Couples Retreat Review

It's hard for me to watch the movie Margot at the Wedding. In my two viewings, I hated Margot more and more each time. Couples Retreat falls in the same vein. I hate all the couples, so the real question is why do I want to spend nearly 2 hours with them? And even so, why do I want to spend 2 hours with them analysing WHY it is I hate them.

This...well we'll call it a comedy but to be honest I don't know WHAT it is, is what major Hollywood funnymen Vince Vaughn, John Favreau, and Jason Bateman have decided to make when they don't want to be funny. It's a story of 4 couples at different points in their relationships coming together on an island named Eden, where they are expecting to have a grand old time swimming, drinking, jet skiing, fishing, and being tourists. What they get is a couples skill building course where the fun and games come second to strengthening ones relationship.




What ensues is annoying and loud, immature and unfunny, and overall sad. While Vince Vaughns character and his wife seem to have a steady hand on what it's like to be married, the other 3 couples ruin whatever wit and insight is given in their portion of the story. Jason Bateman and his characters wife played by Kristen Bell, are the worst, with Bateman being loud and controlling, and his wife butting heads with him at every turn. Favreau and his wife cheat on each other and seem to not love each other any more and Fazion Love's character and his girlfriend simply don't add anything but wasted time and space.

If this is a comedy, why is it not funny? Vaughn gets some good zingers across, but there are very little laughs in a movie that seems to dwell in it's own pity and sadness til the last 20 minutes. And when the ending finally does come, we know it's Hollywood style ending is unrealistic and unsatisfying. Why do I want characters fight for an hour and a half and see 10 minutes of happiness? I don't. Which is why Couples Retreat ends up being one of the worst movies of the year. Grade - D

Whip It Review

Whip it can draw a lot of comparisons to this years film Adventureland. Both take place in Small-Town society life, both have a similar 80's style feel (though Adventureland IS set in 1987), both are coming of age stories, and both have the witty indie teenage feel needed in a comedy today (Juno, Superbad). And while I don't place Whip It above Adventureland (look for my podcast on the comparisons later this week), but I do think that it's entertaining and polished enough to garner a viewing.

Whip It stars Ellen Page, an actress who seemingly disappeared after Juno. She's back, still a feisty teenager with angst. I can respect Page and first time director Drew Barrymore, for not making character Bliss Cavendar a replica of Juno MacGuff. Bliss is more reserved, quieter, and less about pithy dialogue and more about pithy outbursts. While I'd have been more comfortable watching another Juno-like character for an hour and a half, the time we spend with Bliss proves to be entertaining.

The supporting cast backing page is well put together. Page's "teammates" are full of talent including Barrymore herself, SNL star Kristen Wiig, Zoe Bell, Eve, and the third Wilson brother (to that of Owen and Luke) Andrew Wilson, who gets MVP of the film and steals all of his scenes. It's not the team that is an issue in the cast, although they begin to get dull as the movie progresses, it's Bliss's boyfriend Oliver, played by musician Landon Pigg. Pigg is one dimensional, and while we root for their relationship, he doesn't ever give us a reason to root for him. A great bit role by Jimmy Fallon and a strong performance by Marcia Gay Harden finish it off.

The soundtrack is amazing, including everything from Radiohead, to Kaiser Chiefs, to Kings of Leon. The comedy works but isn't overbearing, and the coming-of-age portion of it still pulls at my heartstrings. There are two major flaws the movie tries and fails to overcome. It's not original. Not in the story, but in the basic design. We've seen this a hundred times before, and it's not that it doesn't work, but it's that it is predictable. The second is the camera work. Nothing bold or ambitious, but the scenes involving the rollerskating never pan out (pardon any pun). They are shaky and hard to follow about 70 percent of the time and it becomes frustrating to watch.

But other than those two points, the movie is a success. It's entertaining, well written, fairly well acted, and is able to makes us believe 2009 Texas is living in the 80's. Amazing. Grade - B+

Cloudy WIth A Chance of Meatballs Review

Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs is just one of the many animated films coming out in a busy year for the genre (others including another Ice Age movie, Up, Monsters Vs. Aliens, Ponyo, and G-Force), and as a result the once new and unique type of movie is wearing thin with ideas. It's hard to not just throw a tired idea against the wall and see if you make money. And in many ways this is where Cloudy ends up rising above other movies like G-Force or any Ice Age movie. Cloudy ends up combining the cute factor of a childrens movie with the unique visuals strived for in any animated movie all while telling a great story with some great comedic moments along the way.

The film, based on a popular childrens book (of which I haven't read), tells the story of a young inventor named Flint Lockwood who lives in a small island who's only claim to fame was sardines. When everyone in the world realized sardines were gross, the island's only food source becomes sardines which is where Flint hopes to change the island. He creates a device that takes water and creates food. When the device is launched into the sky it ends up creating food like rain. Obviously issues ensue and villians emerge and unlikely people become heros.

Movie 101 will now tell you that you don't have a blockbuster animated movie unless you have a great voice cast and Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs remains no exception. Saturday Night Live actor Bill Hader plays the lead with other voice talents including Andy Sandberg, Anna Faris, and Bruce Campbell. Overall though there is nothing here that is spectacular as far as the characters go. Minus Mr. T as an over the top cop, the characters are fairly pedestrian, giving enough distinction between good and bad, but not enough for me to be talking about Flint Lockwood or any of the others in years to come as you would with movies like Shrek or Up.

The visuals are superb, with lots of color here but not on the characters, something that works well. While the people in the story are fairly normal, the movies settings are great. Bright and vibrant, the small island of Swallow Falls comes alive when food comes down from the sky.

If the movie has any downfall it's the finale. Giving some sort of throwback to the end of Independence Day, the final part of the movie just never lives up to the high president set by the rest of the movie. Not to say it's bad, simply uneventful in many ways.

But the movie is incredibly funny, leaving many punny lines along the way (I think we've bit off more than we can chew) as well as the funniest monkey in a movie to date. I can't sit here and tell you Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs will be remembered in 5 years the way any pixar movie will be because it won't be. But Cloudy is one of the higher end animated movies to come out in recent memory and is worth your 90 minutes. Grade - B+

Audio Review: Extract

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=M6AGTZ57

Okay, it's done, after lots of time trying to figure things out about podcasting I've done it. It's not as glamorous as I'd hoped but here it is. Simply follow these steps to get to the review:

1. Click the link

2. Enter in the code given and press download

3. On the next screen press regular download

4. Now you can EITHER Press Open which will begin playing the review on an audio program (most likely iTunes) OR you can press save and save the file to your computer (again if you have iTunes it will send it there).

5. Enjoy and leave feedback at desertcinema@yahoo.com or on the FB page or blog comments.

Thanks!

Inglorious Basterds Review

I've spent my summer going over and evaluating director Quentin Tarantino's filmography, of which he has a solid one. Tarantino is a man that gets movies. That is certain. He is a fan of film first, then a part of the filmmaking business second, something I admire a lot. His movies are direct examples of that. From Kill Bill's incredible genre blend of westerns and Asian cinema, to Death Proof's 70's exploitative, sometimes thriller esc vibe, Tarantino gets how to make an entertaining movie.

His newest film, Inglorious Basterds, is what is being described as a WWII, alternate reality, shoot 'em up with the end goal to kill Hitler. Given the initial description there is alot that could happen here, and the tension building Tarantino who is usually on cue, missteps several times here. Upon the opening scene, we see what our villain, a gentleman by the name of Col. Hans Lada sneakily finds a house of hiding Jews and orders the murder of them all. Enter Brad Pitts character Aldo Raine and his misfit group of Jewish soldiers set to kill any and all Nazi's aptly titled "the Bastards" and we have something that shouldn't fail. Notice I say shouldn't.

On many levels Basterds lives up to everything I'd hoped it would be. It has slick dialogue that is unique only to QT's films, a unique visual style reminiscent of older films, a great soundtrack, characters and not just actors, and an edgy inside style that you won't find anywhere else in Hollywood, a movie made by a geek for geeks. However on the level of success that is created here, QT manages to bring himself down by over doing it.

The dialogue is as I said slick and unique. But the constant German and French subtitled text ruins any effect the dialogue should have. The wow factor is lost. These lines should be in English for the full effect. It's hard to imagine the opening scene of Reservoir Dogs in Italian, or the foot massage conversation from Pulp Fiction in Spanish. The effect is lost.

And for any one doubting the use of the phrase "too much of a good thing" can simply look at Inglorious Basterds. The edgy inside style, great characters, are all here. Too much so though. Two hours and 33 minutes is too long for a movie. This is watching Inglorious Basterds: The Directors Cut. Which is fine if that's the DVD I chose to buy in 6 months, but I paid to sit in a theater and watch this movie. Unacceptable.

But the MVP of this movie for me goes to actor Christoph Waltz as Col. Landa. He is phenomenal, every bit as interesting and sometimes scary as you can ask for but at the same time by no way detracting from Brad Pitts over-the-top acting. Both are a good blend, and Waltz deserves credit.

Inglorious Basterds is the worst Tarantino movie. But fortunately being the worst QT movie is something that directors like Brett Ratner or even Eli Roth wish to aspire to. This movie is good, but its not the amazing experience that was hyped going in. Grade - B

District 9 Review

District 9 will inevitably draw lots of comparisons to Cloverfield, as it should probably. The viral marketing was similar (mysterious trailer, interesting online viral sites), the "shaky" camera style was the same, and the human vs. Alien style was...well, basically the same. But D-9 is better than Cloverfield if only because it tries to instill some moral questions and gets people asking more than just the question of "what will District 10 be about?". (Note: This review will be spoiler free, just know that my mentioning there being a sequel isn't ruining anything)

District 9's strongest moments are the documentary back story that come at the beginning and (kinda) end of the film. They ask a lot of really interesting questions. There are obvious parallels to any concentration camp scenario here but also some race relation questions, as well as just humanitarian questions. Also reflected on is what are the motives for keeping these "Prawns" here?

After all these intriguing ideas are tossed around though we're just left with a grade A action film. The CGI is fantastic and director Neill Blomkamp's style is always here. The shaky movement of the camera always leaves us with a view of the mothership in sight and reminds us that we're in a different universe now. The aliens themselves look unique and unlike anything ever created on film before.

But the one downfall of the movie may not be a downfall at all. The lead character Wikus Van De Merwe's moral decisions (I won't get into, no spoilers) through out the film make the movies ending bittersweet. You end up sympathizing more with the Prawn then you do with either him or the humans, another question is raise.

But District 10 will inevitably happen. And when it does I hope they change the formula. If they keep the same part documentary part action film style it will no longer be unique and just a rehashed idea. My personal suggestion is to pull an Alien/Aliens type of move. Change the formula from ying to yang. Ridley Scott's movie Alien was a slow moving thriller, James Cameron's Aliens was a fast paced action film. Do the same thing here. But first, let Peter Jackson and Blomkamp make the Halo movie. Please? Grade - A-

Mini-Review Block

(500) Days Of Summer
Without a doubt the most original movie I've seen in the past several years, director Marc Webb's Romantic Dramedy is one of 2009's best movies. Zooey Deschanel's character Summer is the perfect focus on the movie, and Joseph Gordon Levitt's Tom is a great character to become obsessed in a way with that focus. This is very much a movie about Tom and Tom's relationship with Summer and not vice versa, a commendable idea for the movie. The movies best moments are its "Break the Fourth Wall" type moments (Tom looking in a mirror and seeing Harrison Ford instead of his reflection, showing dual screens of Reality and his Dreams) and things that shouldn't work like the musical scene are cute and unique enough to catch you off guard. Go see it!

Grade - A

The Orphan

In a world of generic slayer torture porn esc movies, its good to see a horror film try something different...even if that difference doesn't work and the word "horror" really doesn't apply. The Orphan simply isn't scary, and while the end twist tries something different and screwed up, the movies main character Ester simply isn't scary enough or creepy enough to make the film worth watching. The moments they want to be scary are cliche and aren't even done well. Halloween 2?...

Grade - D+

Funny People

My high expectations for Judd Apatow's third directed feature let me down. Funny People is nothing more than a comedy that tries to be Punch Drunk Love, a serious Adam Sandler with some interesting dark humor, with the heart of a Comedy Central roast screwing it up, all the stars and comedy smashed together, mixed with the vulgarity of an Apatow film. Sandler isn't serious enough, there are TOO many penis jokes, and the celebrity power ends up derailing some of the credibility I'd like to have given the film. Yes Funny People does end up being, well, funny. It never reaches a point of 40 Year Old Virgin territory, or Knocked up territory (my favorite Apatow film). Those movies progress their characters to learning something, and growing up in a way. Sandler simply never grows up, and as much as you buy Seth Rogen he can't hold Sandlers character up. And for the record, 2 and a half hours for a comedy is WAY to long. Cut out all the Hollywood star shtick and you have a decent movie.

Grade - C

Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince Review

Harry Potter is a franchise I hold near and dear to my heart. I grew up with the books, I find the movies to be a pinnacle of fantasy filmaking and is a series that has honestly shown growth. From the fairly standard Chris Columbus versions to Alfonso Curran's brilliant Prisoner of Azkaban to our new director David Yates.

Yates really stretched the series in his last instalment Order of Phoenix. He implemented some great storytelling techniques (such as the use of the Daily Prophet newspaper to further plot) and really created a "real" fantasy universe. Yates takes a brief step back here with his new installment Half Blood Prince.


While all the things he created previously are here, his great storytelling slips to a more subtle take, something less appealing to a mainstream audience. He still is able to give you enough info in the scene to let you know whats going on (a wanted poster of werewolf Ferir Greyback is the only info you're give on the character, yet he's used multiple times) but fails at the larger story telling he accomplished in Phoenix.


The story certainly shows its further completion for the series. This is not a Potter film you can just walk in and enjoy no strings attached. You need to have some prerequisite as to whats going on. This year Harry and his besties Hermione and Ron have been swarmed by girls, letting teenage awkwardness ensue. This aspect of the movie works the best in fact. The teenage love, particularly with Rupert Grints character Ron is funny but is used in a way that furthers the plot, both for the movie and the series. A commendable aspect for the franchise, which has in past movies simply used it as humor.



The larger story though involves Harry wooing information out of the new Potions master Horace Slughorn, and helping headmaster Dumbledoor in important tasks. As a fan of the books it will be interesting to see how they finally close out the story with all the things they changed and left out of this one but I have faith it will all work.



Aside from the awkward humor, the other great aspect of the movie is the lighting. Even just watching the trailer, the darkness of each shot is phenomenal and really adds to the depth of the shots.



That's not to say this Potter is perfect. It's not. Awkward silence is great when used intentionally. But the first 20-25 minutes of this movie just aren't good. What every other movie has that this one doesn't is a sense of WHY Harry hates the Muggle world. We never get that here. So when Harry enters the magical world there a lack of relief or wonderment. The silence is just unnerving and not in a good way. Harry's first conversation with Dumbedoor, upon second viewing, was really just painfully bad. It's not til Harry finally gets on the Hogwarts Express train that the movie picks up a bit.



But Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince is still a higher tier Potter film. Not as good as Azkaban or Phoenix but lots better than any of the previous entries. It will have some rewatchability. If anything Half Blood Prince just excites me more for Yate's interpretation of the final book. Grade - A-

The Hurt Locker Review

The Hurt Locker is a must see movie of this year and by not seeing it you're doing yourself a disservice. It's without a doubt one of the most intense, on-the-edge-of-your-seat movies I've seen. Ever.

The film follows an elite Army bomb squad unit in Iraq in 2004. Their job is to get rid of bombs or potential explosive threats in any area. When the groups leader dies in an accident, the two remaining members (played wonderfully by Anthonie Mackie and Brian Geraghty) gain a new Staff Sergeant, William James (Jeremy Renner). William does things his way. He doesn't wear the bomb diffusional suit, he doesn't communicate with his squad, and he almost leads them all to certain death multiple times.


The greatest aspect of the Hurt Locker is how intense each scene gets. When dealing with bombs for 131 minutes, you know that anything can happen and anything can go boom, at any time. This lead me to sweaty palms for nearly 2 hours. The suspense of knowing what will happen is almost too much, in a good way of course.




The other amazing this the movie does is character develop. This isn't a normal War film. They take time to show us the vulnerable sides of each character, particularly William. His character is addicted to the adrenaline of defusing bombs, and when things go to smoothly, he's forced to act out in a way that will make his heart rate jump. This dilemma leads to some intense scenes. William is such an interesting character in that we hate him, but the moment he puts the suit on he becomes a badass who you root for.

The action in the movie is greatly paced and feels incredibly real, particularly a sniper shootout scene. The whole film throughout really hammers the point that War is a Drug. At least for some people, and how war affects everyone differently. Please go see this movie. Please. Grade - A

Julie and Julia

Julie and Julia is a cute film and if I had to relate it to something, it'll be this years The Devil Wears Prada. Not because they both have Meryl Streep in them but because they're guy friendly chick flicks that are a summer escape. Screw The Proposal, this movie is the one you should take your guy to see.

The movies plot is basically divided into two separate plots, one about chef Julia Child's and her learning path to cooking, and Julie Powell, who decides that on top of the hassles to everyday life, she's going to start a cooking blog where she does 524 Child's recipes in 365 days, and the silent repercussions of doing that both to her husband's and her lives.


Julia is played by the wonderful Meryl Streep, who is again in an Oscar caliber performance mode. She sounds, after further post movie YouTube escapades to see what the real Julia Childs sounded like, exactly like the woman she's impersonating. If this turns out to be a lesser year, you can expect her name among the nominees. Julie is played by Amy Adams who again displays her depth as an actor. She can play the princess stereotypes, she can play innocent and impressionable, and now she has to play vulnerable yet strong and more...bold? I'm not sure what all Julie Powells character could need in real life but Adams impression seems damn good to me.



The movie does fall to about a 2 hour mark and while it never gross dull the movie does begin to feel long by the end of it. But the only true criticism of the movie is that the two storylines felt somewhat uneven. Julia's cooking story is fun but I never got the same feeling watching her "struggle" as I did watching Julies, who really had problems during her Julie/Julia project. A minor issue but it did begin to bother me at points.


Julie and Julia is light, fun, humorous, and entertaining enough to hold its own against the major blockbusters. If you're looking for something anyone can enjoy this movie would be it. Grade - A-

Public Enemies Review

Public Enemies was one of my most anticipated films of the summer. It was a crime epic with Johnny Depp and Christian Bale, what was there not to like? While the film didn't live up to the high expectation I'd set for it, I did enjoy the movie despite its flaws.

During the 1930's, bank robber John Dillinger (Johnny Depp) became public enemy number 1 under J. Edgar Hoover's (Billy Crudup) watch with the FBI. Under the task of catching Dillinger was Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale), a field agent who got promoted with the intention of catching the famous crook.

The main issue with Public Enemies is the manner in which director Michael Mann structures his cop vs. robber story. Instead of glamorising one side instead of the other Mann chooses to tell both sides in a very straight forward way with slight favoritism toward Depp's Dillinger. But by no means do we dislike Purvis, which becomes the real issue here. In a fire fight among foes I needed someone to root for in the action, but instead I found myself merely entertained at the scenes as a whole but not entertained with a purpose.

The other problem was Marion Cotillard, whose acting I found to be mediocre, but whose overall role I found to be somewhat annoying. Her character Billie Frechette is a weak point among the lively or not so lively cast Mann assembled and comparing her to Depp's phenomenal turn as Dillinger is practically impossible.

Overall though Public Enemies was a good movie, and won't rise to be more than that. The shootouts are incredibly well done, Depp is amazing, and the soundtrack of the movie is one of the best this year with artists like Billie Holiday and Otis Taylor. The gritty feel of the camera was welcome and added to the dark tone Mann creates. Public Enemies may have been a let down, but it rose above most of the other movies coming out this year. Grade - B

The Proposal Review

The Proposal has one giant thing preventing it from being a great comedy. It's not funny. A major roadblock for a movie that is a romantic COMEDY. But even with that flaw the film still manages to be somewhat entertaining in its romantic storytelling, and where humor fails, amusement pick up.

The Proposal stars Ryan Reynolds and Sandra Bullock as Andrew and Margret. Margret is Andrew's boss. Margret is a bitch to everyone in the workplace, and also Margret is going to be deported to Canada. So in an attempt to blackmail Margret forces Andrew to marry her so she can stay in the country, which leads to a family trip to Alaska to see Andrews parents, including Craig T. Nelson, Betty White, and Mary Steenburgen.

The comedy fails on several levels. The dialogue isn't witty enough to come off as cynical although at times it tries to, and it isn't written in a way that makes for awkwardness although again, it tries to. The slapstick humor is never able to rise above anything funnier than Margret falling out of a moving boat (cause it's an original concept, ya?). The only somewhat hilarious part of the movie is Betty White, who is given nearly every strange and thought-out lines, and even then the movie still never rises above the level of chuckling to yourself. The Proposal's ideas play off as interesting in the way you watch the discovery channel, like you'd like to see more of whats going on but it certainly isn't funny, which makes you question your watching it at all.

The relationship aspects of it do somehow work though and are a saving grace. The chemistry of Reynolds boyish good looks and Bullocks ice witch mentality went well together as an age-old formula. Sandra Bullock seemed past her due date to me as a woman for romantic comedies and seems more fit for dramas like Crash and The Lake House than Miss Congeniality 2. But despite her lack of a funny bone, her and Reynolds do hold some kind of screen presence.

When I sat down for The Proposal I just wanted to be amused and laugh. I got amusement, that's for sure, but laughter didn't come. Not the movie I would choose over Transformers 2 ladies. Grade - C-

Away We Go Review

Away We Go has certainly been a surprise indie hit this summer if you look at the circumstances. Never going higher than 500 screens, and with an R rating, the movie has slowly over 31 days at the box office made it up to 6 million dollars, and is gaining a slow momentum with word of mouth and a healthy crop of reviews. And rightfully so. Sam Mendes rom-com coming of age story has a naive feeling to it that is refreshing in movies this summer.

Away We Go focuses on Burt (John Krasinski) and Verona (Maya Rudolph), a couple who are having a baby and are, needless to say, feeling unprepared and aren't sure what kind of parents they want to be. After finding out that Burt's parents (the over the top Jeff Daniels and Catherine O'Hara) are moving away, the couple go in search of somewhere new to live. Their itinerary including Phoenix, Tuscon, Madison, Montreal, and Miami. Their trip has them viewing parenthood from different angles.

One thing that deserves high praise is Mendes' shots of each city. He captures the best in each, and makes you understand why Burt and Maya could choose to stay there. And making Phoenix look appealing...hard to do people, be honest.

The chemistry between Krasinski and Rudolph is unmatchable. You have no problem buying into their relationship and their feelings of being lost or unsure (or as they eloquently put it, being "fuck ups").

The comedy in this movie is also something truly special. The R rating comes out and shocks you because of how tame and genuine the rest of the movie feels, but some outrageous things occur. Krasinski's character Burt is an odd ball. But in a different way, so is Verona. And the reason that over the course of the movie they begin to seem more and more sane is because the people they are being forced to deal with live on a different level of insanity (Maggie Gyllenhaal's character is a good reference if you've seen the film).

At it's core the movie is a sensational balance of comedy and deep realization on becoming an adult and taking on the responsibilities of a child, a journey that is made more enjoyable with Burt and Verona. A surprise summer hit. Grade - A

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen Review

I didn't find Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen to be quite the Michael Bay-fest I thought it would result in. That said the new instalment in Mattel's premiere toy franchise isn't great. The potential entertainment coming from giant robots fighting would seem endless, but alas the movie makes its 2 hour and 40 minute running time seem like four movies.

The story (if that's what you'd like to call it) involves Sam (Shia LeBeouf) and his now long time girlfriend Mikaela (Megan Fox) parting ways to go off to college and the strain that may put on their relationship, along with Sam's want to leave Bumblebee (his Chevy Camero transformer) at home. Sam later discovers a piece of the Allspark (a power created by the transformers which gives life to machines, or at least that's what I've gathered over the 2 movies) and then lots of robots, including fan favorites Optimus Prime and Megatron, fight.

Now lots of critics have been complaining about the lack of a story, something that didn't really bother me. The original Transformers lacked a story and to think that its sequel would have one is fairly ridiculous. More importantly, you don't go to see a movie of this caliber to notice the plot line, you go to see robots hit each other! That said there are several disappointing ideas that the movie fails to ever elaborate on, such as one throw away line where Sergeant Epps (Tyrese Gibson) stares at Optimus Prime saying "If God made us in his image, who's image are they made in?". A deeper question which the movie's story never chooses to delve deeper into.

But what the movie lacks in story it makes up for in action. Bay delivers a BETTER, if not perfect, experience than he did with his first movie. The action scenes are much easier to follow and the camera shakes much less. With time I'm sure Bay's art will be perfected.

I have problems with several of the transformers themselves. Two twin robots named Mudflaps and Skids, are blatantly racist, talking about how they can't read, using horrendous language, one of them even having a gold tooth. The reason I take issue with the characters mostly is because they were created for the purpose of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. They weren't a toy from the 80's, they weren't from the original television show, they were created in an offensive manner. Second issue (SPOILER ALERT HERE) is a human Decepticon robot. Last time I checked, in this universe, transformers transform into CARS. NOT PEOPLE. The moment you bend the rules to them being people, we now have Battlestar Galactica, Irobot, Terminator, ect. Don't be something your not, human.

Mostly minor issues, the only real problems that Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen has is it's humor and it's running time. Sam's parents (played by Julie White and Kevin Dunn) are incredibly unnecessary and unfunny. Some of the robot shtick is unfunny, and Sam's roommates are unfunny. We didn't come to this movie to see humans, we came to see Autobauts and Decepticons fight each other in a brutal battle of strength. And 2 hours and 40 minutes?? Too long. You can easily cut this movie down by 30 minutes and make it more entertaining.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is OK. It's better than the first one, and it deserves some credit for not being terrible. But its not amazing. Don't let anyone try and tell you otherwise. Grade- C

Year One Review

Year One had potential. It was the reason I went to see it. From the trailers it showed enough promising non Jack Black humor to interest me, particularly the biblical comedy reminiscent of Life of Brian or Bruce Almighty, something not usually served at the multiplex. But the movie failed me in that respect. It was simply Jack Black humor, mixed in with some awkward Michael Cera humor. This is a run of the mill, insert-laugh-track-here, sitcom esc movie that has too many pooping and peeing jokes than it knows what to do with.

Don't let the movie's premise fool you: Two friends, Zed (Black) and Oh (Cera) go on an extraordinary adventure through out early biblical time, to "find themselves". The issue in that summary is that these are not characters, these are actors. Jack Black shows no depth, doing the same shtick he normally does adding random melodic singing tones every so often and uses his body in a way that should only seem fitting to someone more slender and with more abs. In summary, everything you've ever seen Jack Black do before.

And Cera. Oh Michael Cera. If his awkward stumble-over-lines-in-an-attempt-to-seem-genuine didn't fool you in Juno, Nick and Norah, or Superbad, let him try again. Cera may be a good actor, but this movie doesn't display that at all.

Even the usual gags you foresee happening don't work. People cutting off their balls? Not funny. People peeing on their faces? Not funny. Girls not shaving their armpits ever? Not funny. If a second grader could think it up, it's here.

The storyline showed potential, but the biblical gags that occur are limited. In an attempt to connect more with the audience, jokes involving more farting than God were written. Not that that's a bad thing...except the farting jokes are terrible and fall flat. Year One is a comedy for those that are about in that age rang, year one. Otherwise avoid it. Trust me. Grade - D

The Hangover Review

The Hangover has a lot to live up to. Since the trailer debuted nearly 2 months ago, people have had high expectations which were going to be hard to fulfill. The stars had a lot riding on the movie, considering it was all three actors, Ed Helms, Zach Galifianakis, and Bradley Cooper's first shot at a front mans position (Cooper was seen as a headline in spring's He's Just Not That Into You, but his screen time was incredibly limited). And the studio had high hopes as well, considering after the feedback from the trailer, not feature film but trailer, was so good Warner Brothers greenlit a sequel a month before its release.

The film delivers and meets all the expected expectations. In a brief summary, the film is about 4 men who drive to Las Vegas for a bachelor party. The soon-to-be married Doug, his two friends Stu and Phil, and his new not-all-together brother in law Alan. The guys get so drunk they can't remember the night previous and end up loosing Doug a day before his wedding, and the three are forced to retrace their steps to find Doug.

The unique premise is so simple that it doesn't end up weighing down the comedy portion of the film, something that has happened with movies like Tropic Thunder and Pineapple Express. And the comedy is all there. While the trailer gives away several key funny scenes overall the movie has more to offer than the previews let on to be. The film doesn't hold anything back either. This movie is rated R for a reason. It's crass and vulgar and knows exactly what its trying to be (The ending credits demonstrate this very well).

The only thing not going for The Hangover is how unnecessarily scatter brained it becomes sometimes. At one point Ed Helmes begins playing the piano to a random 2 minute music video esc scene that left me scratching my head. Not to say it isn't amusing, but it certainly is...out of place? It's not the only part either. One scene seems to be a parody of Oceans 11 or the recent movie 21. Again, it seemed to be trying to achieve a different style of humor, something I can appreciate and find mildly entertaining but not laugh out loud funny.

But other than this minor set back The Hangover is the funniest film of 2009 easily, and is probably the best since Forgetting Sarah Marshall. It keeps continual laughs flowing in a unique plot. It's worth the money to go see Mike Tyson alone. Grade - A-

Up (3D) Review

If you need to read this review to determine whether or not you should go see Up then you clearly do not see movies very often. The answer to this simple question is: Yes. It's Pixar. 'Nuff said.

If you'd like my opinions on the said film though here they are. Up is a combination of what makes Pixar the best in animation. It combines story elements and design elements from its past films for something amazing. (Generally I would go into the story and what Up is about but judging by the hype for this film, I'll just embed the trailer at the bottom of the post for you to see for yourself).

I'll say right off the bat that Up is not my favorite Pixar film. I'll reiterate, that doesn't mean its bad. For me Wall-E is the height of American animation. It had a social commentary on the world (fairly ambitious, even for Pixar), it had a gorgeous silent film aspect to it which is lost on today's audience, and it looked amazing. Up of course uses similar tactics. It's take on accepting death and taking up for adventure was incredibly well done and the design aspects of Up are the best ever.

Up's visual style is its greatest aspect. Not only is it incredibly colorful and eye pleasing, something lost on Pixar's recent attempts. Wall-E's dullness wasn't bad because it contributed to the world Wall-E lived in, but the world of Up's leading man Carl Fredrickson requires a vision of colorfulness. Even the character design Pixar nails on the head. If their is one thing that Pixar doesn't do, its humans. Aside from The Incredibles, Pixar mostly sticks with cars, toys, fish, rats, robots and monsters, but their zany characters in this film fit the atmosphere. The one thing that is noticeable is Carl's design and the design of his late wife Ellie are conflicting in the right ways. Carl is a restrained and bitter individual without Ellie and thus his character is physically block-ish. His head resembles a square, his fingers are rectangle esc, where as Ellie is round and bouncy and cute, everything Carl isn't. The ying-yang syndrome strikes again for Pixar.

The part of Up that shocked me the most was the emotional attachment I caught myself feeling to Carl during his reminiscing about Ellie I grew incredibly depressed for our hero. At one point I caught myself tearing up for a connection with a character Pixar only spent 15 minutes developing but a whole film furthering. The beginning silent sequence about Carl's life with Ellie is one of the best scenes I've seen this year, and one of Pixar's greatest ever.

The 3D aspect of Up is also incredibly alluring. It wasn't in your face like the recent Monsters Vs. Aliens, and it wasn't formulaic in that sense at all. Half the time I forgot I was wearing the glasses and that it was in 3D, but at the same time I felt part of the movie. It brought me in to the screen in a different way and it makes me think the extra couple of dollars was well worth it.

But the rest of Up is merely good. The young boy scout character Russell was cutesy but I never found myself quite connected to him as I did to Carl. Still he represented a side of Ellie that Carl lacked and from a character development aspect that was incredibly well done. The supporting animals, notably Kevin the bird and Dug the dog were good additions to the rag-tag group, and even the villain (no spoilers here) were good but not amazing. The only part of the film that lost me was how over done the talking-dog bit was. It just wasn't that funny by the end, and I could have done without it.

Up was phenomenal, don't walk away from this thinking otherwise, but when Pixar does such an AMAZING job every time it becomes hard not to nitpick. The only major issue I had was how attached I was with the Carl-Ellie aspect of the film compared to the rest of the movie, which I found to be good by Pixar standards but not great by any stretch (in Non-Pixar standards it WAS amazing though). Up certainly is better than Toy Story or A Bug's Life for me personally but didn't quite touch Ratatouille or Wall-E. Does that mean anything? NO! Go see it and make your own decision, its still phenomenal either way. Grade - A

Drag Me To Hell Review

Sam Raimi is a director whom I've clearly missed the boat on. Everyone saw Spider-Man 1, 2 and 3. But to say you know this particular directors body of work based on those films is to say you know how to cook a turkey because you know how to make a grilled cheese. Raimi's forte is, and always will be, Horror. It's where his bread is buttered and that is
CLEARLY demonstrated in Drag Me to Hell, his latest directorial offering.


Drag Me to Hell is the story of Christine Brown, a bank loan officer who is met one day by an elderly woman who is missing an eye and needs a loan for her houses mortgage. When Christine denies the loan in attempts to gain a promotion, the woman puts a curse on her which would further the plot for the rest of the film. With the help of a seer, Christine attempts to void the curse's promise of bringing her to hell using means like a medium and sacrificial offerings.



The plot is fairly simplistic. Girl gets cursed, girl tries to stop inevitable damnation. But it works entirely. All the horror is in Raimi's capable hands. He creates one of the most terrifying tones for a movie in recent memory. The orchestral score is perfect. Yes. Perfect. It does what a score should do determines the emotions for the viewer, and it does that in an indescribable way.



The campy-ness that Raimi is know for is here too. The movie is, in a word, gross. Not gross like Saw or Hostel. No this is not the torture porn that audiences have now grown accustom. This is merely gross like a 3rd grader would imagine it. Like pooping on someone or when people get slimed at the Nickelodeon Kids Choice Awards. Several sequences make you cringe and want to close your eyes, but you continue watching to see Christine take an eyeball to the face, or get an old woman's mouth puss on her (I gagged just as I wrote that).



But the horror really lies in the way Raimi conducts the camera. He'll show you the entire room, let you know everything that's there, and in someway make something horrible appear. In one scene we see Christine lie in bed, look around her room, and somehow the creepy elderly woman appears in a manner we don't expect.



Drag Me To Hell is the best experience I've had in the cinema all year. It's ironic, campy, gross, funny, creepy, and damn right terrifying all at the same time and works on so many different levels I can't urge you to go out and see it now. However, to not go see this movie at night with a full audience is to do yourself a disservice. This movie thrives on audience atmosphere as much as any other summer blockbuster does. Just go see it immediately and see what I'm talking about. Grade - A

Night at the Museum 2: Battle of the Smithsonian Review

May have just been me, but Night at the Museum 2: Battle of the Smithsonian is nothing more than a cash in, special effects show boat. And for anyone to think more than that would be foolish.

The original Night at the Museum was an average film. It had enough moderately funny moments for me to think it was worth while, but it also had lots of Monkey slapping and unnecessarily long sequences, but the premise of Dick Van Dike wanting to steal the tablet was intriguing.

Night at the Museum 2: Battle of the Smithsonian takes the same thing and manages to make it a bit worse. Moving the film to DC was a great decision, but unfortunately the film adds so many seemingly irrelevant characters (Darth Vader = Unneeded) and seemingly irrelevant scenes (The Octopus was just a mere demonstration of the special effects but it added nothing to the story) for me to say that making a sequel was necessary.

But the movie was funny. The cupids (who I later found out were the Jonas brothers and I actually hate myself for writing this) were surprisingly funny and many of Hank Azarias scenes were funny. In fact the films greatest strengths were Azaria and Amy Adams, whose delivery of over the top goofy lines was perfect and makes me think I could dig an Amelia Earhart film with her.

nd I still think the formula is good, and adding new historical characters like Earhart and Custard was clever… but in the end I simply found my self overwhelmed by how much more complex this one was compared to its predecessor. Too many characters is what I attribute this to but I’m sure if you have kids they won’t care and will run out to buy Ben Stiller action figures complete with flash light and night guard uniform anyways. Night at the Museum 3? No thanks. Grade – C-

Terminator Salvation Review

Terminator Salvation is a new Pre-Sequel. This next bit of jargon will not make sense unless you’re familiar with the franchise. The movie is set in 2018, nearly 30 years ahead of the original Terminator film. BUT Kyle Reese, John Connors father (currently in 2018 only a young boy), has yet to be sent back to save Sarah Connor, Johns mother.

Did that make no sense to you? Maybe this movie isn’t for you then and you should go rent the Terminator and T2: Judgment day.

But for those that do like action movies enough to neglect that above stated fact, or do enjoy the Terminator film, this movie gets my blessing. It’s not Judgment day, and for anyone to think that it could be is being naïve. T2 is a movie that will never be recreated and those are the facts. And it’s not the original Terminator either. The original has, at least today, a campy 80’s vibe that is welcome because it defined the movie, and it was simple.

Terminator Salvation ups the ante a bit in terms of story line. As I before mentioned the timeline is a bit strange. In this film John Connor is leading a resistance against the machines and against a cooperation called Skynet, which is run by robots entirely and see humans as a threat to humanity. Christian Bale does a stiff, but overall decent job as Connor, who is a “messiah” esc leader. Also introduced is Marcus Wright (Sam Wothington, a man/machine who was created as a prototype by Skynet to help in the war.
The high points of Terminator Salvation are the action sequences. With recent films like Transformers and Wolverine, action sequences have to be shaky and hard to follow (my only criticism of Transformers). But director McG does a great job of just following the action and letting the camera speak for the scene. The cuts are smooth, not jagged like a Michael Bay film, and are easy to understand and ultimately well done.

The story is a different matter. It’s confusing, yes. I’m not going to lie, you have to take half of what's going on with a grain of salt and just assume it all has an inevitable purpose (what that is I still don’t know, waiting for Salvation 2 I guess?).

The introduction of a young Kyle Reese also happens to be a highlight of the film for me. Actor Anton Yelchin certainly is getting his share of work this May as key characters in both Star Trek and Terminator Salvation, and his interpretation of a young Reese worked I found. He mixes naïveté with a sense of the badass.

As a piece to the Terminator puzzle though is one area this reboot fails to figure out. It’s much more serious than its predecessors and certainly takes a different direction, but I was unsure if this was a separate story line of the franchise or a more direct sequel to the events of the previous films. It has aspects of both, but this film doesn’t compare. It’s serious tone combined with the fact the series is no longer about the Terminator but about John Connor leads me to believe this is a different world from the older films.

But until Salvation 2 comes out we’ll never know. Unless you like Terminator, I wouldn’t attempt to go see this film. But then again if you like Terminator, you’re not waiting for my advice. I found it pretty good, but I’ve found I’m in the minority. Grade—B