The Snark Buff

When did decent movies start winning Oscars?

2012-02-03T19:28:00.000-08:00

THE DESCENDANTS IS THE BEST MOVIE OF THE YEAR!!!!!!!1

...that's what we've been hearing ever since this movie showed up in theaters a few months ago. Usually when a film gets such a generous amount of praise, I remember it. I tell myself, "Self, you've got to watch this movie before awards season so you know what's going on, okay? You don't want to be the only loser come Oscar night who hasn't seen The Descendants."

But then I watched the trailer, and I thought...meh. This just looks like your standard "family drama". So weeks and weeks passed, and I kept pushing it off in favor of other films that looked to be more up my alley.

Then, finally, I went to see The Descendants last night. And I'll tell you what--it might just be the most decent film of 2011.

That's right. Decent. There's nothing terribly wrong with this film, but at the same time there's nothing to write home about either. The Descendants is about a man, played by George Clooney, whose wife falls into a coma after knocking her head in a jet-skiing accident. For the "juicy drama" part, we find out the wife was cheating on him before the accident. After hearing this news, Clooney, with his two rebellious daughters in tow (and some random stoner character I assume we're supposed to find endearing), go on a mission to find this man and...well...he's not entirely sure what he's going to do after he does. It's a situation rife for drama, and The Descendants capitalizes on it completely. The performances are about as good as can be, particularly Clooney, and it brings into question the fragility of family relationships.

Is there anything special about The Descendants? No. It's a well-executed take on a story that's been told many many times before (not necessarily the coma part, but the 'omg my spouse is cheating on me' part). So why does this film have such good odds of winning the Oscar later this month? Is it because Hollywood is so scared of recognizing genre films (Drive and Super 8, for example, which I would argue were much better than The Descendants) that they'd rather fill up their queue with completely ordinary films?(*) Or are they just so far up George Clooney's ass now that anything he's in automatically gets placed in the Best Picture pool? (hint: the answers are yes and yes)

[*Not that there's anything wrong with ordinary films. If we're describing ordinary films as non-genre or non-stylized movies, than The Help falls into the category of ordinary films--and The Help, too, was far better than The Descendants.]

I think the question Hollywood needs to ask itself is what are they giving out awards for: films that push boundaries and do something different, or films that do the same thing we've been seeing for decades now really, really well? Well folks--if The Descendants wins Best Picture this year, I think we have our answer.

4/5

The Artist: A Rare Case In Which Hype Is Deserved

2012-01-23T01:55:00.000-08:00

There's a distinct moment in The Artist where I stopped just liking the film and decided that I loved it.

I won't spoil what happens, but when that something does happen, the soundtrack borrows a bit from Bernard Hermann--and the moment that familiar score started, my heart basically melted and I fell completely in love with this movie.

The Artist is Exhibit A of how far talented actors and a great story can get you. Sure, it's stylized, but while this film gained a lot from it's silent film format, it also lost some things. Particularly, it lost a lot of things modern films rely on. For example, we take for granted how much an actor's voice can elevate a scene. If a character's distressed, the extra tremor or melodramatic crack in their voice automatically effects us and let's us know that "things just got real". The sound of crying, also, is a great aid in dramatic scenes. We don't really know how important these things are in a film until they're gone.

And yes, these things are certainly gone in The Artist. But did the film suffer? Absolutely not.

Back to my point about talented actors and good stories. Jean Dujardin, who I SINCERELY hope is the next Javiar Bardem (non-American actor who breaks into Hollywood), can tell us everything we need to know just with his facial expressions. When he breaks, we don't need any dramatic howling or loud sobs--all his pain is conveyed to us just by the look on his face. And that, my friends, is talent. The same goes for Bérénice Bejo. The both of them together in this film leave nothing to be desired; I never MISSED the spoken-word dialogue for one second because I didn't need it. I don't know about you, but I can't think of very many actors who could carry a film like this.

The Artist, while it has its plot about the transition from silent film to talkies and the way this radically changed Hollywood and blah blah blah, is above all a love story. We have two magnetic characters meant for each other going down these two separate paths, both effected differently by this change in the industry. The movie isn't about the change, though--it's about them. It's always about them, and I think that's why The Artist has so much heart. For example, by the time the film is halfway over, I think it's impossible not to care about George Valentin (Jean Dujardin). When the climax begins (and that sweeping Bernard Hermann score takes over), I was a nervous wreck--and you know why? Because I cared. And really, when I think about it, I rarely care anymore when I go to the movies.

It's nice to care.

Before watching this movie, I felt wary about all the insane, seemingly out-of-left-field buzz. One minute we were all talking about War Horse, and then out of nowhere this unknown film is sweeping up award after award at the Golden Globes. I went into The Artist with this same attitude, ready to pffft at it heartily and deem it overrated. I figured that all the people raving about the film were only doing so because it was different, and like, you can look super intellectual if your favorite movie of the year was black, white, and silent.

Thankfully, that's not the case. The Artist deserves every last iota of hype it's received this awards season, and I honestly can't think of a film (or a pair of leads) more deserving of an Oscar--specifically Jean Dujardin, who is extremely talented and attactive. I feel like I haven't stressed this enough. I mean, he makes me want to learn French.

RATING: 5/5

Unwatchable.

2012-01-19T23:43:00.000-08:00

It should be pretty clear to most of you all that I like movies. I like to watch them, I like to talk about them, and I like to write about them. Usually, even if the movie's bad, I can appreciate something about it--some stinkers have good acting, for example, or some movies are so bad that they're ridiculously entertaining.

But what do you do when a movie is SO bad and SO devoid of anything worthwhile whatsoever? Well...you turn it off.

Which is what I did with The Tree of Life. I just want to say that this is NOT something I normally do. I've struggled through an endless number of 'meh' movies just because there was a *slight* chance of something interesting happening. I knew within 10 minutes of this thing that that just wasn't going to happen. There just wasn't anything worth waiting for.

What's so bad about The Tree of Life, you ask? Everything.

Very soon after popping this DVD in, a word appeared in my mind and started flashing over and over again in pink neon lights.

**PRETENTIOUS. PRETENTIOUS. PRETENTIOUS.**

Oh hai, my name is Terrence Malik, and I'm a pretty well known director. My movies are ART, and if you don't understand them, you just don't appreciate ART. Now look at this 4 minute-long shot of lava coming out of a volcano.

To say that there is a story to this movie is beyond a stretch. In the 40 minutes that I suffered through this turd, this is what was clearly communicated: Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain are a married couple raising children in what looked like the late 60's or early 70's. One of their children dies, and they're devastated. We don't know HOW the child died--we just see the mother character open a letter and start sobbing. Keep in mind there's VERY minimal dialogue in all of this. I guess spoken-word is a little too mainstream? Most of the speaking is done in the narration, which skips between a female and a male voice. Had I not had the movie on subtitles, I wouldn't have known that [MOM'S VOICE] was the female and [SON'S VOICE] was the male. There's a great big monologue about how there are 2 types of people in the world: nature vs. grace. It's all very existential and "deep".

While I enjoyed none of this part, at least it was something resembling a movie. Then it all just went to hell.

The next part skips ahead in time to Sean Penn's character, who is one of the sons we saw in the first part. You know how I know this? Because I read the synopsis. The movie does not communicate this to you AT ALL. He says nothing in the whole ten minutes of this segment. We see him wake up, walk around his house, walk around at work, and look distressed. WAIT--he did say something! One of his coworkers looks at him strangely and he mumbles something about "this day". That's all that's said, and I GUESS this is implying that it's the anniversary of his brother's death? I'm sorry, but this is where the movie became unwatchable for me. Nothing is happening! What is going on? I don't know--nobody knows!

*cough cough* I MEAN...I guess I just don't understand the "art".

The next 10 minutes completely convinced me to eject the disc. Seriously, from that point on, it was nature shots. Ten minutes of NATURE SHOTS. Lava emerging from the dome of a volcano. Water rushing over a bed of pebbles. Some swirling nebula in space.

DINOSAURS TROTTING NEAR A BABBLING BROOK.

What. The. Hell. Is. This. <--- (that's what I said)

I'm sorry, but cool graphics alone aren't gonna cut it. Sue me, but when I walk into a movie, I expect established characters, DIALOGUE, and a plot that makes sense. It's not asking for much, really. I'm not even asking it be done well! The Tree of Life attempts to do none of these things because it's "art", and like...if you don't like it, you just don't get it, okay?

If you had a different experience with this movie, go ahead and share it with me, although it's hard for me to believe that this movie is watchable without lots and lots of drugs. For me, I have to agree with a reviewer who said on Amazon that this movie was, quote: "A reinvention of the screensaver". That just sums it up perfectly.

Y U NO HAVE TOP 10 YET?

2012-01-18T21:10:00.000-08:00

This short post is directed to the ENDLESS NUMBER OF PEOPLE (no one) demanding to see my Top 10 of 2011 list. I mean, I had my Top 10 of 2010 ready at the beginning of January last year--what's the hold up this time?

I'll tell you what the hold up is: about a jillion movies came out in 2011.

For the first time that I can remember, there's not really a clear sense of what movies/actors are going to win what awards. This time last year, the list of award-winning movies was pretty clear and straightforward. We knew the race for Best Picture was going to be between The Social Network, The King's Speech, and The Fighter. Can I say that for this year? Absolutely not.

I have no idea what's going to be nominated, let alone what's going to win. You might say, "Leah, didn't you watch the Golden Globes?" Well, yeah, but I really don't think that served as an indicator this year. There is no way that THE DESCENDANTS is the best movie of the year--and there is no way that it's going to win Best Picture at the Oscars. You can quote me.

You might also be saying, "Leah, who cares what's going to win awards? It's YOUR top 10 list, just make it already!"--and to that, I respond with: how am I supposed to know what to watch? Generally, I get a sense of what movies are worth watching based on critics' feedback. So many movies were reviewed positively this year, and without a narrower list of well-received movies, I've basically got to watch them all. Which is what I've been trying to do.

There are a number of movies that I feel like I have to see before I can make a top 10 list. Some of these I unfortunately won't have a chance to because I missed their run in theaters and they won't be coming out on DVD until long after the Oscars have aired. MELANCHOLIA, for example. Other movies will either be coming to theaters near me soon (THE ARTIST) or will be coming out on DVD soon (DRIVE, 50/50).

Basically what I'm trying to say is that I'm going to watch the most movies I can before the Oscars and write my top 10 list at that point. Okay? Now will you all stop BUGGING ME!? (no one cares, Leah...)

Breaking Farts

2011-11-21T19:50:00.000-08:00

First of all, let me say first and foremost that I didn't actually expect this movie to be good, okay?

In recent years, most notably with the popularization of famous trainwreck 'The Room', bad movies have gotten a lot of attention. When we watch movies, if we want to have a good experience, we have two choices: we can see something legitimately good, or we can go laugh at something terrible. You can empathize with poor King George the VI and his awful stutter, or you can crack up at the masterclass dialogue in The Room ("avry body betray me i fed up with this wurld!"). Both are fun to do.

When I stupidly shelled out 10 bucks to see The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn, I was expecting the latter. I more or less received that experience when I went to see the first three Twilight movies, so why wouldn't the fourth installment be just as laughably bad? I mean, there had to be gratuitous teen shirtless-ness, awful dialogue, awful acting, putrid melodrama, stupid plot devices, sparkly goodness, etc. etc. etc. Right? (*)

After three consistently bad movies, Breaking Dawn was bad as well--but in a totally different way. Gone were the belly laughs brought about by the 80th monologue about how gorgeous Edward is. Above all, Breaking Dawn is BORING.

I mean, this is a snoozer. I'd rather watch 5 hours of a congressional hearing than this piece of smelly fecal matter ever again. Of course, like I said, it's bad. But it's not fun bad. It's just bad bad.

Where do I start? The movie just plunges into the thing the fangirls have been ooing and awing over for years--OMG THE WEDDING! It's over quicker than Taylor Lautner's career after Twilight. It's over quicker than Justin Beiber's time as a father. Not that I was particularly looking forward to it, but just as a human familiar with plot pacing...come on! And nothing ridiculous happened at all. Just a wedding. With cheesy speeches. No sparkly vamps jumping out of the trees, no burst of sunlight on Beautiful Edward's Granite-like Chest. Just a wedding. Snooze.

Then the honeymoon. I will admit, I lol'd at some of that stuff, but it wasn't nearly as ridiculous as it could've been. The trailer ruined the whole 'omg he broke the bed' thing. Anyway, again, boring. Boring, boring, boring.

One morning after crazy PG-rated vamp sex, Bella makes some chicken, feels weird, and throws up. VERDICTS IN SHE'S PREGNANT. But how?! How can--how can this be?! W...what are we gonna do?!

After this point in the movie, which I'd say was probably the 30-minute mark, almost nothing happened. Let's see. Bella went back to the Cullens and chilled until the baby was ready to pop (which wasn't until the last 15 minutes?). We got to see progressively deathly-looking makeup on her and CGI'd puniness because the monster baby was eating all her food or something. That was such a huge majority of the movie--Kristen Stewart looking worse and Edward telling her to get rid of the baby. But inexplicably, Bella's in love with it. I'm not getting into the pro-choice vs. pro-life thing here, but a character who's been stale and stupid for 3 movies suddenly wants to be a mom more than anything in the world? Even when everyone is telling her it's more than likely going to kill her? And when everyone says it's a monster?

Whatever. Anyway, that discussion might've been appropriate if it accounted for 10-20 minutes. Not over and over again for an hour and a half. Oh yeah, and Taylor Lautner's in the movie too. The wolves want to kill Bella and the baby because they think it'll be a monster and that it'll be a danger or something. This never comes to anything until the end of the movie when Bella's giving birth. An entire movie of build up for a fight that lasts for 3 minutes before being shut down because Jacob IMPRINTED on Bella's child. Don't ask me what imprinting means. I mean, I know what it makes me think of, but that's inappropriate.

Anyway, what I'm saying is that this film is boring. In an effort to suck all the money possible from Twilight fans and stupid sacks like me, they've split the last book into two movies. Also, because Harry Potter did it (even though Harry Potter actually NEEDED two movies). If you plan on seeing Breaking Dawn because you're genuinely into the movies, more power to you I guess, although I don't know why you'd be reading this movie blog. If you plan on seeing Breaking Dawn for yuks, like me, I say pass it up. At least wait until it's on video. Because, above all, this film is BORING. I can not stress this enough.

No more campy dialogue, no more cheesy romance. Just snoozes. If you want a REALLY bad movie, go see Jack and Jill. Or Tower Heist. Or In Time. Or (cont'd)....

*Well, actually all of these things were in there, but not in the campy, fun way that they were before. There's too little story stretched out over too much time, and so much of that time is spent saying the same things over and over. You're too zoned out on boredom to appreciate the occasional hilariously-bad scene.

The Walking Dead - "What Lies Ahead": Hopefully Something Better

2011-10-17T21:24:00.000-07:00

So, I just decided right now that I'm going to start reviewing television shows on this blog as well. Why? Because I can. Also? Nobody reads this anyway, so I have total freedom. Woot?

I'm beginning my TV-reviewing career with the long-awaited premiere of The Walking Dead's second season. Again, why? This show is hugely popular, and I will say that it's better than most of the tripe on television. But is it deserving of its massive popularity? Is it popular because the story it's telling is captivating--its characters richly-drawn? Or are audiences just falling for the premise of a zombie apocalypse and awesome special effects/makeup?

That's debatable. The Walking Dead, throughout season 1 and "What Lies Ahead" as well, had its moments. For example, the freeway scene with our characters hiding beneath cars and dead bodies was expertly paced and truly scary. The Walking Dead doesn't go the route of your typical horror movie--there's no hysterical people running around screaming at the top of their lungs. Instead, we have the much scarier alternative of people with their hands over their mouths, watching in silence as a herd of flesh-eating zombies stagger by just inches away. Also, the dynamics that exist between several of the characters are interesting. Key word being DYNAMICS. Is Shane by himself a compelling or necessarily memorable character? What about Rick? Lori? I'd venture to say not really, but the story that exists among the three of them is ripe for plenty of drama.

In season 1, the character most brought-to-life was Darryl, but it seems as though the risk everyone put themselves in by being around such a loose cannon in season 1 has been totally forgotten by the start of season 2. I suppose the event at the CDC placed him firmly on the team--that, or the writers were tired of writing him that way. Which is a shame. Darryl existed in season 1 as the only truly memorable, or even different, character. Now, all our survivors seem to bleed into one another. Lori's the concerned loving mother. Well, her and the other concerned loving mother. But she has short hair. Rick is the leader who makes hard decisions. Well, Shane does that, too, but he doesn't wear a hat.

These characters only shine in relation to one another, and I don't think that's a good thing for a show. I believe season 1 succeeded in establishing the Shane/Lori/Rick triangle in a way that made us care about it. The near-rape at the CDC showed us just how obsessive Shane has grown over Lori, and how conflicted he really is about Rick's return. This element of the story will probably continue for as long as The Walking Dead runs. But when this element isn't touched upon in the narrative, what are we left with? Shane, when not dealing with the love triangle plot, is a totally unremarkable character. Rick on his own is only good for overwrought monologues and conflicted heroics. If you could describe Rick with three words, what would they be?

Uh...brave...heroic...uhhh...hat?

See? It's hard. And it shouldn't be. Look at AMC's other hit shows like Mad Men(*) or Breaking Bad. These characters are so richly-drawn, it's like we know them all personally. Don Draper is a cocky, womanizing ad man with a compelling and secretive past. Walter White is a man who just wants to provide for his family, slowly seduced by the dark underbelly of the drug trade. Rick is...a sheriff dad who is a good leader and stuff? Andrea is the depressed one because her sister died (and man, none of those other characters have ANY idea what it's like to lose somebody, amirite)? It doesn't make for compelling television, or at least as compelling as Mad Men or Breaking Bad can be. Look what those shows accomplish just with their characters. The Walking Dead, without it's special effects and fanboy zombie gore, is an empty show about half-established characters. The television equivalent of a shrug.

*Some of Mad Men's most minor characters are more fully-fleshed than TWD's main protagonist. Sal? Harry? Francine? Carla the maid? I know them all better than Sheriff Rick.

It's certainly not too late for the writers of the Walking Dead to place more importance on character development, but I have a feeling most of their concern is on plot and special effects. And really, I don't blame them for being stuck on the plot--how one writes an entire season of people running from zombies is a mystery to me. Once they figure this out, though, can't we get some characterization? You can create the coolest plot in the world, but if I don't care about the people stuck in these situations, why should I care at all?

All of this said, The Walking Dead is still one of the best shows on television (then again, Two and a Half Men is on television). There's so much potential here for a great show, but until the writers realize how short-lived the shock is going to be for audiences after they've see a zombie getting hacked in the face for the 250th time, The Walking Dead will be continue to be just 'okay'.

That's all I've got to say about that. Thoughts?

We now interrupt this movie blog to bring you...

2011-07-23T01:51:00.000-07:00

...quite possibly the best song ever written.

Captain America: Can His Shield Deflect Predictability?

2011-07-22T22:06:00.000-07:00

Captain America: The First Avenger is a completely decent film. People who are loving this recent wave of good superhero movies (and no, I'm not talking about you, Green Lantern) will embrace this film because it has all the necessary parts required. Likable main character? Yes. Sizable goal for our likable main character to conquer? Yes. Hot girl, scary villain, plucky best friend(s), special effects, etc. etc. etc.? Yes. But at times--and maybe because we're all starting to get used to Marvel's formula--Captain America seems to be heartlessly following a checklist.

For clarity's sake, let's look back at two of Marvel's biggest hits--Iron Man and Thor. Both films begin with flawed characters. Tony Stark (gloriously brought to life by Robert Downey Jr.) is an egotistical brat with big toy guns. Thor thrives on both his pride and physical strength. Steve Rogers, our hero in Captain America, may not have a defining character flaw, but physically, he's useless. He's been rejected by the US Army countless times on account of his bad medical history and extreme CGI'd puniness.

All of our heroes overcome their flaws in various ways. Tony, after seeing what harm Stark Industries has caused across the globe, vows to dedicate himself to something better and to stamp out those using his weapons for evil. Thor, after being banished to Earth and stripped of his powers, becomes humbled by his normal-ness (and that really strained romance with Natalie Portman too, I guess). Steve is given multiple injections of this awesome-looking blue serum stuff, and he emerges as a total superhuman beefcake--and with confidence!

Each of our heroes has an alloted babe who, witnessing the positive changes our hero has undergone, falls head over heels. Each of our heroes also has a close friend (or friends) who encourages these changes and helps them in their quest against the alloted villain. Each of our heroes has someone close to them die*, and it is this death that inspires our hero to fight harder. To do better.

*in the case of Thor, this death is only believed to be true because of a lie, but eh, formula still applies

And, of course, our hero saves the day. They blow up their proverbial Mickey Rourke or save a town full of innocent people. Yaaaaay.

Now, is there anything wrong with this formula? Absolutely not. As we can see by both the box office and critical successes of these films, the formula works. But my question isn't whether or not it works, my question is whether or not the formula is getting tired. Perhaps if these films were spaced out further in their release time, it wouldn't seem so noticeable. Perhaps if these films all weren't connected by the Marvel logo, we'd be able to look at them more independently. But three heroes, all existing under the same universe, all going through such similar transformations? It's hard to look past that. It's hard to enjoy Captain America: The First Avenger as much I enjoyed Iron Man because...I know what's going to happen. I've seen the formula at work several times now.

Maybe the only film that will suffer from this predictability is Captain America, because as far as I know, Marvel isn't planning on introducing any more future Avengers heroes. All that's left are sequels and the big, sexy showdown that will be 2012's 'The Avengers'. But even if Captain American is the only one that suffers, he still suffers. This film emerges, at least to me, as the weakest--not necessarily because it's the worst but because it's the latest.

Thoughts?

[3/5 stars]

'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2': Nerd Perspectives

2011-07-15T14:02:00.000-07:00

When I walked out of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part 1, I was flabbergasted. I mean, it was actually...good. As just a movie-watcher, I was pleased with it, but for the first time in a long time I actually thought they managed to make a Harry Potter film that was both decent and faithful to the book. And I guess I should put an obvious disclaimer right here that I am, first and foremost, a fan of the books. Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone came out when I was seven years old, and since then I've been on board for the whole thing. I was there at midnight on July 21st, 2007 with my fake plastic Potter glasses ready to get a copy of the last book, and I was there at midnight on July 15th, 2011 with my fake plastic Potter glasses ready to get my mind blown by Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part 2. And...well.

Eh.

Part of me feels like I should write two separate reviews, because this film will be two separate experiences for two different groups of people. So, for fans of the films or just Random Movie-Watcher no. 393020188-- this is going to be brief. Basically, it's a good movie. The action is absolutely stellar, the special effects are top-notch, the emotions run high. The ending is satisfactory and ties the whole thing up with a convenient, pretty bow. It's good.

Now for fans of the book, it depends on what these last ten years of films have left you expecting. Personally, I stopped expecting faithful adaptations after Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix , but Part 1 of Deathly Hallows left me thinking that the filmmakers and screenwriters had turned themselves around.

Not entirely.

Like I said, if you've grown accustomed to the films' departures from the books, the differences between the last book and the last film won't bother or surprise you very much. Maybe you've even learned to accept the films for what they are--a separate, hybrid version of Harry Potter that can be judged on its own--and if you have, truly...I envy you. You weren't left with the same question that's plagued me, along with a million other diehard fans, for the past couple of years after these last few film adaptations. And that question is why?

SPOILER ALERT, SPOILER ALERT, DO NOT PASS THIS LINE IF YE ARE NOT A DIEHARD FAN

Why change things? The Harry Potter series is one of the most beloved book series of all time. The reason the films are successful is because they are based off of these books. So...why does the Killing Curse now make its victims explode into a million pieces? Since when can memories be collected by saving one's tears in a beaker? These are just two examples of many, many possible examples of pointless changes in the film adaptation. I know that a lot of the changes were made for purpose of having a more 'movie friendly' vibe, and these changes I'm alright with. I'm at peace with the fact that the main battle at Hogwarts would've been less epic if the filmmakers stayed true to the book and didn't suddenly give Voldemort an army of 500,000+ followers. I'm at peace with the fact that the final duel between Harry and Voldy would've sucked if they kept it what it was in the book-- a conversation and one spell. Those changes I can accept. But needless ones...changes to plot points or details that not only combat what's in the books but also what they've explained in previous films....I just don't get it.

Also, I'm sorry, Lord Voldemort would not listen to a speech about love and friendship from Neville Longbottom for more than 10 seconds before saying, "Enough of this," and sending a jet of green light into that kid's face.

But, all in all, it could've been worse. That's what I left the theater at three o' clock in the morning thinking. It could've been worse...it could've been Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince. As an adaptation, the last Harry Potter film may have its flaws, but as a movie it's solid. Although some changes left me with a slightly bitter taste in my mouth, I'm happy that they followed the MAIN plot points faithfully and that our heroes all received their proper ending.

Thank you, Harry, for 10 years of amazing books and 10 years of decent films. On behalf of all the unashamed nerds in the world, we'll miss you!

(but as Sirius Black says, as long as you're in our hearts, you'll never be gone. Awwwwww.)

UPDATE!

2011-06-14T21:28:00.000-07:00

For the 2 of you who follow this (who am I kidding, what's up, Jeff?), I am now posting both here and at the Landmark Report blog. Here's the link: The Landmark Report

Reviews will still come up here, so I'm not 100% sure why this news needs to be shared, but whatevs.

Anyway, go check out The Landmark Report in general- because any blog that asks me to write for it must be awesome.

Bridesmaids: Half Movie Review, Half Essay, Or Something

2011-05-16T21:28:00.000-07:00

I saw Bridesmaids this weekend, and it was funny as balls. The 'review' segment of this post isn't going to get much more complex than that (I guess I should rename it 1/8th Movie Review, 7/8ths Essay??). It was an all around great film, I didn't want it to end, and it actually had a lot of heart. I'd recommend Bridesmaids to anyone because it's FUNNY. And GOOD. That's all. Which leads me to my 'essay' portion.

The conversations that have started because of this film's release are equal parts important and annoying. Yes, I can't think of a legitimately hilarious film that's starred a predominantly female cast before Bridesmaids (and don't say Sex in the City, because I'll deck you). That's a big deal. Literally every female-driven 'comedy' film before Bridesmaids hasn't really been funny, or at least in a way that appeals to both sexes. But then some hilarious women got together, wrote a hilarious film, and now we're having this discussion. As though women haven't been funny before now. And really, can you blame people for thinking that? For the past decade or so, womens' roles in comedies have been reduced to whining about relationships or...boobs. No, literally. Watch Hot Tub Time Machine. Actually, don't. Please don't.

Because Bridesmaids is the first of it's kind, there's this pressure on the viewer. For example: "Did you like it? If you said yes, was it because it's funny, or because you don't want to look like a sexist??" Now we have people thinking that the high rating on Rotten Tomatoes and the good reviews are because "people don't want to look sexist". This is something The Hangover Part II or the inevitable Hot Tub Time Machine 2 will never have to worry about, and I don't think that's fair. Trust me, if I didn't think Bridesmaids was funny, I wouldn't say it was for the sake of supporting female comedy. And no one would doubt The Hangover's high Rotten Tomatoes rating because of something like that. The Hangover has a high review because it's funny. But, on the other hand, Bridesmaids has a high review either because it's actually funny or because, you know...those women have to defend each other...

--EYE ROLL--

It's bullcrap, but I guess I understand it. What worse than that, though, is the blatant hate you can easily find on any Youtube clip of the movie. Before the film was even out- when all we had was the trailer- people (men) were polluting Youtube, giving it millions of thumbs down and saying awful things, a la "this movie is a rip off of the hangover by girls" (?? totally different plots??) or "ughhh i feel bad for whoever's girlfriend drags them to this". I'll admit, the trailer wasn't the best, but it didn't warrant that kind of backlash. But again, I understand it. A lot of men either a) feel intimidated by funny women or b) don't think they exist because they've grown up on Hot Tub Time Machine. Which...is sad.

I really don't want this to turn into a feminist rant, so I'll stop here. I'm just confused as to why we can't call a funny movie funny without being suspected of ulterior motives. For men who honestly believe the hype for Bridesmaids is a manufactured side effect of political correctness, I'd advise you to watch the movie. I was surrounded by guys at the theater who were cackling the whole time.

Anyway, I give Bridesmaids 5/5. Loved the whole thing.

And finally: The Top 10 Films of 2010

2011-01-04T00:06:00.000-08:00

No setup necessary- let's just do this thing.

10. Scott Pilgrim vs. the World

Although you won't see this film discussed in any Oscar circles, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World definitely deserves some recognition. It's rare to find a film that is so eclectic and, at the same time, not a bit smug about its electiveness. SPVTW didn't have to market to the "indie" crowd to be successful- it just had to be itself. Which is, at its core, just a brilliant, fun movie. Scott Pilgrim vs. the World is not just for comic book nerds, video game shut-ins, or hipsters who recognize the Frank Black song in the soundtrack or Scott's reoccurring Smashing Pumpkins shirt...it's for everybody.

9. Winter's Bone

I didn't realize how intense this movie was until after it was finished. Everything starts out so calmly paced, and then, before you know it, people are getting coffee thrown in their faces. Sundance's Best Picture winner sneaks up on you in a way that is truly admirable, and it has pretty much scared me away from the rural Missouri area for life. If the plot doesn't capture your interest (daughter chasing her deadbeat, meth-cooking dad), at least check this one out for newcomer Jennifer Lawrence's Golden Globe-nominated performance for Best Actress. Although Natalie Portman will most likely take the title for her work in Black Swan, Lawrence is definitely one you want to keep your eye on.

8. Inception

While I remain a firm believer that this film is extremely overhyped, I can't honestly look myself in the face and say that it wasn't one of the best films of the year. Even though I had my issues with the convoluted plot and bloated love story (seriously, way too much time devoted to that), Inception is clearly a Christopher Nolan production. What do I mean by that? It was sleek, ambitious, original, and ingenious, just like everything Nolan has ever done.
I don't believe that Inception will win Best Picture or any acting awards, but Nolan has a very good chance at winning the Best Director and/or Best Screenplay awards.

7. How to Train Your Dragon

Who knew that an animated movie about a dragon could make me cry? TWICE? I was dragged to the theater for this one, and I have to say that I left it completely awed by how surprisingly good this film was. It may appear to be a children's movie about a cute dragon, but HTTYD is so much more. It's a movie about self-confidence, father/son relationships, friendship, and love. And if you're not at all moved by it, I question the existence of your heart.

6. The King's Speech

The King's Speech is painful in the way that, from the very beginning, it puts you right in front of the problem. Before I saw this film, I wondered how a movie about a speech impediment could really be that good. But man. The opening scene is brutal. Sure, having a stutter sucks, but having a stutter and being forced to speak publicly on a regular basis? At a time in history before most people had the sensitivity to forgive you for it? Yeesh. The reason this film works is because we feel the gravity that this stammer has on King George VI (Colin Firth). We can see how much it has, basically, ruined his life. And it makes you want to root for him.
The King's Speech will be a big contender for Best Picture, and I'm pretty much calling Colin Firth's win for Best Actor. Geoffrey Rush will be nominated for Best Supporting Actor, but I don't think he'll get it (only because one other nominee slightly out shined him, which...I'll get to later).

5. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows pt. 1

Just when I'd written off the Harry Potter movies as complete and utter crap, the second-to-last one came out and basically blew me away. After several years of progressively bad releases, the Harry Potter franchise closes the last stretch and suddenly decides that it wants to be good again. Actually, even better than it's ever been. It's the only one on the list that I wrote a full review of, and you can read it here: http://bit.ly/91fOB6

4. True Grit

Finally, the Coens reign themselves in and deliver a full, dense, and brilliantly executed story. No weirdness for the sake of weirdness, no loose ends for the sake of loose ends- True Grit is a rare Coen film in the fact that they didn't write it and, therefore, it doesn't seem distinctly Coen. And, the way that I personally look at Coen films, that's a good thing. Having seen the original, I have to say that this version is much better, and that Bridges plays a much more grizzled and complex Rooster Cogburn. Fans of John Wayne might find that sacrilege, but hey, what can you do. Matt Damon and 14-year-old Hailee Steinfeld (Maddie) are pretty outstanding, too, and if any of them receive acting nominations they'd be well-deserved. The Coens may be nominated for Best Director, but, as good as True Grit was, I think that award belongs to Fincher or Nolan.

3. The Social Network

Before I saw this film, I was bewildered by all of the buzz. Seriously, how could a movie about Facebook be that good? I'll tell you how. With a talented cast, an amazing director, and a screenplay that's whip smart and expertly paced. This film isn't a history lesson about Facebook. It's a character study of Mark Zuckerberg, brought brilliantly to life by Jesse Eisenburg. We see how ingenious he is and how, in a way, his intelligence directly combats with his social life. Mark is too cerebral to sit and have a friendly chat with a girl he likes; his smart mouth and quick tongue will get him into trouble regardless of his intentions. Another aspect I really loved about this film is its entrepreneur, capitalistic-friendly message. If you're smart enough and you have the ambition, you can do anything you want. I'm not sure if The Social Network will win any major awards, but I'm telling you right now it will be nominated for everything.

2. Toy Story 3

The other film on this list that made me cry. THRICE this time. I don't know what it is, but those animated movies really get me. Much like Pixar's entry last year (Up), Toy Story 3 had me emotionally unstable throughout the entire thing. You feel the sadness at Andy's growth and disinterest in his toys, you feel the defeat in the middle (not going to get into the details), and, lastly, you feel hopeful about where these characters are going in the end. Again, I don't want to give away too much, but there is one scene in this movie that KILLED me. Let's just say that they're all holding hands. If you've seen it, you know what I'm talking about. Pretty heavy for a 'kids movie'.
As good as How to Train Your Dragon was, Toy Story 3 is pretty much a shoe-in for Best Animated Feature.

1. The Fighter

The Fighter took my top spot for a number of reasons. First of all, I was completely blown away by Christian Bale's performance as Dickie Ekland, Mark Wahlberg's crack-addicted, fading star of a brother. Christian Bale may be credited as a 'supporting actor' in this, but to me, he stole the show. That's not to say that this movie is only good because of the acting, though. The Fighter is inspiring and uplifting without being cheesy or obvious about its message. Unlike similar, based-on-true-story success films, The Fighter isn't about making the audience feel good or empowered. It is about Mickey (Mark Wahlberg) and Dickie's story as two brothers fighting for two different things- success and sobriety. And neither one can succeed without the other.
While I hope this film takes the title of Best Picture, I'm not sure if it'll win. What it WILL win is the Best Supporting Actor award for Christian Bale. I'm calling it now, and if that award goes to anyone else, I will honestly be very upset. Melissa Leo will win the Best Supporting Actress award, too, I think, as Mickey and Dickie's tough-faced but fragile mother Alice.

MOVIES YOU EXPECTED TO SEE ON THIS LIST BUT DIDN'T:
-The Town. I felt very meh about The Town, mostly because it felt like so many things I've already seen before. The only thing noteworthy to me about this film was Jeremy Renner, who will most likely receive an Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actor.
-Black Swan. I mentioned earlier that I think Natalie Portman will win the award for Best Actress, and I say that because I think she deserves it. Her acting is superb. So much of me wants to trash Black Swan because I didn't like it, but really, it has nothing to do with the merit of the film. I just personally didn't like it. I found it much too disturbing and depressing to enjoy, but that certainly doesn't mean it wasn't good. It's an effective film, just not one that I liked.

HONORABLE MENTION:
- The Other Guys. I have a soft spot for dumb comedies, and this film starring Will Ferrell and Mark Wahlberg honestly made me laugh out loud a lot. Unfortunately it starts to lose steam by the last thirty or so minutes, but if you're not in a thinking mood and you just want to laugh, go with this one. And if you're not a Ferrell or Adam McKay fan, please consider enduring this for Michael Keaton, who made me cackle obnoxiously.
-The A-Team. Before you get all snooty and preachy on me for including this, tell me: what's wrong with a big, fun action movie? There's nothing brainless about this film. In fact, in terms of its genre, it's pretty smart. The cast is magnificent and, as a huge childhood fan of the TV series, I was very pleased with the outcome. Also, please put Sharlto Copley in more movies, Hollywood.

ONES I MISSED:
-127 Hours. Unfortunately I missed this one when it zipped through theaters, and I think I've got a long time to wait before it's available on DVD. Still, I feel almost certain that I will enjoy it, and I'm extremely bummed that I didn't have a chance to catch it before awards season. When I do get around to seeing it, expect a review, and, if necessary, an alteration to this list.

IN CONCLUSION, MY OSCAR PREDICTIONS:
Best Picture: either The King's Speech or The Fighter
Best Actor: Colin Firth (The King's Speech)
Best Actress: Natalie Portman (Black Swan)
Best Supporting Actor: Christian Bale (The Fighter)
Best Supporting Actress: Melissa Leo (The Fighter)
Best Director: either Christopher Nolan for Inception or David Fincher for The Social Network
Best Screenplay: either Christopher Nolan for Inception or Aaron Sorkin for The Social Network
Best Animated Feature: Toy Story 3

Thoughts?

My MINOR problem with '500 Days of Summer' that has caused outrage

2011-01-03T18:19:00.000-08:00

Okay. Let me set up this story.

So, over the weekend, I saw the movie 500 Days of Summer. And it was...okay. There were things about it that I thought were really clever, there were things about it that I thought were cute- all in all, I'd say it was a good movie. Nothing spectacular, but definitely not bad. Just an enjoyable, light, predictable romantic comedy. And there's nothing wrong with that (and actually, is it even possible for a romantic comedy not to be predictable?).

While I was watching it, though, one scene stood out to me. The scene where Tom (Joseph Gordon Levitt) is singing karaoke. Actually, all the scenes where anybody was singing karaoke, other than the drunk dude singing "I'm Proud to be an American". I'm not familiar with the song Zooey D...?'s character was singing, but Tom was singing a Pixies song. Here Comes Your Man. In a karaoke bar.

I don't think so. Tell me, have you ever encountered a karaoke bar that plays indie music? Alternative music? Don't even bother telling me the answer, because I know it's no. At a karaoke bar, you hear top hits. You hear drunken people ruining Michael Jackson songs. You know why? Because EVERYBODY knows 'Billie Jean', and EVERYBODY can be amused by some drunk chick slurring out the lyrics. What kind of uppity, smug karaoke bar would have "Here Comes Your Man" preset on their machine? Only a handful of people in the bar would be familiar with the song, and everyone else would be going, "...what is this?"

I'll tell you why Joseph Gordon Levitt's character is singing a Pixies song- because 500 Days of Summer wants to be an "indie movie". And guess what- it IS an indie movie! The soundtrack consists of alternative music, the way they tell the story is inventive and creative, and it wasn't made with a huge budget or, necessarily, A-list stars (although I would argue that JGL might be classified as A-list post-Inception). The makers of this movie thought that they couldn't have the characters singing 'Billie Jean' or 'Private Dancer' or what have you because a popular, mainstream song wouldn't be "indie enough".

To me, this scene took me out of the movie. It shows me the hand of the creators. Everything else about this film was organic, but that scene was unrealistic on purpose for the sake of appeasing smug viewers. There, I said it.

Apparently I've upset some people with this opinion and been told that I have a problem "suspending reality". Well, my favorite book series is Harry Potter and I grew up watching Star Wars, so I find that doubtful. Yes, there are fantasy scenes in the film, but they are clearly fantasy scenes. Most of the scenes in 500 Days are based in reality. Flirting at the IKEA store, sitting on a bench and looking at buildings, getting in fights with your significant other, singing karaoke at a karaoke bar. Like I said, it's an obvious play by filmmakers afraid to have anything remotely mainstream in their movie, and it bugged me.

Honestly, it wasn't even a big deal to me, but the moment I mentioned it I had rabid fans telling me I couldn't suspend reality and that I was wrong. For the record, again, I liked 500 Days of Summer. Some people love 500 Days of Summer. Either way, I should be able to critique it however I want and not be accused of misunderstanding something.

THAT IS ALL. Thoughts?

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: DUDE.

2010-11-19T11:41:00.000-08:00

I grew up as a huge fan of the Harry Potter series, so, first of all- I am probably one of the toughest people to sell the Potter movies to. Because? They've sucked. HARD. The first two movies were good, the third one was 'meh', the fourth one was 'meh', and the fifth and sixth were utter abominations of film. I mean it. Walking out after 'Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince' to me was a defining experience- that's when I finally said to myself, "Self, you better learn your lesson. Stop expecting these movies to be good. They suck now. Deal with it and try to move on."

So, needless to say, I walked into Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows with pretty shitty expectations. I figured, well, the movie's probably gonna suck (and by all means it should've- it had all of the same people working on it as the last two films), so if anything I should just focus on all the hot wizard boiz. But man, was I surprised.

There is a darkness to this film that, for the first time, fits. In OOTP and HBP, David Yates was trying to darken the mood, but...it didn't work. I don't care what's going on in or outside Hogwarts- you CAN'T make Hogwarts a dark and foreboding place. You just can't. It's a flippin' magical castle full of wonder and innocence, and I think that's a big reason why I disliked those movies. Yates went overboard on the darkness theme and, in the end, those moves just felt heartless.

Not the case with Deathly Hallows. Why? Because Hogwarts isn't in play. Hogwarts is a symbol of everything young and magical and happy in the wizarding world, and when you're not in it? Things are really, really bad. There's nothing cutting off Harry and the gang from the real world in this movie. And the real world is dark. Thus, the motif finally fits. When the gang is in Hogwarts, really, there's nothing immediate at hand. Maybe when they leave, yes, but Hogwarts is a safe haven (except for the end of HBP, but I digress). Without that safe haven, there's something around every corner. There's immediate danger facing everyone, always. The film really benefits from that.

When I first heard the news that DH was being split into 2 films, I thought to myself: Why? But, now that I've seen the results of part 1, I understand it completely and I wonder what could've been accomplished by the last two films had they been given more time. DH doesn't suffer from the same stressed-out pacing as OOTP and HBP...it has the luxury of taking its time. So much of what's going on in DH has to do with the characters- mostly our main trio- despairing. The opener of the film shows this perfectly, and by the time the title frame floats up, you feel like there actually is a weight to all this darkness. It's not overblown teen angst anymore. This shit has gotten real.

Daniel Radcliffe, for the first time, blew me away. Finally, for the last film, he's decided to be 100% there. Rupert Grint has always been capable, and in this film he gets to show it off. Now, I still have issues with Emma Watson- Hermione was never supposed to be so pretty and dull- but even I have to admit that has nothing to do with her acting. I'm just not a fan of the portrayal. Of course, we still have the legendary cast of always-dependable supporting actors: Alan Rickman, Ralph Fiennes, Jason Isaacs, Helena Bonham Carter, etc., etc. So, in the acting department, all was well. Which...I don't think that's ever happened in a Harry Potter film before. There was always some weak link in the younger actors that detracted from the experience. Not the case in this film. Well, other than Bonnie Wright as Ginny, who still sucks, but thankfully we only had to tolerate her for three minutes.

As for things to nitpick at, I think being a huge Harry Potter fan gives me a few. First of all: when Ron destroys the locket? Too much. Naked CGI groping is not a thing I wanted to see, especially when it wasn't necessary. In the book, all Ron saw was his greatest fear- Harry and Hermione together. Kissing. Not having ferocious, CGI sex. Also, some of the camping scenes between just Harry and Hermione were awkward as f*ck. I understand everyone is in despair, but damn. Awkward dancing scene was too much for me to take- if you haven't seen it, you'll know what I'm talking about. Also, near the end of the part 1, things started to feel a little rushed. After taking its time with the camping, the film seems to snap out of that section with a breakneck speed, not giving enough time to either a) the incident at Xenophillius Lovegood's house or b) Malfoy Manor. Which are two of the most bad ass, tension-filled events. Especially Malfoy Manor*. To me, that was the turning point in the book, and it seemed like they were in and out of there way too quickly.

* Also, I am obligated to say this: I am obsessed with Tom Felton, and more time at Malfoy Manor would've meant more time with Draco Malfoy, so I may be a TAD biased.

But, all in all, I found Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows to be shockingly good. Great, even. And after going into it with such low expectations, I can't tell you how fulfilling it was to walk out of there satisfied. I can't wait for part 2, and after seeing how great part 1 was, I don't know how it could be bad.

Highlights: the Tale of the Three Brothers animation, Godric's Hollow, Malfoy Manor even though it was brief, Ron's return. Ugh. Just such a good movie.

4.5/5 stars

Splice: or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Do My Mom

2010-06-21T22:35:00.000-07:00

I know this one's a little late, but I'll be honest with you. It took me awhile to process this one. There were so many things going on in 'Splice', all of which have disturbed me for life. I mean really, the fact that I made it through the whole movie without projectile vomiting on the guy in front of me is a feat, my friend.

Now, usually I don't like to get spoilery on you guys, but with this one I can't help it. So, if you're interested in seeing Splice...you probably don't want to read this. Although at this point you've already read the title, which in itself is a spoiler, so...whoops (enduring shrug!). This is one that I just can't post a cutesy little summary of. I was horrifed, thus I must express my horror.

Adrien Brody and...his girlfriend (too lazy to Google) are genius scientist who've been experimenting with mixing and SPLICING (oh, I get it!) DNA strands. I was a constant B- student in science, so I'm not going to act like I fully understood what was going on, but I don't think you necessarily have to understand the specifics. Really, they're effing with nature. That's what you need to know.

Behind their benefactors' back, they decide to splice human DNA with several different animal DNA strands. And little fleshy penis baby is born! It's a girl, and they name her Dren, which is Nerd spelled backwards (guffaw guffaw guffaw). She can't talk and expresses herself in creepy shrieks. Brody wants to kill it because it's a hassle to hide the thing, and his girlfriend (unnamed lady actor) is going all psycho possessive mother on it, but...it lives. And it's aging, rapidly.

Eventually, it gets to teenager mode (at this point in the film they've moved Dren out to an abandoned, creepy farmhouse). I guess it's important to point out that Dren looks about 70% human- the only difference is she has velociraptor arms and legs and has retractable flesh wings.

And here's where it gets really...really...effed up, bro. The woman finds little doodles of Adrien Brody's face in Dren's "room" and asks, "You didn' draw any of me?"

And that's when I realized what I was in for and proceeding to shrink down into my seat. Yes. Dren's in love with Adrien Brody. At some point, Dren attacks the woman, and she has to amputate Dren's stinger tail to keep herself safe. Brody walks in on naked, fresh-from-amputation Dren, and...cue the Marvin Gaye.

Yes. Sex. The woman walks in, of course, because this is a movie, and when somebody bangs their mutant daughter, people are gonna find out! She and Brody eventually have a long talk and decide they have to kill Dren. She's out of control! So they drive to the farmhouse and discover...gasp...Dead Dren.

They bury Dren. Not-important secondary character and Brody's brother suddenly drive up. Brody's bro spilled the beans! Not-important secondary character expresses outrage. "I want to see it!" "It's too late, she's dead." Then, mysterious rattling of bushes. Then, SWOOP-ACTION!

Not-important secondary character is dead in the trees. Then Brody's brother is dead, I think in the trees again. Brody and Dren's momma run away, and to make a short story short, here we go: Dren has mutated into A MAN. A MAN I TELL YOU. It's face is scary and manly, it's boobies are gone, and yes, my friends. Dren is a man. Male Dren kills Adrien Brody and rapes its mom with it's stinger dick.

Dis. Gust. Ing.

Then she manages to kill Dren with a rock, post-rape. Final scene of the movie: there's a long, stupid conversation between one of the lady's benefactors and the woman. Then, the woman stands up and...she's pregnant!

Bum bum bum. The end.

Now do you understand? I should get some kind of award for holding my dinner in. At first I was so horrified by 'Splice' that I couldn't give it a fair review, but I think I can now. And honestly, it wasn't a poorly made film. Just because something grosses me out doesn't mean it's bad. The actors are capable, the direction is good (check out director Vincenzo Natali's previous film 'Cube'; it's much better IMO), and, although the story is absolutely filthy, at least it's original.

3/5 stars.

PS: Alright, that was a little unfair. The chick's name is Sarah Polley.

Here's a Lesson: Don't Hang Out With Pervs, Stupid.

2010-05-29T17:04:00.000-07:00

To make things clear, I didn't hate this movie. The title makes it seems like I did, but I really didn't. In all actuality, it was pretty average. Girl has a promising future, girl meets older guy, and...stuff happens (tryin' not to get too spoilery on you guys!). 'An Education' was nominated for Best Picture, and I have to say that I really think the only reason that happened is because of the performances and the way the movie looked, because really, there's nothing spectacular about the story.

So, this chick (Carrie Mulligan) is supposed to be a genius. She's 16 years old, she's at the top of her class, and she talks like she's 40 years old. Along comes moderately handsome older man, Peter Saarsgard. Apparently, Genius doesn't know that a) you shouldn't talk to strangers, and b) any guy interested in a 16 year old who's older than 16's gotta be pretty messed up. I'll let her get away with it I guess because it was the 60's, a.k.a., BMGTCD (Before McGruff the Crime Dog). So how could she have known?

The basic idea is that although Jenny is super smart and can randomly speak French in the middle of a conversation, she has no education when it comes to the real world. It's a premise that's been done before...actually, it's been done a million times before, but the performances make it feel new. Carrie Mulligan is great, Sarsgaard plays his part well, and man, you gotta love Alfred Molina in anything he's in (and yes, my dad did walk by the screen at some point and yell, "Hey, it's Doc Oc!"). I liked the other focus of the movie, too, in which Jenny mused the importance of college (which I have mused myself, my friends).

Really, 'An Education' is good. The only thing I really have a problem with, along with a lot of other viewers, is the need to express, over and over, that Sarsgaard's character (David) is Jewish. He's a Jew! It's irrelevant, yet it's something that's continually brought up. And David's not a good guy. He steals, along with the whole 'dating 16 year olds' thing. And Emma Thompson even gets a whole monologue about why Jenny should stop seeing David, which, for some reason, his Jew-ness is emphasized. "You know, it was the Jews who killed our Lord." Excuse me? Why is this relevant? Of course, Jenny defends David, but the movie doesn't, and it shouldn't- he's a horrible guy. But the movie never defends Jews. It never points out that David sucked because of his character and not because he was Jewish. Which is actually pretty shocking.

3.5/5 stars

LOST: finale review & longings for a spinoff

2010-05-24T22:13:00.000-07:00

So I know initially this blog is meant for movie reviewing purposes, but come on. The greatest show of my lifetime is officially over, and I need an outlet. I'll be honest- whenever I stumble across a blog, I scan to see how long it is, so for similar purposes I'll try not to make this novel-length because, well...people will give up on the first paragraph, much like I would! Which would be somewhere around riiiiiight...now. BUT, I'll try to keep it short and sweet! And by 'short' I mean shorter than Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.

So Lost is over. And it cuts like a knife! But it was a great ride, and it came to a pretty satisfying end, at least for me. I'm even willing to bet that those last 2 and a half hours were the greatest hours of Lost (and maybe even television history). I mean, just...just so much epicness, and I don't say that lightly because I hate when people use that word all the time. Because, not that much stuff is 'epic'. This was. That mid-jump punch, the Charlie/Claire reunion (tears, people...tears), Jack and Kate's goodbye, Ben throughout the whole episode, the church, the end...all just beautiful and literally epic. Never has a show so ambitious been aired on TV, I can say that with confidence.

As for the revelation of what the sideways timeline was...I'm happy with that. And I didn't see it coming at all. I know a lot of people think the fact that it was purgatory is ridiculous, but I'm a fan of it. At first it's sad to know that everyone died, but as Christian says, "Everybody dies eventually." And each character was faced with the option of staying in purgatory or 'moving on' into what I perceive to be heaven. Ben sitting outside of the church was particularly noteworthy to me. He wasn't ready to move on. He wasn't sure if he deserved it. I'm glad the writers did this, because throughout the show, Ben was a gray character. I think by the end we ultimately knew he was good, but he'd done too many bad things to reunite with everyone else in the afterlife, at least at that point. I also talked with a friend, and maybe his reason for staying was Alex. Maybe he was waiting for her revelation so he could 'move on' with her. Everyone else in the church had someone. Maybe Ben can't leave without his daughter. JUST A THOUGHT.

Now. That being said, I have to say, I'm left wanting more. I'm not one of those people who are pissed because we didn't get enough 'answers' (although there are some I wish we did get...what about Walt? Annie? ...other stuff?). I know the writers don't have to show us what happened on the island with Hurley and Ben in charge for hundreds, maybe even thousands, of years. But I want to know! And that brings me to my next topic. Spinoff.

I know Lost ended on top, and if the spinoff I'm about to propose isn't able to be executed with equal care and beauty, than forget it. I don't want this franchise to be pummeled into the ground until it looses its greatness (see: The Office), so again, if it couldn't be amazing, than I don't want it to happen. That being said, I've got some ideas!

-Hurley and Ben, post-Jack death and Ajira departure. How long were they there? I can say that having watched for all these years, some of the scenes between Hurley and Ben were the absolute best. The hot pocket? The Apollo bar scene? Their dynamic together is great, and teaming them up would definitely work. Hurley is the new Jacob, and his new task is to 'help people' as Ben said. It would be interesting to see Hurley slowly come into his new role, and I think Lost fans would watch it. It's not just Hurley and Ben, there's still Rose and Bernard, and that whole gang of Temple people who scattered after Widmore's people bombed the beach. And, as always, new people will come to the island.

-More mythological backstory. I don't think anybody would say that they really understand everything that happened in 'Across the Sea', and there's plenty more to explain about what happened after that, and even before that. I don't think an entire show could be based on this, but it could be flashback fodder. Maybe as Hurley and Ben uncover more secrets of the island, we could get flashbacks about how these things came to be. And maybe MiB's ghost could make an appearance? After all, Hurley sees the dead.

-The Ajira 6. Much like the last one, I don't think it could stand as it's own show, but there's definitely something there. I don't think we'd want to watch Kate and Claire raise Aaron (snoozefest), but what about Richard? Maybe he feels it was a mistake to leave? What could he possibly do with his life off of the island anyway? It's not like he knows anybody. And I know he wasn't one of the Ajira 6, but Walt! I feel as though he was being set up as a possible new-Jacob and then that story line was just thrown away. Why is he special? Was he originally meant to protect the island, or at least assist in its protection?

At this point, I'd be happy with anything, be it an actual spinoff show, a movie, or even novels (or EVEN comics. Yeah, I'm that desperate). I just think that with so many possibilities and so many fans who want more, it'd be a shame to see Lost end right here. Thoughts?

Iron Man 2- Orgasmic, but not explosively so...

2010-05-07T22:52:00.000-07:00

Seeing Iron Man (2008) in theaters was one of the greatest film experiences in my life. First of all, I'll be honest. I was not that hyped to see it. Funny how the movies you get dragged to often end up being the best ones? Robert Downey Jr. was glorious, bald Jeff Bridges was glorious ("TONY STARK BUILT THIS IN A CAVE....WITH A BOX OF SCRAPS!"), and just everything....everything was glorious. As you can tell, I've been very much looking forward to the sequel, which I finally had the pleasure of seeing today.

Overall, IM2 is great for a lot of the same reasons that made the first installment great. Robert Downey Jr.'s still in it, for starters, and I am a firm believer that any movie with him in it becomes infinitely better merely by his presence. He IS Tony Stark. Robert Downey Jr. has brought to life one of the most complex and believable comic book characters by his portrayal of Tony Stark. So, there's that. The writing is quick and smart, just like in the 1st one. And although I'm not often won over by big explosions, the action in this one...just whoa. Actually, I think the action scenes in the sequel surpass the ones in the original. But I digress.

A few new things added a lot to the film, too, such as the presence of another amazingly special actor, Sam Rockwell. How is it that Jon Favreau is so deeply in-tuned to every man that I'd possibly want in a movie? Sam Rockwell, like RDJ, brings so much to the table, and in all honesty he would've made an amazing Tony Stark as well. He's perfect as Justin Hammer, and the fact that someone as equally charming and talented as Robert Downey Jr. is taking up more of the run-time is such a great thing, because no offense to the other actors in the film, but these 2 are miles ahead of them.

Now, as you can tell by my title, I wasn't completely left bathing in orgasmic afterglow after this film. It wasn't as good as the first, but to be fair I didn't expect it to be. Personally, I thought Rourke was a problem. I think he overacted, and I think his portrayal was cliched. It wasn't enough to make me feel passionately about it, but it irked me.

Another problem I had with this one was the fact that it felt like a setup. Like a giant moving of puzzle pieces to set up future Marvel films. A lot was going on in this film. Almost too much. Pepper and Tony didn't nearly have enough screen time together for me to really care that they were making out, and I wish they did have enough screen-time because that's one of the things that really made the first film perfect- the focus on the characters. So much time was spent setting up other stuff and introducing other characters, it really sometimes felt like a waste. For instance: Tony Stark. He's a character we're invested in. Justin Hammer. He's an interesting, charismatic villain. I'll give Paltrow credit, I think she's very charming and likable as Pepper Potts. Why waste time giving Rourke so much unnecessary screen time? We get it. He's vengeful. He's smart. He wants his bird. Now can we move on please?

Even though I had minor issues with IM2, I can't deny that it was smart and satisfying, just like the film that came before it.

4.5/5 stars

Let the Right One In- The Adventures of VampireGirl and MeekBoy

2010-05-03T15:29:00.000-07:00

Watching foreign films makes me feel smart. I hadn't watched one in awhile, and "Let the Right One In" was the just the boost to my movie superiority-ego that I needed. I'll be honest- I had high expectations for this one because I remember the amount of hype it received when it first came out in 2008- and to be completely honest, a foreign movie's gotta be pretty freakin' good for me to even hear about it. You know me, I like my movies American, got-damnit! *crushes a can of Pabst Blue Ribbon*

"Let the Right One In" is a horror movie that's not really a horror movie, if that makes sense. There's scary parts, but you can tell it wasn't made to be a "scary movie". It was made to follow the characters. There's Oskar, the timid Swedish boy with the bad haircut, and Eli, the vamp. The heart of this film is in the relationship these two form throughout the movie, and how they both help each other grow (my personal favorite being Eli's "stop being so lame and meek" advice. I mean really, that kid was MEEK.).

There's flaws here, though, and I'm sure a lot of people would disagree with me on this. I think the director was more concerned about making "Let the Right One In" an art film than making the story dense and fulfilling. He preferred shooting 30 second long stare-scenes to, you know, 30 seconds of explanatory dialogue. And I guess that's really where my one big problem with this film is. No one really explains themselves. They're kept at a distance from us. I'm not saying Oskar and Eli have to be Chatty Cathys, but...how about a little chat here and there? I don't really understand the bond, other than the fact that they had no one else to talk to. And really, is a bond that like special? I don't know...I hover towards "no"....

But that's just my opinion. The last scenes are the best in this one, particularly the pool scene. Come to think of it, I actually preferred the 'horror movie' parts far more than the 'deep, emotionally stirring' parts. Maybe I'm just dead inside. Either way, "Let the Right One In" is an exceptional movie, although it's not without its flaws. There's a lot of stuff that just flew over my head that I didn't realize until a IMDB visit later (*cough* castration? *cough*), but those things aren't necessarily that important to the story.

Let me just put it like this. Whether you think LTROI is perfect or not, there's one thing that's for certain- it's a hell of a lot better than anything Kristin Stewart has been in.

4/5 stars.

The Snark Buff

2010-05-03T15:16:00.000-07:00

My name's Leah. I like movies.

For a long time I went the Facebook route and reviewed every movie I watched there. Then it hit me one day.

These people don't care about anything I'm saying...

So I thought, hey, why don't I quit exposing all my real life friends to my movie ramblings and make a blog about it? Then people who actually care about movies can read it and I'll stop getting complaints about filling up peoples' feeds with rants about how disappointed I was with Inglorious Basterds.

So that's what I did! Movie reviews are to come, with my 100% guarantee that they will be both opinion-y and snarky.

-The Snark Buff
AKA Leah (SHH, don't tell anybody)