? I decided no, because it would change the feeling of the show; the graininess adds to the quality of the viewing experience, rather than detracting. Do I need to see How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days in Blu-Ray? Hell no! But would Joss Whedon's Avengers be better on Blu-Ray? Damn skippy!

Unfortunately, when it comes to movie-going we may not have choices like this for much longer. Currently theaters are selecting what frame rate they'll show the movies at, and we as movie-goers can decide between 2D and 3D showings, but I fear that directors who think they know best will start stripping us of our ability to choose. James Cameron is on board the high-fps train, opting for a similar film rate for his Avatar sequel, and I have no doubt that others will follow. It would be better if this experimental film technique were being used for a less popular movie release, because then people would be less biased to think it's spectacular. One of the premiere attendees was quoted as saying he "left loving the movie but feeling sick." What's likely to stick with him and other fans is the fact that they loved the movie, which means they'll likely see other movies at 48 fps or higher. This may cause some movie-goers to feel ostracized from attending movies because they feel sick, like some do now with 3D.

Directors are praising the technology, saying it adds more realism to the film, but I ask this: do you go to the movies because you want them to feel real? The Hurt Locker would have been unbearably realistic if it was filmed like that, and that was an Oscar-winning film. Some directors, like TRON: Legacy's Joseph Kosinski understand that there is a place for this technology, but there are also times to hold back, opting to use standard frame rates in his upcoming film Oblivion. But how many directors will do that, and for how long? I'm an avid theater patron, and love the whole experience, but I don't want to leave movies feeling sick. I remember leaving The Bourne Ultimatum nauseous because of the hand-held work. I can imagine not being visibly sick if that had been filmed in a more realistic way; it would have been like an oddly uncomfortable vacation movie (of the worst vacation EVER, mind you).

One benefit to this new film technique: they can stop using these fancy cameras and just give all their actors GoPro cameras which have 48 fps and 1080p video capabilities, and it's all digital. Plus you can get a 3D set-up. Maybe that's their plan. . .

Regardless, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (the first in The Hobbit film trilogy) hit theaters December 14th. Find out if any theaters near you are showing it at 48 fps and decide for yourself.

That Old Time Deja Vu

2012-11-29T17:43:00.002-07:00

TV shows that are just as good the second time through are both one of the best things in the world and one of the rarest things currently being broadcasted. I literally cannot count on my fingers how many times I've watched every season of Friends, but every time I pop one of those discs in my blu-ray player (a concept that hadn't even been thought of, much less created at the time the show originally aired) I find myself laughing just as hard as he first time around. Compare that to even great modern sitcoms like How I Met Your Mother and there is really no comparison. I love Ted, Lily, Marshall, Barney, and Robin, but Rachel, Monica, Phoebe, Ross, Chandler, and Joey are part of my soul now. I know that sounds melodramatic, or unnecessarily poetic, but it's the truth. The writers for that show didn't have to exaggerate any of their characters' traits; Friends was telling the story of real people. HIMYM exaggerates EVERYTHING, which makes for good television, but it doesn't make for staying power through multiple re-watchings.

I think you'll find that in any discussion like this, Friends is the go to example, but it's far from the only one. Obviously personal taste influences which shows we think are good the first time, which then affects which we rewatch, but there are so may good shows out there that people watch time and again. Obviously anyone who's read my blog before knows my obsession with Joss Whedon, so I'm biased towards his shows; but even people who don't like Buffy or Angel will find themselves rewatching the best 14 episodes of television (Firefly). There's a reason 10 years later they oversold their Comicon panel by thousands. I cannot think of a single show right now that I would predict having that kind of staying power.

Unfortunately the problem is not due to a lack of talent, but instead to a waste of talent. Studios and networks want shows that will immediately grab an audience, but that doesn't always translate into quality episode after episode. Things have become very farcical and even sitcoms, which are supposed to be television that represents the every-man and their struggles (Everybody Loves Raymond, Friends, even Will & Grace though they did get crazy somtimes), albeit in an amusing way, have begun exaggerating things to a ridiculous degree. The people depicted on New Girl would not be able to function in modern society. They would either be too incompetent and end up killing themselves through their own stupidity or else get killed by someone else by pissing them off.

Dramas tend to age better than comedy, but few people want to rewatch a purely dramatic show. Battlestar Gallactica (the series, not the original miniseries) has brilliant acting and I've watched it a lot, but even a brilliant show like that wears on you when it's that dramatic. So comedy becomes the yardstick for decades of TV and how multiple viewings of those shows add up. Unfortunately it seems like newer shows either suck, or the good ones get cancelled. I've been living with Netflix Instant since my move and notice that I honestly don't miss TV too much, which is saying a lot. Part of it could be that I'm actually starting to have a life (go me!), but part of it is the really good stuff is long off the air and I can watch it any time I damn well please. So thank you Netflix, because without you we'd have to buy all the good TV shows on DVD or live exclusively with the drivel the networks decide are worth their time.

More Than Meets the Eye

2012-05-07T09:00:00.000-06:00

With a summer full of blockbuster releases (The Avengers, The Dark Knight Rises, Total Recall, The Bourne Legacy, The Expendable 2, Dark Shadows, The Amazing Spider-Man, and the list goes on) some great movies will inevitably get forgotten in theaters. This is just a fact of life when it comes to movie releases; not every film can get, or even afford, the same amount and caliber of press. One film that should not go missed is the Drew Goddard/Joss Whedon joint effort Cabin in the Woods. I'm not going to focus on box office grosses and the like, but they indicate that this is going to be one of the overlooked movies of the summer, which is truly unfortunate for everyone missing out.

I should start by saying that I am not a fan of the horror genre. I love Buffy, Angel, movies like Underworld and Constantine, but I don't count myself as a fan of the horror genre. To me they seem like movies that focus on scaring the audience instead of telling a story and entertaining, and that's not why I shell out between $10 and $20 to sit in a dark room and listen to crinkly snacks and stage whispers from people I inevitably want to punch (or in that once case chuck a book at). That said, this movie is a horror movie. THAT said, this movie is not a horror movie. Confused? Good.

At this point I implore you to stop reading if you haven't seen the movie; it's got a unique and complex plot that is fun to watch unfold. All reviews that I read of it were very bare-bones because Goddard wanted the audience to get to discover what's happening along with the characters and I highly suggest that's the way it's seen.

*SPOILERS*

Five attractive twenty-somethings go off for a weekend at Curt's (Chris Hemsworth, Thor before he was Thor) cousin's cabin near a lake. This cabin is in the woods (get it?!) in the middle of nowhere. Other than Curt, there is his pre-med girlfriend Jules (Anna Hutchison) , their stoner friend Marty (Fran Kranz), Curt's jock/intellectual friend Holden (Jesse Williams), and the sweet and quiet nerd Dana (Kristen Connolly). Everything is going great until the cellar. That's when everything changes and the real nightmare for these characters begins. People die and regardless of whether anyone survives, no one lives happily ever after. In conjunction with this, the stereotypical horror plot, is a secondary story that is reminiscent of Angel. I refuse to divulge more of Goddard/Whedon's secrets.

What makes this film so great is how incredibly unique it is; it dissects and reimagines the horror genre while paying homage to the greats like Carpenter (The Thing is Goddard's favorite horror movie). It feels to me like it gives a reason for the genre to exist in the first place without sacrificing the basic DNA of what a makes a horror film, and that's what make this film so delicious. One other thing really made this movie for me:

Marty is the "doofus" character that many ensemble pieces seem required to have. Joey on Friends, Ripcord in G.I Joe, and even Fran Kranz's character on Joss Whedon's short-lived Dollhouse series. The three I just listed are the ones who make it work and aren't painful to watch, but there are countless examples of where writers, directors, and even actors have felt the necessity for this type of character and just ruined the scene or event the entire show/movie. Fran Kranz has this uncanny knack of toeing the line between true comedy and camp, and that makes him both unique and invaluable in a story such as this. While Connolly is adorable as Dana, and Jesse Williams plays the terror to a tee, it's Fran Kranz who had me cheering.

Another thing I'd like to note about how Goddard filmed this movie is how he handled the gory bits. Now I'm not squeamish when it comes to movie gore (except for that scene in Pan's Labyrinth where the villain sews up his face, eugh), but I like it to serve a purpose. The premise of the movie was already grizzly enough, that I appreciated it when Goddard allowed a lot of the truly horrible scenes to occur just off camera. Well, that is until the end when the shit really hits the fan, but then it makes sense to show it. Nothing in this movie is pointless; every line, every character serves their purpose.

I honestly feel that this needs to be seen on the big screen. The horror genre is one to see in a dark room, on a big screen, with great surround sound, and this is no different. So while there may be a lot of great movies coming out, don't pass on this just to see a big ticket movie (unless it's The Avengers) because you'd be missing out on a true gem. It's taken since 2009 to finally get released because of studio bankruptcy and not it deserves it's moment in your nightmares. . . I mean the spotlight.

4.9999 out of 5

Joss Smash

2012-05-06T16:53:00.001-06:00

What should happen when you put a group containing Robert Downey Jr., Chris Evans, Chris Hemsworth, Jeremy Renner, Mark Ruffalo, Scarlett Johansson, Tom Hiddelston, and Samuel L. Jackson on screen at one time? It should implode. That much star power in any other film (see Valentine's Day, New Year's Eve, etc.) is a good indicator that they're compensating for a lack of plot with names that they know will generate revenue. Fortunately for the first (and probably biggest) blockbuster of the season, The Avengers has one other important name on the bill: writer/director Joss Whedon. If you don't know who Whedon is, he's the genius behind such cult favorites as Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, Firefly (and it's big screen spawn Serenity), and Dollhouse. He also had a hand in writing the animated film Titan A.E. and 2009's (released this year) Cabin in the Woods. I like to think of him as an American comedian with a Brit's sense of timing. I also like to think of him as a sort of God, but that's just me (and the hordes of other devoted Joss Whedon acolytes). While his resume up until this was impressive and genre-defining, taking on The Avengers was still a heavy burden to taken on alone. In this interview on CBS he talks about how people threatened to place all the blame on his shoulders if the film turned out to be a $220 million flop.

Always trust your quarter of a billion dollar movie in

the hands of the dweeby, receding-hairlined ginger guy.

Fortunately for Joss (and Disney), The Avengers opening weekend just happens to be the biggest of all time, hedging out Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 by over $30 million. HP went on to become the third highest grossing movie of all time, behind Avatar and Titanic (how much of a dick do you think James Cameron is? I think he's got to be an A-List douche), which gives me hope that The Avengers can make even more movie history by working it's way up that ladder as well. Fortunately, I don't think the success of the film will make Joss a major blockbuster director, which may seem like an odd thing for me to say. In the aforementioned interview Whedon was asked about the fact that he's not known for big movies, and he responded by saying he wouldn't even want a reputation like that. He's a man who creates small QUALITY works of cinematic art, and I don't want to see that compromised by Hollywood. He was the perfect man for The Avengers, having worked on a series of Marvel comics (not to mention the scores of Buffy and Angel comics) in the past few years. Being a fanboy of the genre himself, he knew what to do to appease his target demographic.

As for the film itself, it's the perfect marriage of blockbuster action, CGI, comedy, and tension. Since all save Ruffalo had been given a chance to debut their characters on screen previously, the interactions between all of the core cast seemed genuine and consistent with what had been previously established. What makes this film truly brilliant is the sum of small details that build an incredibly complex world. There are too many to list, and I don't want to give anything away because it is just too much fun to discover them on your own, but there is one that really struck me as a Joss Whedon hallmark. While Loki is the main physical villain of the film, the dissent among the ranks of the supersoldiers (the Hulk, Black Widow, Hawkeye, Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, and Iron Man (he's in there twice because he just loves to cause trouble)) is what really cause problems. This sort of internal struggle being the main "bad guy" dates back to the very first season of Buffy. Joss has always had a knack for personifying teenage angst, growing pains, loss, and all of those sorts of emotional issues that we all face at some point in our lives. He changes the formula a bit for this movie, but the innate Whedon-ness is still there. Fans of Marvel who don't yet know how brilliant Joss Whedon is will be happy with the result, and fans of both (like myself) will leave ecstatic.

One great thing about Marvel that I have always appreciated is that, especially in the recent big screen adaptations, they don't only target the stereotypical fanboy. Because they have action, they often have romance, they always have comedy, and there's usually some amount of mystery, these films cater to the majority of movie-going patrons. At the midnight premiere here in Bozeman I saw everyone from the weird kid I had computer programming class with in high school to some guys who looked to fit into the jock category to a pretty normal girl who went alone, dressed up like Black Widow. Movies and TV are the most appealing art form for much of the global population, and it's important to have films like this that can unite very different groups in their fandom.

This has been an oddly serious post for a comic book movie, but the only other way I can express my love of it is a ten page post of "EEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!" and that would be stupid. All I can say is GO SEE IT. It's the funniest Marvel movie yet, it's got a solid story, good graphics, and a bunch of little moments that make you go "whoa!". And when you see it, don't be like the majority of the losers at my midnight showing who left during the credits, stay until the end; the post-credit scene is my favorite so far. So while I go see it again tonight (and probably Tuesday. And maybe next weekend. . .) get your ass into a theater seat, put on those 3D glasses (or not, however you prefer, since the 3D wasn't overly necessary for this one) and get prepared for an awesome trip to a galaxy far, far away. Oh wait, wrong movie. . . Just go. Now. Before I hunt you down. Thank you.

6 stars out of 5 (I may be biased)

The Movie that Activated my High School PTSD

2012-04-13T11:27:00.000-06:00

Anyone who knows me, or has read my post about the most recent Pirates film, can probably deduce that the main reason I went to see the recently released big screen adaptation of 21 Jump Street was because of the promised Johnny Depp cameo. Well, I'd just like to start off with a big screw you to Michael Bacall (and I guess a bit to Jonah Hill maybe since he helped come up with the story). Now that that's out of the way. . .

The plot is simple: two incompetent police officers are moved to an undercover program where they are tasked with infiltrating a high school drug ring and bringing the culprits to justice. In the process they have to adjust to the altered high school dynamic and come to terms with who they really are, yadda yadda, etcetera. Channing Tatum plays a jock (shocker) named Jenko and Jonah Hill plays nerdy (no way!!!!) Schmidt. Together they fail at their jobs, until they finally man up and luck into a successful career. It's everything you would expect this movie to be and nothing more.

The only thing that really struck me about this film was their fairly accurate representation of how high school bullying/mockery can screw you up as an adult. To be fair, it was written by Jonah Hill (who was overweight in high school) and Bacall (who looks like this) so they must have a bunch of personal experience with being picked on in school. I can definitely relate, and that sort of treatment (especially for extended periods of your life) can seriously affect how you behave as an adult. Multiple parts of the film show Hill's character being unable to shake his poor self-esteem and low social confidence as an adult, even one who has since become a police officer. Bullying takes a real toll on who you become when it happens during the formative years of 6th through 12th grade.I think Bowling for Soup summarized it best:

The whole social dynamic of high school doesn't go away after graduation, and neither does the trauma inflicted by your peers. Social pain is a real thing that activates the same pain pathways as physical pain (this stuff is really interesting if you want to read up on it), and anyone who knows anything about aversion behavior knows that people avoid behaviors that cause pain. To simplify, being mocked in high school causes pain, which causes people to start avoiding situations that can cause that pain, which leads to wallflower/anti-social behavior. Since this is ingrained in people over years, it's not exactly easily reversed. Why do you think so many people mistreated during school end up in therapy as adults (I have no actual numbers for this, it's just my personal observation).

So while the movie itself is nothing special, their portrayal of the negative affects a person can have based on horrible experiences during school is one of the most accurate I have seen in a long time. They do it in a funny way, but anyone who has been in that situation can certainly relate to Schmidt's shortcomings as an adult.

To end, I'd like to send out a nice big screw you to all those kids from elementary school up who mocked, teased, pushed, and tormented me. I'm awesome so fuck you.

The End

3.5 stars out of 5

That One Guy in Mary Poppins had it Right

2012-04-13T10:35:00.001-06:00

One of the simplest, truest statements about me is this: I love to laugh. It's something that most people agree on, and I've written about my preferred comedic stylings before. Recently I've developed a new Netflix obsession that I think others should get in on, and that is watching stand-up specials. They're short, and even the crappiest filmed stand-up special is inevitably going to make you laugh. There's such variety out there in this genre (a genre which I previously thought was fairly narrow) which goes to show that the comedic well is far from tapped out. For example, Bo Burnham is a young comedian who has risen to fame through his use of music/props in his comedy along with his precocious talent for stand-up and performing. Another who fits into this "prop comedy" category is Demetri Martin (watch Person, it's great and random), who is best known for his sketch comedy show Important Things with Demetri Martin on Comedy Central.

Some comedy purists dislike prop comedians because they believe that they are less innately funny, having to instead rely on props to make the joke. These people are imbeciles. If, however, you are an imbecile, have no fear. There is a huge pool of comedians who you will too find entertaining. Daniel Tosh, the frat-minded writer and actor behind the hilarious Tosh.0, delivers his comedy like he's mocking everyone around him and wants you to hate him; for this I love him. Jim Gaffigan, a giant, pale, baby-faced man who most people know from things like My Boys and 17 Again, gives an amusingly bi-polar performance in Beyond the Pale (which I have watched at least 3 times). I anxiously await the addition of his other special King Baby to the instant watch list. Craig Ferguson, who I have written about before, also has some hilarious stand-up on Netflix that cannot be missed. The man is more concerned with making himself laugh than the audience, which makes his work better for everyone. I half expect him to ask the audience "was it as good for you as it was for me" at the end of every episode of the Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson, and that same feeling carries over into his stand-up.

Then there's Eddie Izzard, who I honestly couldn't describe if I wanted to. He's a difficult comedian to watch at first, though what he's saying is hilarious (if somewhat hard to understand because of his accent). He's someone I'd almost prefer to just buy the audio for, except I find him utterly fascinating. Just watch Dress to Kill in order to see for yourself. He's both bizarre and engrossing, and 100% original.

One final note before I send you off to waste and evening, afternoon, morning, whatever on laughing excessively (it extends your life so I think Netflix should be a medical write-off): female stand-up comediennes are not as funny as male comedians. I don't know why, and I really want to think that they're funny, but while men can be hilarious and crude, women doing the same sort of jokes just seem desperate for attention and approval, not unlike the slutty girl at the bar who you can just tell will do anything in order to feel wanted. That may be harsh, but it's honestly how I felt trying to watch anything with Sarah Silverman in it as well as any of the female roasters on Comedy Central's Roast of. . . specials. It makes me feel like I'm being sexist against my own gender, but some things I just can't help.

So go, watch some stand-up, laugh. And. . .

Now just try and get that out of your head.

My Recovery from Not-Rebecca-Black's Friday

2011-12-01T17:55:00.001-07:00

Black Friday is the third worst day of the year. Tops is Valentines day, second is the day after Halloween, and third is Black Friday. If you're a customer it's a day of pushing through crowds, spending too much money, and realizing at the end of the day you mostly forgot to shop for other people. If you work retail it's a day of dealing with those frustrated and tired customers, being tired yourself, and literally wanting to rip the head off the next person to ask you "is this on sale?" If you stay home that day, well, then, you're a lucky bastard and I'm going to make you pay. No, seriously.

So, after spending about 17 hours in my mall this past Black Friday working at multiple jobs and becoming so tired that I literally hallucinated, I just wanted to unwind. Of course, being me, I turned to Netflix (also because I was too tired and lazy to get up and get a DVD). I'm slowly running out of familiar titles, so I decided to do a Brittany Murphy double feature: The Ramen Girl, followed by Love and Other Disasters. Since these are B. Murphy movies they are clearly romantic comedies, but they're still good. Trust me.

In The Ramen Girl plays Abby, an American who relocates to Tokyo in order to follow her boyfriend. She ends up dealing with her lack of direction and being in an unfamiliar city by training to become a Ramen chef. She meets a new man, struggles with the language barrier, and makes friends she can barely communicate with. It's a simple movie, cute and quirky, but my favorite part is how it gives me the viewer, someone who has no idea what the Japanese culture is about (I've been IN a Japanese dancing festival, still don't have a clue), insight into a small part of the Japanese culture. They do this by showing us Tokyo through Abby's eyes, the eyes of a clueless tourist who happens to find herself in a completely alien city. It's a feel-good movie that definitely lifted my spirits and made me 23.7% less likely to kill someone when I next went to work.

I followed this up with Love and Other Disasters (what happens when a typical B. Murphy movie and a typical British comedy procreate). Murphy plays "Jacks", an assistant at a fashion magazine who loves Breakfast at Tiffany's and playing matchmaker for her friends, but fails in finding love for herself. My favorite part/character in this movie is Jacks's gay roommate who lives his life too much in his head. Let me explain: certain scenes in the movie occur entirely in this character's head. Instead of living his life, he bogs himself down with the "what ifs" of life and lets that stop him from acting. This character rings so true; I know I'm a fault for doing this at times and pretty much everyone can think of a time when it's happened (or will happen, get it? No? Whatever). The rest of the movie is cute and worth watching if you're bored and want to watch a feel-good movie, but this character is so wonderful he makes the movie.

While not the greatest actress around, Brittany Murphy's presence in Hollywood is sad. In her 32 years she starred in some great movies, from her first big screen role in Clueless to The Ramen Girl (and a few after that), as well as a multitude of TV roles. These two movies really show why she was so popular, why so many fans mourned her passing, and why a replacement for her has not been found. She was unique, and will be remembered through film. So watch these movies if you haven't already; you won't get any more of her, so take what's there and keep on the lookout for the next Brittany Murphy. Because we need another quirky, awkward, weird girl in our movies.

What's so Funny?

2011-11-29T11:40:00.000-07:00

Comedy is pretty much the only film/TV genre that is universally loved. It's a pretty broad genre, from Coupling on the BBC to How I Met Your Mother on CBS to The Hangover to Puss in Boots and everything in between which makes it appeal to any audience. I'm a huge fan of The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson which is 42 minutes of a middle-aged Scottish dude making fun of people (himself most of all) and making himself laugh. It's effectively unscripted humor that somehow makes it better; I have a theory as to why his comedic stylings are so much greater than the better-known CBS talk show host David Letterman. One word: punchlines; more specifically Craig rarely has them while Letterman exhales them like CO2.

Think about how comedy has evolved over the decades. Shows like I Love Lucy and I Dream of Genie were family-friendly, punchline-riddled, and rife with physical comedy. Notice how in shows like these there is a pause after each joke to give the audience time to laugh before they moved on to something else. As the years passed physical comedy became less and less prevalent which made the genre very hit or miss. This is due to the fact that someone tripping on a banana peel and injuring themselves is funny but when your comedy purely relies on the words spoken, people can fail to get it or simply fail to find it funny. Comedy then became stratified into different types: raunchy, dark, family-friendly, stand-up, romantic. The list goes on, but you get the idea. Recently, stars like Amanda Bynes, Robert Downey Jr., and Shia LaBeouf have all used physical comedy (to different degrees) in their films. It's like physical comedy just needed to lie dormant for long enough for people to think it was funny again. As physical comedy has begun its rise to prominence once again, punchlines have started to die out. Think of your recent favorite comedic movie. The Hangover is an easy example because anyone sane at least thought it was funny. There's quite a bit of physical comedy, but less of the "joke then pause" dynamic involved in punchline-riddled comedy.

To get to my point (and I apologize for any flow issues in this article; it was written over a period of about a month), this new type of comedy is making the genre funnier than ever. You don't need a laugh track or badamchhhh (I'm not good with spelling sounds) to tell you when you should find something funny. Either it is, it isn't, or you don't get it. This means writers and actors have to be more talented in order to sell their joke, which brings up the quality of the show as a whole. There are plenty of people, myself included, who liked the old SNL. The "Not Ready for Prime-Time Players" are still some of the best comedic actors around (Bill Murray and Dan Aykroyd, for example) while the newer cast rely on an older comedic paradigm that is much less funny than the stand-up at the beginning of the show. Be honest, how many of you have just watched the intro and then tuned out for the rest of the show? I sure have. The new SNL is really no better than MadTV, which is really sad.

What it all comes down to is reality. Real-life is really funny when you think about it, but rarely are those funny things intentional. I was talking with friends recently about the 6+ pumpkin pies I had made for Thanksgiving, and then continued to tell them "I don't even like pumpkin pie". It was something that was funny as hell, but wasn't a joke. Real comedy is what happens when you don't expect it, and that element of surprise, that act of discovery is what makes great comedy feel real and natural. Those moments where you can't describe why something is funny, but laugh harder when you try are the most valuable in life, and the writers and actors who manage to capture that essence are among the greatest in the industry.

My Love Letter to "Psych"

2011-11-28T11:40:00.001-07:00

Quick, name the best comedy on TV! Family Guy? Really? No, you suck. How I Met Your Mother? Well it's good and all, but no. The new Two and a Half Men? You're an idiot. Get off my blog. Stop guessing. I'll give you a hint: it's an hour long and brilliant. Psych? Finally! There's hope for you yet.

I tried to pick a picture that summed up the awesomeness of this show.

Impossible. So instead I chose one that summed up my love.

Shawn/James is me. Fanshaw/Malcom McDowell is the team at Psych.

It's been awhile since there's been a show I could watch over and over and over and over again (there are plenty that I can watch over and over again). Buffy, Angel, and Firefly are really the only ones I never get sick of, and that is mostly due to the comedic genius that is Joss Whedon. Put James Roday and Dule Hill together though and you get one of the greatest comedic teams of all time. Add Timothy Omundson and Maggie Lawson to the ix, sprinkle in a bit of Corbin Bersen and Kirsten Nelson, and add a dash of Sage Brocklebank and you get a wonderful comedic stew. Soup? Bisque? Chowder? Well, some type of savory food that warms the belly and makes you feel wonderful. It's one of those shows, like Friends, that makes you feel great no wonder how crappy your day is. Over 5 years ago a really dear friend of mine passed away and the only TV show I could watch was Friends because it made me hurt a little less. Had Psych been around then, I'm sure it would have been the show I would have watched.

Does all of that fail to convince you that this show is magical? Well then listen to any one of the audio commentaries. They are almost funnier than the show itself, and I've listened to most of them multiple times. Whether it's Dule Hill getting a phone call, texting, or eating, or it's the writers/directors/producers discussing inside jokes (such as the fist bump really annoying Kelly Kulchak, so they put it in as much as possible) these people just exhale funny. That feeds the comedy on the show, making it feel more genuine and believable. Comedy is a tough genre, because people get sick of the same joke over and over again. Doing a hour show that is comedic is one of the most challenging thing to make succeed. But the team at Psych have managed to not only make is successful, they have created a huge group of Psych-O's who spend all week waiting for the next episode (the 11/30 episode guest stars William Shatner of all people) and all hiatus counting down until the next premiere. When you find yourself subconsciously quoting the show in everyday life (I recently told my friend "I can't do this with you right now" and constantly say "have you heard about Pluto? That's messed up.") you know you're a fan. But I, and I'm sure I'm not the only Psych watcher to feel this way, am more than a fan. I'm a believer; a believer in the power of comedy and the fact that the genre is far from tapped out. Craig Ferguson has proved that comedy is better when you first worry about making yourself laugh because if you accomplish that you'll make others laugh too. This seems to be the way the Psych team operates, and I appreciate it immensely. There's too much pointless, repetitive, useless crap on TV. It's nice to know that when I get home Wednesday, I have one of my favorite shows waiting for me on my DVR, because I know I'm going to spend that night laughing.

So Psych team, I raise my figurative glass to you (because it's too early to raise my literal glass, and also I'm drinking out of a bottle). Keep it up and know that, regardless of the award wins, you have the strongest group of fans out there and it's constantly growing. I love you guys, and that's what I'm talking about.

Ironically Lacking the X Factor

2011-11-27T14:22:00.002-07:00

On September 21 of this year something terrible happened: another reality singing competition premiered that I found myself watching. In my defense, it was The X Factor and it brought Simon Cowell back to the US. Anyone who watched American Idol before Simon left knows that he is deliciously and cruelly honest (and sometimes he just likes to screw with people because he can), which made his coming back as a talent judge on X Factor so appealing. Both Idol and X are Fox network shows, though one is sponsored by Coke and AT&T and the other is sponsored by Pepsi and Verizon. They are both singing competition shows, and the formats are similar.

Both are groups of attention whores, but which is "better"?

On American Idol hopeful contestants attend castings around the country, auditioning in a private room with just them and the judges (no music track to sing to either). Those who make it through go to the second round ("Hollywood week") where they are given more challenges, such as another a capella audition and then group round where they must try to work together (this is usually where hilarity ensues because people are stupid). There is a final audition with instrumental music and then the final selection for the live shows is made. After this the formula changes slightly from year to year, but live voting cuts the top x number of people down to the top 12 and then the theme weeks begin, with one contestant getting voted off each week. Finally there is only one, usually the one person no one really wanted to win.

X Factor causes hopeful contestants to embarrass themselves in front of a live audience for their initial audition (which weeds out those who are too shy to do so before the process even begins). Those who make it through go through a similar hell week until they are divided into one of four categories (groups, over 30s, boys, and girls) and then they depart to their judge/mentor's house. This year Nicole Scherzinger of the Pussycat Dolls got the over 30s, Simon got the girls, Paula Abdul got the groups, and LA Reid got the boys. They then select four of their final eight to go to the live shows, then they are eliminated in a similar manner to Idol, except until the top 9 the bottom 2 had to sing for their lives and then the judges decided.

So that's how it works on paper, and X Factor seems to be a good thing. By making the judges the mentors as well it makes the contestants' successes and failures the mentors' successes and failures. Unfortunately, X Factor has managed to make the show entirely about the celebrity mentors. The contestants don't really select their own songs, or wardrobe, or anything. The mentor is responsible for everything unless the contestant makes the stand and says "no, it's my decision, bitch". X Factor also allows children who are 12 to audition (which is so incredibly stupid because they don't have the emotional maturity to deal with such a competition, and it will ruin their childhood), though it does allow for much older contestants to participate (such as the recently eliminate Leroy Bell who I've loved for years). The prize for X Factor is a mind-blowing $5 million dollars, which is about 5 times the average Idol prize. Unfortunately, the fact that they keep repeating the amount of the prize shows that most of the contestants are there for the money and not for the ability to become an artist, which means they will do anything for their mentor in order to win. The current musical landscape does not need another cookie-cutter pop star, but X Factor seems determined to give us one.

Regardless of all of my issues with the show, such as the fact that their host manages to be MORE annoying than Ryan Seacrest (I know, I know), it will always come back to the fact that the judges/mentors are worthless. They don't really give the contestant any valuable feedback they make all the decisions which turns the contestants into little more than ventriloquist dummies, and they spend all they time complementing and criticizing each other as opposed to the contestant's performance. Leroy Bell, who I mentioned before, was screwed over by Nicole Scherzinger who did not understand him one bit. Look at this performance on X Factor, and then compare it to this music video released a few years ago. It was like Scherzinger decided "this is what I want him to be, I don't care who he already is". The man is 60 years old and knows who he is, but was swayed by a pop princess into trying things that just didn't work and thus he was eliminated from the show.

There is another contestant, Drew, who is mentored by Simon and sings a song of the same tempo every week. She's only 14 and it's evident that she thinks Simon is a god. LA Reid says she needs to switch it up, which is true (remember Pia Toscano from Idol season 10 who was eliminated after fans got bored of her power ballads), but Simon says she's doing great. Either she's going to win and make the most boring record ever, or she's going to get eliminated because fans become lose interest in her Ingrid Michaelson-esque voice and realize she has no range.

I'm so far into this season that I can't stop watching, even though most of the contestants annoy the crap out of me (see Astro and Rachel Crow), but I highly doubt I will tune in next season. The current Idol judging panel is useless, but the format is infinitely better. It's infuriating to tune into a competition show and listen to a lot of useless conversation between already famous people. You can tell the contestants are getting fed up about it too because they are fighting back and telling the judges what they think during the critiques. Unfortunately, not everyone is saying good things. Most of them are just idiots.

1 star out of 5

(don't watch if you're not already)

Here's Hoping the Fate of "Grimm" is Looking Pleasant

2011-11-08T12:00:00.000-07:00

Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel were two of the greatest shows ever (please don't fight this truth, it will only end badly for you). From the acting to the directing to the writing to the film editing, both shows were unique within the landscape of television and both appealed to wide audiences. Shows like that just don't come around very often, mostly because Joss Whedon is very busy and can't come up with more right now (or when he does FOX cancels them). Though it pains me to admit it, Joss did not create and maintain all of his TV shows alone. One of his partners in crime was the brilliant Daivd Greenwalt (co-creator of Angel and writer on Buffy).

Some might call their love wrong, but I'm okay

with the results.

But Joss and David could not live happily-ever-after, especially when Joss was given the opportunity to direct what will easily be one of the biggest movies of 2012 (Avengers, baby!). David, after what was likely an arduous grieving period, is back in the saddle on a smaller screen with a possible hit on his hands. I'm talking about the new NBC show Grimm, a modern twist using old fairy tales and a good old-fashioned cop show. For Whedon fans the vibe of this show will definitely feel familiar; it's visually dark (though that has become a common thing in TV these days), mixes equal parts comedy and drama, and throws in the occult where most people would not expect it. The cast is fairly small and seems strong, though I'm basing my assumption off of 1.15 episodes because Hulu is not buffering fast enough. David Giuntoli plays Nick Burckhardt, the average investigator that gets supernatural monster-hunting/fighting abilities thrust upon him when one of his relatives is on her death bed (sound familiar? Watch the Buffy pilot). Giuntoli is likeable though he feels like an odd cross between Brandon Routh and Zachary Quinto to me. He's partnered with Russell Hornsby as Hank Griffin (who helps provide much of the comedic energy), dating Bitsie Tulloch (how adorable is that name?) as Juliette Silverton, and befriends/is assisted by Eddie Monroe (played by Silas Weir Mitchell). That is the core cast, which is refreshingly small in my opinion.

So far the show is delivering what it promises from the promos: an occult cop show that tries not to take itself too seriously while putting new twists on old fables. I do have a few complaints, but most people wouldn't be bugged by these things. First of all I'm annoyed by the overuse of camera angles; not to sound like an old-fogie, but I remember when hour-long shows used less than 3 angles per scene. Now it seems like every 5 seconds we're cutting to a different view to try to maintain audience focus. This could be a coping mechanism for lack of compelling plot, it could be a technique that has just become widely accepted, or it could make the director feel special. I don't know, and I don't care. All I know is all of the audio commentaries I've listened to say that moving the camera adds motion to a scene that has none, which means it adds excitement to a scene that might otherwise send people to sleep. I'd rather they make it more interesting and use fewer cameras. Secondly, I really hated their werewolves. I don't know if they have a small effects budget for this season but they reminded me of some SyFy original movie graphics, which is just unacceptable for a major network or anything.

My third and final problem (so far) with this show is their basic premise, more specifically the possible longevity of the show based upon Grimm fairy tales. By starting off with "Little Red Riding Hood" they addressed possibly the most common first (which is a great way to ease audiences unfamiliar with this type of show into it), but they may have set themselves up for failure by being so literal. If audiences expect fairly literal interpretations of the stories then the writers will run out of stories when they run out of Grim tales. I'm fearful that their strategy could prove to be the downfall of the show if audiences abandon the program when they change the formula to allow for more personal interpretation. I apologize that this section is poorly written but I hope you can get the gist of my argument.

This show is definitely worth giving a chance, especially for those of you who have been missing a program like this since Demons was cancelled on BBC America. It fills a gap in TV programming that Once Upon a Time fails to do (even with fellow Buffy alum Jane Espenson leading the charge). It's available on Hulu so you can catch up and get ready for the next episode airing Fridays at 9 PM ET on NBC.

This promotion image is kind of freakishly literal.

Like the show itself.

In related news, apparently there is a Grimm Real Estate and Insurance company in Iowa that missed a serious marketing opportunity with their website.

If You Weren't Crazy When You Started Watching This Movie You May Well Be Now

2011-11-07T12:00:00.003-07:00

This poster is a lie. This movie is not about the tiny Jeff Daniels

inside Superhero Ryan Reynolds. Hilarious capers do not ensue.

I decided to watch Paper Man because of it's cast; with Jeff Daniels, Ryan Reynolds, Emma Stone, and Ryan Reynolds it seemed slated to be hilarious. Combine that with the poster you see above and I was set in my opinion that this was going to be one of those amazing indie comedies that's an undiscovered diamond in the rough. I was wrong.

I feel positively bipolar after watching this movie. At times I was laughing, at times I felt lie crying, at times I was confused, and at other times I was upset. The premise is simple enough: neurotic writer Richard (Daniels) relocates to the seaside in order to write a book (about an extinct type of bird for some reason). His wife (Claire), a highly successful surgeon, remains in the city during the week because of her career and only visits on the weekends, leaving Richard to deal with the combined stress of writing and his own psyche alone. He meets teenager Abby and forms an unlikely friendship. This friendship helps and hurts in many ways, and ends up changing both characters. Also, Ryan Reynolds is a superhero that only Jeff Daniels can see. Like I said, bipolar. Honestly, the movie doesn't get really interesting until about 1:20:00 into the less than 2 hour movie.

It's one of those movies that begs for film and psych students to psychoanalyze the characters and writers, but try as I did I couldn't come to any solid conclusion (and I took two WHOLE semesters of Psychology). This movie could either symbolize the loss of innocence, the need for people who appreciate you as you, the need for you to appreciate and understand yourself, the fact that you shouldn't give up on yourself/your life, the importance of depending on yourself above all others, or (and this is the one I'm leaning toward) the fact that some people are just bat-crap crazy. This is reinforced by the fact that the bar Richard goes to has a "psychiatrist on duty" sign in the background.

There were some great moments in the movie though. At one point Claire and Richard are out to dinner at a lobster restaurant and Claire finds it necessary to tell Richard not to name his food. This, combined with Richard saying "if only everything in the world could be covered in butter, what a world that would be," makes for a very funny scene. I don't remember what happens next, but I'm sure it's depressing just for balance. Another great scene, not because it's funny but because it just struck a chord was when Abby (Stone) and Richard are discussing Richard's first book. He asks what she thought of the book and, instead of answering, she asks him the same question back. It's a great scene simply because it's reinforcing his need to appreciate himself based on his own opinion and not the opinions of others (support for one of my other theories listed above).

Two very important things that this movie does teach us relate to two of the stars. First, this helps reinforce to me that Emma Stone is quickly becoming the American Sweetheart for the younger generation. She embodies the same sort of easy, quirky charm that stars like Sandra Bullock and even Liza Minnelli before her. This was a dark movie, but she had some truly amazing scenes and was able to exhibit that she has dramatic acting chops. Finally, relating to this blog post of awhile ago, this movie shows that Green Lantern could have been horrible. Reynolds' superhero is supposed to be quirky and off in this movie, but he could have easily played Hal Jordan with this same sort of over-the-top humor that would have made a caricature of the comic book (I honestly don't know how it's possible to do that).

I wouldn't tell you not to see this movie if it sounds like your cup of tea, but it left me feeling uneasy and I don't know why. I'd be okay feeling uneasy if I knew why (like after I saw Sin City for the first time), but I feel more uneasy not knowing why I feel this way. I leave it to your discretion (because apparently I assume I actually have a hand in which movies you watch).

2.25 stars out of 5

Johnny Depp: The Cure for Cancer or the Harbinger of the Apocalypse?

2011-11-06T12:00:00.013-07:00

Johnny Depp turns 49 next year. Seriously. I don't care if you're straight or gay, a man or a woman, you've got to admit he's a good-looking guy. He's a chameleon of an actor, which means that it's more than likely that at least one movie you love counts Depp among the cast. Depp has only been acting for 27 of his 48 years, but already has 55 titles to his name; and the man is only building up steam. It's therefore easy for his earlier credits to get overshadowed by releases of the past decade (Pirates of the Carribean, Alice in Wonderland, etc. are pretty loud and therefore understandably drown out early classics like the adorable Benny and Joon). I had heard of Don Juan DeMarco, but hadn't heard anything about it until I decided to watch it on Netflix Instant this past week. The cast is huge, including Marlon Brando as a psychiatrist of all people, Faye Dunaway as his loving wife and friend, and Johnny Depp as the "crazy" lead. It's a very funny movie, as well as a great love story and a poignant commentary on how reality can negatively affect one's life. Sometimes having unreality be contagious can be a good thing.

If you haven't watched the movie then do; it's fabulously acted and will leave you smiling. There's really not much to review. What I wanted to point out is this: Johnny Depp played Tom Hanson on 21 Jump Street (a big screen version of which is being filmed now, including a cameo from Depp) from when he was 23 to when he was 27. He didn't portray DeMarco until he was 31, but the character is supposed to be just barely 21. What amazes me is not that he's playing a character a good 10 years his junior, but that int his movie I feel like that's being generous with his age. He looks like a teenager still, which is crazy! How can a man in his 30's look that good? Here are my explanations: he's a vampire (which would explain his reclusiveness) that has found a way to protect himself from sunlight; he is a genetic freak that holds the cure for diseases and therefore needs to be locked away in a research facility to be studied, only to be released for filming movies; he is the T-1000; Johnny Depp is the devil here to tempt us with his good looks and dry humor.

These pictures were taken about 15 years apart. Scared yet?

I'm sure there are more reasons, but they are too terrifying to contemplate. The bottom line is this: don't make Johnny angry. I don't think we'd like him when he's angry.

Dear Jon Favreau, I'm Sorry

2011-11-05T18:50:00.001-06:00

Since 2005 Jon Favreau has had a pretty good record of films as a director (he's been fairly hit or miss when acting). Even Zathura, which not everyone loved, often comparing it to a poor-man's version of the highly successful Jumanji, was pretty fun. And then anyone who watches movies or television know about the Iron Man movies, which are awesome. But when I saw that he was directing the ridiculous-sounding Cowboys & Aliens I felt like he was banking on his recent success to do something outrageous that most people wouldn't fund with a less promotable director. I mean seriously, it's called Cowboys. . . & ALIENS! How could that possibly make a good movie? Upon first seeing a preview I decided to put that in the same category as Twilight (i.e. movies I won't see even if it means gouging out my eyes to make that happen). Unfortunately, my dad really wanted to see it and he promised to buy me an ICEE and popcorn. I'm poor and that's all it took; yes, I'm a weak, weak person, but you would have done the same in my position.

Reasons, in addition to the ridiculous premise, that I didn't want to see the movie:

I'm not male, therefore Olivia Wilde held no special draw for me.
I hate Daniel Craig.
I like Han Solo aka Indiana Jones aka (if you must) Harrison Ford, but he hasn't been doing so well with role selection so far.
Seriously, Cowboys & Aliens? Seriously?!

Reasons I'm sorry to Jon Favreau:

He finally found a role Daniel Craig is good and believable as.
He give Harrison Ford a role that fit him well, but wasn't like any role he's done recently.
Olivia Wilde was not just eye candy in this movie, but her character was actually the driving force behind the movie and she proved she can play more than a hot doctor.
The creature and set designs were not over-the-top, but highly realistic. Even the alien ships, which reminded me of Stargate: Atlantis, were dirty and blended into the landscape well.
It was really entertaining.

While Favreau can't get all the credit, since the film was merely an adaptation of a highly successful graphic novel, he does get mad props for taking something that could have been turned into a caricature on the screen, and thus a mockery of the original story, and turning it into a great action film that is visually unique (i.e. not like all other alien films that are set on Earth). Clearly Favreau has proved that he's an intelligent director who understands what makes a good movie. This most likely comes from his being an actor first and a director second; this means that he is what is known as an actor's director, which means he knows how to work with the actors in a cooperative manner in order to get the best performance from everyone on the team. To put it another way, this is the man that can pretty much be credited with turning Robert Downey, Jr. into movie star again. He knows what he's doing, and I apologize to him for my months and months of ridiculing and insulting his film. I was wrong and, while I hate to admit it, I'm a big enough person to do it.

Don't you let me down now Favreau.

4 stars out of 5

The Latest REAL Vampire Movie (a Movie That Would Actually Terrify Small Children)

2011-11-05T18:12:00.001-06:00

In 2009 the Spierig brothers Peter and Michael brought us a vampire movie that went relatively unnoticed. Even I, who love vampire movies that do not involve sparkling and do involve copious amounts of blood and violence, managed to forget about this movie and not see it in the short time it was in theaters. Thanks to the wonder of Netflix Instant I was able to rectify my lapse and finally watch this movie. IMDB classifies it as horror, but it's much more of a sci-fi film. Set in 2019, it tells the tale of a world where humanity is on the verge of extinction and the vampires that run the world are searching for an alternate blood source to prevent the rise of subsiders (vampires that have reverted to a more primitive state).

What makes this film wonderful is the new take on vampires and vampirism. It's always great when people give an new twist to old legends such as this (except for one specific example that I refuse to reference again), and the fact that the Spierigs give a scientific basis to their vampires is wonderful. Vampires were created from humans being infected by a virus carried by bats, and then it spread from newly-formed vampire to human. The vampires are what we traditionally think of as being vampires: direct sunlight and beheading kills, blood deprivation cause them to go crazy, etc. The really interesting thing is the idea of a cure, which is discovered accidentally by Willem Dafoe's character "Elvis" and then further tested and implemented by Ethan Hawke's character Edward. I refuse to say more on this, but when you watch it think about the biological and immunological basis of their cure. Or write in the comments of talk to me on Twitter, because it's awesome. Or maybe I'll do a follow-up spoiler entry. It's awesome though; trust me and my geekiness.

Visually this movie is also great. It combines elements from Romero's early work, such as the gore and effects Dawn of the Dead (1978) and the ancient vampires (i.e. Marcus) from the Underworld series of films (starring Kate Beckinsale, the 4th installment of which is due out soon). The plot focuses too much on the least interesting parts of the story, and too little on the most innovative and unique aspects, but it's beautiful to watch. The shots are well set-up, the sets are just futuristic enough to make you feel that the movie is set in a not-too-distant future. The cast is great, helmed by Hawke and Dafoe as our conflicted protagonist and the leader of the opposition, along with Sam Neill as a truly wonderful villain (whose evil comes more from greed and bureaucracy than vampirism).

4 stars out of 5

Definitely should watch!

Some Things You Can't Unwatch (i.e. The New Hollywood Trend) (i.e. I Hope I'm Not Too Late to Save You)

2011-11-05T15:34:00.000-06:00

Let's travel back in time, why don't we? It's 2009 and two movies have been released starring the amazingly talent Sandra Bullock. One of them is receiving Oscar buzz, while the other is leading people to question whether they ever want to watch a movie again. I am talking of course of The Blind Side and All About Steve (respectively; just to clarify I'm not speaking of both respectively, I'm referring to in the order used in the previous sentence). Unbeknownst to Hollywood, this may have been the beginning of a trend.

Now let's hop back in our theoretical time machine and head back to 2011. No, no detours, I'm sorry. We can't fix your little indiscretion from New Year's eve. What's done is done and all you can do is try not to repeat that event. Another time. Right, so 2011. With just 14 days of release in 2010, I'm willing to call Black Swan a movie of 2011, especially since in areas as rural as mine, it didn't actually hit theaters until the year before the apocalypse (trust me, this fact will become relevant). Another movie that was released was the Danny McBride-penned and Danny McBride-starring Your Highness. The unifying thing with these two films is the female lead in each: Natalie Portman. Regardless of her mistake of signing up for the "Star Wars" movies (which don't even merit the name, hence the quotation marks ihateyousomuchlucasyouruineditforeveryone), Portman is a very talented actress and an amazingly intelligent woman. Apparently she likes making a pattern of releasing crap within a year of cinematic gold. For example: Episode II (2002) and Cold Mountain (2003); Episode III (2005) and V for Vendetta (2006); and finally Your Highness (2011) and Black Swan (2010).

Here's where Sandra Bullock may have started a trend: the same year she won her Oscar for The Blind Side, she was also granted a Razzie, that award that commemorates moments stars would gladly forget, for All About Steve. In case you missed it, Portman won an Oscar for Black Swan already and guess what?! Your Highness is already an offiical contender for this year's Razzie's! It was so bad I almost stopped watching it at least 15 times in the first 20 minutes. I now know I should have believed my instincts, but I figured with a cast including James Franco, Natalie Portman, and Zooey Deschanel it had to get better. Didn't it? Why wasn't it gettng better? Oh my god what production company would condescend to produce this shit?! Why??!?!?!?!

In short, I did not care for this movie. But I really should have known better. This is clearly Danny McBride's way of finding himself starring opposite a woman as beautiful as Natalie Portman in a romantic way. Look at the guy: overweight, kind of looks like a dog, and is clearly as mentally developed as an eleven-year-old boy. There's no way that he could get someone as smart and accomplished as Portman in real life Therefore he wrote, produced, and starred in his fantasy. Unfortunately, his fantasy had neither the box-office draw or class as fantasies such as James Cameron's (Writer/Dir., Avatar) or Chris Miller (Dir., Puss in Boots). It would be a toss-up between watching this movie again, watching the first Twilight movie for the first time, or getting scalding water poured on me repeatedly. And honestly, I'd probably go with the water.

Help me Find a Flaw

2011-08-24T17:41:00.001-06:00

Easily the most powerful movie of the year so far, The Help is the believable fictional story of Jackson, Mississippi during the beginning of the civil rights movement. The story centers on Skeeter, a recent college grad with aspirations of becoming a writer, and the to worlds she's caught between. On one side is the Junior league and racist white Jackson, on the other side are the ranks of black workers who are treated as less than dirt. It's a familiar theme that's been studied in American History classes for decades, has been made into many movies of varying quality, and is still unfortunately alive in some people's minds and hearts. However, the way this story was approached, cast, and filmed made it magnificent. I have no idea how close this was to the original novel by Kathryn Stockett, but if the pair follows the normal 'the book is better than the movie' trend, the novel must be absolutely amazing.

The casting for the movie is perfect, with Allison Janney and Emma Stone playing a dysfunctional mother.daughter duo, Viola Davis and Octavia Spencer portraying strong women in the face of racism and cruelty, and Bryce Dallas Howard leading an army of socially brainwashed southerners. Where many actors and actresses play the racist antagonist live a super-villain, Howard and the rest of the cast play their roles realistically: evil without realizing they are evil. When a character acts in a manner that seems completely wrong to most people (i.e. gut-wrenchingly racist) the audience has to feel that the character believes it before they can believe the character. Every single person in this movie accomplishes that.

While the subject-manner of the film is a pretty dark subject, one than has haunted the history of America more than most other developed countries, I found the movie to be over-all lighthearted. hat I mean by this is that I found myself smiling or generally happy throughout the film. I cried from happiness more than sadness, but the emotions evoked from the film are different from person to person. My dad, who grew up in Florida in the 50's and 60's found the movie to be all too real and it disturbed him, though he still said it as his new favorite movie. What helped me to enjoy the film so much was the character of Celia Foote, the "white trash" social pariah who befriends Minny (Octavia Spencer) and treats her like and equal and/or mentor instead of as "the help". She as the comedic relief and so loveable that you'd have to be a really angry person not to love that character and every scene she's in.

I mean come on, this is just adorable!

The best review I can give for this movie is this: hen was the last time you went to a movie where no one spoke or started to move to leave until the "music by" credits rolled? What's more, the majority of the movie-goers in my theater didn't get up until the screen went black and the scrolling credits started. The credits up to that point had been over a street, not some cool montage, but a street where one woman slowly walked into the distance. I will not be surprised if this movie garners multiple Oscar wins, specifically Viola Davis and/or Octavia Spencer for supporting actress in a drama.

I reserve this Oscar for The Help. No one can take it from them.

5 stars out of 5

The Smurfs is a No-No

2011-08-02T20:14:00.000-06:00

As I refuse to ever see the Smurfs movie I cannot accurately review the film. Because of this, I direct you here so that you may hopefully prevent yourself and your loved ones from wasting their time, money and brain cells on this "film". Do not be pulled in by the charismatic draw Neil Patrick Harris has over us all.

Almost Every Marvel Movie is a Prequel to "The Avengers" and I'm Okay With That

2011-08-01T12:58:00.002-06:00

As we get closer to The Avengers release (04 May 2012) we are getting bombarded with Marvel movies introducing the characters that will be a part of that magnificent film (it's going to be directed by Joss Whedon ergo it will be amazing). Thor was released earlier this year, Iron Man has already gotten two films, Nick Fury or other members of S.H.I.E.L.D. have been in most of the recent Marvel movies, and The Hulk has had more films that have tried to one-up the last than I choose to count (ironically Lou Ferrigno is playing the Hulk in this film). Now that Captain America: the First Avenger has been released Hawkeye is the only major character from the film (with abilities) not to be featured in a Marvel movie (apparently he was uncredited in Thor but I don't remember him at all). That's just your intro to The Avengers in case you didn't know what was in store; this review is for Captain America, so let's get to it shall we?

Steve Rodgers is a scrawny kid from Brooklyn with a good heart who wants to join the army. His stature and physical maladies prevent him from being able to enlist, but that doesn't stop him from continuing to try, even falsifying documents and risking arrest to try to serve his country. Then a German doctor working for the Americans helps get him enlisted and then recruits him for the new Super Soldier program. It's through this program that Steve Rodgers becomes Captain America, a symbol of American power. When he hears that his friend is in danger, Steve risks his life by entering a Hydra (the evil organization in this film) compound and rescuing hundreds of POWs single-handedly. This is the beginning of the fight between Captain America and Red Skull, the leader of Hydra.

Chris Evans is endearing as Captain America. He's the first Marvel hero in a long time to not start off as an arrogant asshole. He manages to stay sweet and self-aware throughout his entire journey and, more importantly, sells is really well. His on-screen chemistry with Hayley Atwell as Agent Peggy Carter is less smouldering and more of a sweet first love. This makes the final couple of scenes all the more touching and sets up interesting personal issues for The Avengers. Tommy Lee Jones is a crotchety old Colonel who puts up with no one's bullshit and who makes people prove themselves before he'll trust and respect them. It's the sort of role Jones does brilliantly and he doesn't disappoint. Hugo Weaving aka Mr. Smith from The Matrix trilogy aka Elrond (or Mr. Smith trying to play Elrond) from the Lord of the Rings triliogy aka Megatron from the Transformers trilogy performs wonderfully in his first believable role since he beat the crap out of Keanu Reeves. Weaving plays Johann Schmidt aka Red Skull and is just over the top enough to be a comic boo villain, but not so over the top that you feel like you're watching a farce. My only issue with Weaving is that I feel his accent was borrowed from Schwarzenegger. Stanley Tucci plays Dr. Erskine; if you like Stanley Tucci then you'll love him; if you don't love Stanley Tucci then what's wrong with you?! Finally, I must give a round of applause to Dominic Cooper who had the unique task of playing a man that could be seen as havng raised Robert Downey Jr. (Iron Man). Cooper plays Howard Stark and mixes enough flirtatiousness, brilliance, sarcasm, and joviality into the role to make the audience feel the familial relation to Tony Stark. It's tough to make all of the Marvel movies feel interconnected when the cast and crew on each is comprised of completely different people each time. But Joe Johnston does a good job of waring with the cast and writers to make a great film.

One of my favorite things about this movie was the filtering. The movie was shot and edited and manipulated to feel like a comic, but in a stylized manner that evoked a feeling of the 1940's. I've mentioned this before, but anyone who has seen The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and/or Sky Captain and The World of Tomorrow has seen this type of film-making. I'm partial to those movies because it helps draw you into the story more; the only thing they could have done to better sell that you were in the middle of World War II would have been to write/speak in the parlance of the era. Otherwise I'd say the film was at least as good as could have been expected, possibly better. It's an entertaining piece of film, well worth the 3D cost, and lets you leave the theater feeling happy and excited for The Avengers (for those of you that don't remember that was 04 May 2012, written and directed by my hero Joss Whedon). There are so many movies coming out that aren't worth seeing on a giant screen or in 3D, this one is worth both so make sure to see it while you can.

4.25 stars out of 5

How to ruin Red Riding Hood

2011-07-28T16:24:00.000-06:00

When I first saw the preview for Red Riding Hood I was so excited. My excitement built to the point where I was punching my fellow movie-goer's arm (I think it was someone I know). And then I found out one terrible, horrible, movie-ruining piece of information: it was directed by the same woman who decided to ruin our lives with Twilight. I therefore decided she was not going to get my money and waited for Redbox. Other than that one fact it had everything going for it: the writer also wrote the Shawshank screenplay (meaning he worked on a great movie) and the Orphan screenplay (meaning he had the chops for scary); Gary Oldman and Amanda Seyfried, as well as BSG and SG-1 alums Michael Hogan and Mchael Shanks (respectively), are among the cast; it's a dark interpretation of a beloved fairytale (that's already pretty dark to begin with). I'm skipping the summary because everyone should know this story or can Google it easily.

I've enjoyed Amanda Seyfried since Mean Girls came out, but this movie is simply not her niche. She's a very modern looking actress with very modern speech patterns and mannerisms, and these traits do not fit well into a period piece (even if it is fantastical). She simply seems incapable of selling this sort of role, even if she's supposed to be a rebellious girls who doesn't really play by society's rules. Another actor who disappointed me in this movie was, surprisingly, Gary Oldman. I absolutely love him as an actor, from Leon: The Professional to The Fifth Element to Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban to Batman Begins. He is easily one of the most versatile actors currently working, but this movie fails to utilize his range. I blame the script and/or director for this because Oldman's body of work proves that he's a better actor than this. I knew I would be annoyed by the two young male leads and they didn't disappoint (in this one aspect). They play the Twilight love story impeccably even though this is a different movie, which is incredibly annoying. The only truly good performances come from Julie Christie as Grandmother and Billy Burke as Cesaire. They are both dark and neither plays a major part in the love story.

"I do not look like Edward Cullen. . ."

". . . shut up."

The effects department also made a disappointing werewolf. This part is all based on personal preference, but I really enjoy when people do slight variations on were wolves. In Underworld they gave the werewolves cool powers and made their gait slightly different than prior werewolves. The Buffy team made a completely different werewolf (after the first episode featuring them). This movie had just a really big wolf, which fits in the original story, but this is a re-imagination. Therefore I feel not re-imagining the wolf is lazy, and furthermore prior werewolf lore as laid down by writers and filmmakers years and years ago established a werewolf as something other than a normal wolf. To put it simply: a wolf with opposable thumbs (i.e. werewolf) is way scarier than a really big wolf. Especially when that wolf has weaknesses like not being able to step on hallowed ground. That's just weak right there. Moral of this story: focus more on the man-eating evil satanic creature and less on the teenage love triangle.

2 stars out of 5