Inception

Inception

"Dom Cobb is a skilled thief, the absolute best in the dangerous art of extraction, stealing valuable secrets from deep within the subconscious during the dream state, when the mind is at its most vulnerable. Cobb's rare ability has made him a coveted player in this treacherous new world of corporate espionage, but it has also made him an international fugitive and cost him everything he has ever loved. Now Cobb is being offered a chance at redemption. One last job could give him his life back but only if he can accomplish the impossible-inception. Instead of the perfect heist, Cobb and his team of specialists have to pull off the reverse: their task is not to steal an idea but to plant one. If they succeed, it could be the perfect crime. But no amount of careful planning or expertise can prepare the team for the dangerous enemy that seems to predict their every move. An enemy that only Cobb could have seen coming."

4.5 of stars

This review is probably a moot point because it seems that everyone and their mother has already seen the film, but if you haven’t, here we go. I’m not going to hop on the bandwagon quite as hard as most people (the movie already has the #3 ranking of all time on IMDb). Not to say that movie isn’t good (it most definitely is), but let’s take a minute to let the hype die down before we start throwing out Oscars.

First off, kudos to Chris Nolan as both an artist and a business man. He hasn’t directed many films, but the few that he has (Memento, The Prestige, The Dark Knight) have all been truly worthy of both their critical and financial success. That being said, this film doesn’t stray from that model. We’re heading into the 4th week of Inception dominating the Box Office and, while it may slip, the money is going to keep rolling in. The main reason for this, aside from the film being entertaining, is the subject matter . . . . dreams. If you’re a person who likes to talk or get up and go to the bathroom during the movie, then you’re going to have a hard time watching this. Every scene is important and engages the audience in such a way that makes you feel like you’ve completed a “mental marathon” by the end. But don’t let the cognitive calisthenics scare you. While the subject matter is somewhat complicated, the direction and storytelling is at such a high level that I never had to stop and ask for directions. There may be a few scant moments where you need to repeat what you just heard to yourself to make sure you comprehended it, but then you’re right back in the action. And that’s really saying something seeing as how Nolan basically built this world entirely from his own brain. There aren’t a lot of “rules” once the characters enter the dream worlds, but once they do Nolan does a masterful job of making sure everyone adheres to them.

Character-wise the cast is pretty solid. I haven’t been a Leo-hater like some people. Aside from Titanic, he has had some impressive performances from a very young age (see The Basketball Diaries and The Quick and the Dead), and his portrayal as a tortured soul in this movie really could not have been delivered much better. He is constantly haunted by the appearance of his dead wife in his dreams (played by Marion Cotillard). Aside from her sexuality that almost drips off the screen, the choice of Cotillard as his wife is somewhat ironic. Christopher Nolan claims that this is purely coincidental, but the song that is played in the movie multiple times to alert the dreamers they are about to wake up is "Je Ne Regrette Rien". What makes this ironic is that Cotillard won an Oscar two years ago by portraying Edith Piaf who was the real life singer who made the emotional song so famous. And yet another case of happenstance is the face that she beat out Ellen Page for the coveted golden statuette. Ellen Page, in fact, plays the young architect who Cobb hires to design the world for this most intricate of heists. Now, at first I wasn’t a big fan of the casting choice. I love Page in the things she’s done, but I thought I was going to have a hard time taking her seriously for 100% of the movie. Let’s be honest, her bread and butter is a dead pan delivery of lines that would make John Belushi blush. Nevertheless, she proved to be more than capable of holding her own. I’m not saying someone else couldn’t have done just as good a job, but when I heard they initially wanted Rachel McAdams or Emily Blunt I was glad to see they decided on Page. Mostly because there was no stilted love story that had to be concocted simply because you had two attractive leads. Page is cute, but her age and relative plainness let me focus more in on what was going on around them rather than having to be bothered with the possibility that Leo and Ellen might have a scene where they were knocking boots.

As is often the case, I feel this movie may have a little less edge because it came out after the Matrix. The similarities are undeniable, but are in no way strong enough to really take you out of the movie. As much as I was intrigued that the “rules” Nolan developed for the dream worlds, I was almost as impressed with the things he left out. The basic concept of sharing a dream and the machine that makes it all possible is never really addressed, and it doesn’t need to be. We’re talking about an experience that is unique for everyone, so sometimes a storyteller just has to say ‘You just have to accept this’, and we do.

My only major strike against the movie is probably the lack of character development for the supporting cast. While we are invited to delve deep into Leo’s psyche and learn about his thoughts and experiences, we barely scratch the surface of any of the other characters. I felt like some more weight could have been added to the movie if we had a vested interest in the success of all the players instead of just Leo. But, sometimes, that’s just the way it goes.

At its core, this film really just is a typical “heist movie” wrapped in a mind-blowing blanket of the subconscious world. Set aside my objections about the relevance of time in dreams and a minor plot hole towards the end, and you will have yourself a movie that you are definitely going to watch more than once . . . and probably one more time after that when you’re on ‘shrooms. But the measure of a movie really comes down to whether or not you entertained the audience for the length of time you asked for their attention. And judging by the collective “Awwwww, come on!” that was elicited by everyone in my movie theater at the very end, I think Inception did its job.

City of God

City of God

"City of God is based on a true story that takes place in the 60's where in the slums of Rio De Janeiro two boys growing up in the neighborhood take on different paths in life. The story is told through eyes of Buscape, a poor young fisherman's son who dreams of becoming a photographer one day. His story narrates the violence and corruption surrounding the city and the rise and fall of one of the city's most notorious boss'. Li'l Ze. As war wages on the streets Buscape's only way out of this violent life is to expose its brutality the world through his pictures. Along the way the lives of other are put into perspective as their stories intersect with the events that take place."


5 stars

This movie has actually been sitting in my 'Coming Soon' folder for a while. The reason that I didn't want to write the review was because I was deathly afraid I wouldn't do the film justice. It's an automatic lock for my Top 10 Films of All Time list, and I'm a guy who has seen A LOT of movies, so that is saying something. Because there is no way to do it justice, I am going to stick with the theory that 'less is more', so this review will be short.

At it's very core, this movie is about the struggle between doing what is right and doing what you have to do in order to survive. From its basic premise, the story develops into one that is as beautiful emotionally as it is visually. It transitions effortlessly from scenes of sweetly tender innocence to moments of heart poundingly intense reality. The lines of right and wrong are instantly blurred in a hellish world that most of us couldn't even begin to comprehend. Add all of this to the fact that this film is based on a true story, and I find it hard to believe that anyone will walk out of the theatre without opened eyes and a dropped jaw.

As difficult as this film is to review, it's ever more difficult to categorize. After some serious thinking, this is what I have decided on. When trying to anticipate the scope and theme of this movie, imagine that the movies Snatch and Goodfellas had a baby. Then imagine that this baby grew up a hard, sobering life but was lucky enough to eventually meet a beautiful, sophisticated woman who was the result of a single drunken night of passion between The Lord of the Flies and Blood Diamond. Now, if these two star-crossed lovers (born from greatness) were to have a child themselves, City of God would be it. You don't have to understand that convoluted analogy, you just have to watch the movie.

I've Loved You So Long

I've Loved You So Long

"Former medical doctor Juliette Fontaine travels to Lorraine to live on probation with her younger sister Léa and her family. The bitter, introspective and reclusive Juliette has spent her sentence without any visitors and totally forgotten by her family and now she has problems interacting with her brother-in-law Luc and her nieces. She has to visit every other week her probation officer Captain Fauré and seeks a job to rebuild her life. As days go by, Juliette gets closer to the family of her sister and befriends Luc and Léa's friends, specially Lea's colleague Michel. She slowly changes her behavior until the day Léa discovers the truth."

4.5 Stars

Well kids, it looks like you’re going to have to rely on my review for this movie because Robyn decided to read a synopsis before watching it. I usually do the same thing, but the synopsis she read unfortunately gave away an integral plot point that pretty much ruined the whole thing for her.

That being said, I would highly recommend that you avoid reading anything similar before you watch the movie because you really will be robbing yourself of a great film. You probably need to be in a certain headspace when you watch it as well. The pacing is somewhat slow, but it doesn’t really hurt. In fact, I actually think it adds a great deal to the depth and seriousness of the subject matter. The average viewer’s attention span is so short these days that many movies speed through a characters development in an effort to keep the audience interested. All too often, in my opinion, the pace is so fast that it makes development unbelievable. A character can’t be suckin’ dick for blow in one scene and then be driving the kids to soccer practice in a mini-van 10 minutes later. Sorry, was that analogy a little too on the nose? If a movie asks us to buy into a character they have to make his or her development believable.

But don’t think that you will be bored waiting for something to happen in this film. The mystery and intrigue are very strong and the director does a good job at only revealing small bits of information at a time leaving the viewer desperate for the next piece of the puzzle. When the truth is finally revealed, it is definitely a WHOA moment and one that truly causes an introspection by the viewer as to what they would have done in the same, tragic circumstances.
Now, I don’t say this too often, but no one really could have played this role but Kristin Scott Thomas. Aside from the fact that she had to speak in French for the entire movie, the role was so emotionally complicated only a veteran actress like her could even attempt to take on the material. Needless to say, I think she did an exceptional job (one very worthy of the Oscar nomination).

There aren’t a lot of films today that really make you think the way that this one does. You may have to work a little bit for it, but the reward in the end is definitely worth it.

Paris, Je T"aime

Paris je T'aime

"Paris, je t'aime is about the plurality of cinema in one mythic location: Paris, the City of Love. Eighteen filmmakers have five minutes each; the audience must weave a single narrative out of eighteen moments. Each transition begins with the last shot of the previous film and ends with the first shot of the following film, extending the enchantment and the emotion of the previous segment, preparing the audience for a surprise, and providing a cohesive atmosphere. There's a reappearing mysterious character who is a witness to the Parisian life. A common theme of Paris and love fuses all."

5 Stars

Paris je T'aime is the first in a series of movies produced by (Tristan Carne). They all follow the similar format of being a collection of short films rather than one long, cohesive film. However, the one unifying theme is love. I recently reviewed New York I Love You, which is the second film in the series. Now, I hate to sound like an old man on this one, but the first one was the best and, unfortunately, I really can’t explain why.

The format in this film is similar to NY I Love you, but instead of compromising of ten 8 minute segments, this version contains eighteen 5 minute segments. And it’s very possible that this format change is the reason why I liked this film so much more. Since each short is directed by a different person, the film is inherently very eclectic. This serves a dual purpose. If you are not really getting drawn into the current vignette, you really don’t have time to get bored with it because once you start to, it’s on to the next one. By the same measure, several of these films draw you in very quickly so, when it ends it just leaves you wanting more. One would think that this paradigm would not work when you first conceptualize it on paper, but once it translates to the screen the results are brilliant.

Obviously because this film has 16 separate parts, I am not going to try and review each segment like I did with NYILY. All I can say is that, after seeing this film, I can see why so many people in other countries have tried to emulate it. It may range from the sweet to the intriguing to the weird, but then again so does Love.

New York, I Love You

New York, I Love You

"Ten vignettes in New York City: a pickpocket meets his match; a young Hasidic woman, on the eve of her marriage, reveals herself to an Indian businessman; a writer tries a pick-up line; an artist seeks a model; a composer needs to read; two women connect; a man takes a child to Central Park; lovers meet; a couple takes a walk on their anniversary; a kid goes to the prom with a girl in a wheelchair; a retired singer contemplates suicide. There are eight million stories in the naked city: these have been ten of them."


4 Stars


This isn’t a movie for the casual viewer. Hell, this isn’t even a movie, it’s a film. It’s very important that your understand that going in. It’s not going to have your normal plot lines and story arcs, and there isn’t really going to be a resolution at the end. The way that I interpret it is that this is a snap shot of several lives. This is a film compiled of 10 very different segments directed by 10 very different filmmakers with one unifying theme, the hope for love. Because of this, your opinion of the film needs to be based on the whole thing instead of each segment because it truly is a sum of its parts.

Technically this is a “sequel” to the film Paris je t’aime (Paris, I Love You). I haven’t seen that film, but I do plan to because I think it will give me a better perspective on this film. Because the stories are so different, I think each viewer’s experience will be unique. Some people may end up taking different things from the stories than I did. Some segments that I hated may be the ones that you most connect with, and I think that’s really the point of the movie. That being said, here is my quick rundown of the stories:

SEGMENT 1 – This one is forgettable. Andy Garcia still plays the role of “intimidating man” to a T. If God himself were to square off with Andy Garcia, I truly think he could make the Almighty cry. Unfortunately he’s the only good thing in this segment. As usual Hayden Christensen exemplifies the stereotype that you don’t have to be a good actor as long as you’re pretty. Rachel Bilson tries to make her performance memorable, but it feels forced and she and Christiansen just look like rookies in the presences of a veteran Garcia.

SEGMENT 2 – This one is confusing. It feels like it is trying to convey something meaningful, but I just can’t discern what that is. Natalie Portman and Irrfan Khan portray two people who seem imprisoned by the life paths they have been forced to choose. Their only way of coping with the suppressed sadness is trough witty, sometimes sexual banter they exchange in their business dealings with one another.

SEGMENT 3 – This is another one that’s just forgettable. Orlando Bloom does a good job at playing the starving artist trying to stay true to himself, but the mysterious chemistry that he and Christina Ricci develop through a phone relationship completely fizzles to me when they finally meet face to face.

SEGMENT 4 – This one is GREAT! The entire story is just a dialogue between Ethan Hawke and Maggie Q on a New York street corner, but it stands head and shoulders above the rest. The writing is at a level I haven’t seen in a while in any film, and the back and forth between Hawke and Q really develops it into something poignant. Plus there is a slight twist at the end that really makes it one of if not THE best vignettes out there.

SEGMENT 5 – Can’t say too much about this one. Don’t get me wrong, I think Anton Yelchin and Olivia Thirlby are two solid up and comers in Hollywood, but I can’t see any reason that they included this story line other than for comedic relief.

SEGMENT 6 – This is the ones that seems the most “real” to me. Bradley Cooper and Drea de Matteo separately re-hash the one night stand they just spent together and struggle to decide if they should risk ruining a perfect memory with an attempt to recreate it.

SEGMENT 7 – I really need someone to explain this one to me. It seems like a very artsy, dramatic story full of metaphors, but again I wasn’t able to get my head around it. I almost found myself going out and buying the Cliff’s Notes just so I could figure out what exactly happened in the story. Visually, though, I have to admit it was beautiful.

SEGMENT 8 – This one was very different than all the rest in the sense that “love” in this story was really about the platonic love between a father and daughter. It was pretty brief, but definitely carried enough weight to be able tug at the heart strings a little bit.

SEGMENT 9 – Another artsy-er segment and, ironically enough, this one centered around an actual artist. It’s kind of interesting because neither the artist nor the muse that he has chosen can really communicate because they don’t speak the same language. Even without words, though, they seem to have a relationship that connects them more than most.

SEGMENT 4 (PART II) – I’m not sure why these two stories were considered the same segment because they don’t really tie in together which is why I am saying it is Part II. In this portion of the segment, Chris Cooper and Robyn Wright Penn have an intriguing conversation about how relationships can change over time and whether marriage really is for everyone.

SEGMENT 10 – This may take the title as my favorite. Eli Wallach and Cloris Leachman are old school Hollywood icons that I could watch anytime. Their portrayal of an aging married couple is definitely one that will make you smile, laugh, and even maybe cry.

So, with all these different stories, what can you really say about the film? For starters it’s unique. It’s fun but sad. It’s random but precise. It’s overwhelming but lacking. It’s narcissistic but humble. It’s eye-rolling but tender. It’s vibrant. It’s desolate. It’s uplifting. It’s depressing. It’s intense. It’s dull. It’s real. It’s fake. . . . It’s New York.

The Book of Eli

The Book of Eli

"In a violent post-apocalyptic society, the drifter Eli has been wandering to west across North America for the last thirty years reading a unique book that he brings with him. He survives hunting small animals and seeking goods in destroyed houses and vehicles to trade in villages for water and supplies. When he reaches the village ruled by the powerful mobster Carnegie, the man offers a job to Eli to join his gang. Carnegie presses his blind lover Claudia to send her daughter Solara to convince Eli spending the night with him. The girl sees the book of Eli, and when Carnegie beats up on Claudia, she reveals that Eli has the sought book. Carnegie sends his gang to take the book from Eli, but the man is up for protecting the book with his life."

3 stars

The Book of Eli is yet another tale of a lone hero trying to survive in a post apocalyptic wasteland. As much as I hoped that this film would stand on its own, the similarities i t shares with Kevin Costner's Waterworld are hard to ignore. While Waterworld was set in a place where nothing but water existed, Eli's world is a vast desert where water is the most precious resource around. And in this version, there are still roving gangs preying on the weak, but instead of wave runners, these marauders do their duty on motorcycles.

One aspect of the movie that I probably liked was that they didn't delve too deeply into what created the wasteland. They mention that there was a "big flash" about 30 years ago, but any other details are left up to our own imaginations. I feel like it's a good artistic choice because it doesn't really matter to us why the world is the way it is. It doesn't really drive the plot, so there is no sense in wasting important time on it. The only pertinent information we do find out is that all religious texts were burned after the "big flash" because they are believed to have been the reason for the supposed great war that took place. This is really the point where the movie hit a crossroads. I believe that, had they expounded more on the religious undertones, it could have been a very interesting movie. Unfortunately they only touch on the issue briefly, instead choosing to waste more screen time on action sequences that really aren't that exhilarating to begin with.

The fact that all the bibles have been burned, makes Eli's possession of one all that more valuable. He believes that the book contains a message that could prove the be the saving grace of all mankind, while Gary Oldman's character is a tyrant who wants to use the book's words and influence as a way to increase his empire and become a despot. Again, another interesting point about modern religion, but one whose subject matter is dismissed almost as quickly as it is introduced.

The movie itself is just okay. Aesthetically speaking it is somewhat appealing, but that alone does not a great film make. We've all watched super hero and other action movies where we buy into the fact that our lone hero can take on a gang of 20 men and easily dispose of them with an array of well choreographed fight sequences. But this movie puts that faith to the test. After Eli manages to dodge about 200 bullets, he is miraculously able to take out 12 men (each with one shot a piece) almost making the viewer want to roll their eyes.

The pace of the film is almost unbearable for the first hour. While it's obvious the directors were trying to create a sense of drama with long, lingering takes, it instead has the opposite effect and in all truthfulness, made me glance more than once at my watch. Thankfully, Denzel (who had been "phoning in" his performance for the first half) finally comes alive and pulls off a memorable performance in the film's final 60 minutes. Mila Kunis does as good a job as I guess she can. While I respect her comedic ability, I've yet to see her in any dramatic roles that don't seem to be a casting choice based solely on her looks. But the best performance of all is given by Gary Oldman who just seems to be great in nearly every damn thing he does.

The ending does provide a couple twists, but they're more of the caliber that make you simply raise your eyebrows than jolting you to the edge of your seat in a sense of, well, . . . WTF.

Couple's Retreat

Couple's Retreat

"Dave and Ronnie, Jason and Cynthia, and Joey and Lucy are close. The group used to include Shane and Jennifer, but they divorced and she's gone. Jason and Cynthia announce that their marriage is in trouble, and they beg their friends (and Shane's young girlfriend) to join them on a couples' retreat, at the package rate, on a tropical island. The others reluctantly agree, planning to play while Jason and Cynthia work on their marriage with an island psychologist. To everyone's surprise, the package is inflexible: each couple must participate in the couples' exercises. Soon fault lines appear in all four relationships. What's in store for each couple?"



2 stars

I wasn’t expecting too much from this movie and that’s exactly what I got. I have to say I was a little disappointed though because Jason Bateman, Vince Vaughn, and (to a lesser extent) Kristen Bell have some pretty respectable comedic chops. But the weird thing was that not only did they not use those chops, it seems like they didn’t even try to. The writing was a little heavier than you would expect for a comedy. In the couple’s therapy sessions in particular I thought I was going to laugh pretty hard. But the advice the therapists gave actually ended up being pretty good and meaningful, and there’s just no place for that.

The story is pretty bland and the plot is more than predictable. However, it was shot on location in Bora Bora and the visual aspect of the movie is ridiculous. I am officially putting it on the list of places I want to visit before I’m 40. But the cascading waterfalls aren’t the only nice lookin’ scenery around, if you know what I mean. Let’s face it, the ladies are pretty damn hot. There is no other proof required that God loves America than the fact that 4 over-weight, above-average looking guys can have 4 bangin’ wives. And, shockingly enough, Kristin Davis is the oldest woman in the movie by a good 13 years but she is BY FAR the sexiest. If nothing else guys, watch the scene towards the beginning of the movie when the couples strip down to their underwear. I don’t know if it’s possible to wear down a DVD like you can a tape, but let’s just say that I hit on that scene more than once.

The movie ends up having kind of a sweet ending, but nothing that would redeem it enough to make it a good movie. From a strictly shallow perspective, the hot women and tropical locale make it work renting on a Sunday night and having on in the background while you clean the house.

Yes Man

Yes Man

"The banker Carl Allen is a lonely man with low self-esteem after his divorce with Stephanie, for whom he still yearns. He avoids his best friend Peter. He has a boring job, stalled in a bureaucratic position in the loan department of a bank; and he spends his spare time watching DVDs. When he meets by chance his former high school mate Nick, he is convinced to participate of a self-help program called "Yes Man" leaded by the guru Terrence Bundley. The basic principle of the program is to say "yes" to new situations, leaving the negativism aside. Carl misunderstands the concept and says "yes" to every question. While leaving the encounter, he helps a homeless man and in the end of the night he meets the gorgeous Allison that helps him with her scooter. His life completely changes with his new attitude."

2.5 stars

This is a stupid little movie with a decent message. The concept of Carpe Diem seems to have itself personified by a movie every few years or so. There's Dead Poets Society, The Emperor's Club, Last Holiday, The Bucket List, and the great Ferris Bueller's Day Off just to name a few. Each of which takes its own stab at reminding us that life is just a series of moments and the more we capture, the more we'll enjoy it. While it may sound cliche, I have to agree with the message of all these films. But that doesn't necessarily mean that they're worth watching.

The one thing about Yes Man that I will say surprised me is the lack of similarity it had to Carrey's previous Liar, Liar. I fully anticipated Carrey's character to be hypnitozed (or something to the like) early on in the film during the YES motivational seminar. This would, no doubt, lead him on a series of whacky adventures and place him in situations that are just downright silly. But that wasn't the case here, so kudos to the writer for actually adding a little weight to the film and some heart along with it.

It was also painfully clear that Carrey was trying to go back to the "slapstick well" that initially lifted him to A-list status during the 90s. Something he really hasn't done since Me, Myself, and Irene 10 years ago. The goofy faces, comedic voices, and wildly flailing arms are back in full force as the 48 year old Carrey tries to win the affections of the 30 year old Zooey Deschanel who could basically be his daughter. While his physical comedic prowess is still better than most, I would prefer he continue the dramatic stuff that has resulted in some great films like Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and Man on the Moon.

All in all, this movie will result in a few chuckles and a few moments that will make you smile, but there really isn't too much to it. I'm just glad that this time he refrained from bending over and talking out of his ass. Actually, now that I think about it that was pretty funny.

Secondhand Lions

Secondhand Lions

"13 year old Walter has had a hard life, with his no good floozy of a mother getting together with many equally despicable men. Before going on yet another husband-hunting trip, she drops him off at the house of his great-uncles Hub and Garth. They disappeared for quite a while in their youth, and are rumored to have acquired a great fortune, which Walter's mother hopes to get her hands on if he can ingratiate himself enough to the two cantankerous men. Though reluctant to put up with him at first, Hub and Garth grow to accept Walter, and even tell him fantastic stories of what they were up to while they went missing. When his mother returns, Walter must take charge of his own life, and decide what he's going to do with it."

2 stars

Now, I know what you're thinking, "Todd, what the hell are you doing reviewing this movie? It doesn't really fall into the category of movies you spend your immensely valuable time on." To you sir, (not ma'am because lets face it, a woman's opinion doesn't matter) I say don't judge so quickly! Wouldn't you like it if a quiet little movie like this were able to fly under the radar and then somehow, as if pulled by the hand of fate, find its way into your life at the exact right time? A time at which, due to your emotional state, you were able to identify so much with it that it automatically becomes a touching, personal favorite that is down right life altering. And a movie that had such an impact that you will be sitting in your living room one day years from now with your starry-eyed grandson on your knee while you play this wonderful film in an effort to connect with your kin and hopefully share a moment that he will remember long after you've passed into the Great Beyond? Well, friend I too share that dream, but unfortunately this wasn't it.

Secondhand Lions is probably pretty much what you think it is, and anyone that has graduated the 4th grade would probably be able to guess the entire plot based on just reading the summary blurb above. I can't say I'm that disappointed because I really didn't have any desire to see it in the first place. I actually only saw it because it was playing during Jury Duty. Between trying to strike up an conversation with the hot girl next to me and vehemently praying to Allah that I didn't get selected to actually sit on the "exercise in human de-evolution" that is an American Jury, I really had nothing better to do than watch the movie that County Clerk Bernice (I swear that was her name) told us Judge Roberts had hand-picked for us.

The plot actually wasn't unbearable and maybe could have managed a little entertainment if anyone involved with the film actually gave a flying fuck. As legendary as they are, Michael Caine and Robert Duval probably wouldn't disagree with you if you accused them of "phoning in" their respective performances. They also weren't able to create enough of a dichotomy between the characters. Michael Caine was supposed to portray the younger, more timid brother. But, as anyone who had seen in him in other films knows, he pretty much owns any room that he walks into, so both Duval and him pretty much ended up playing the same role. Conversely, it seemed like Haley Joel Osment was actually trying, and it was almost unwatchable at times. He looked like he was attempting to remember everything he possibly learned in the acting courses that he undoubtedly had to take once his voice finally cracked and he realized he couldn't make it on his boyish looks and creepy one-liners to Bruce Willis. But it just wasn't that good and frankly it made you feel like you were watching something at a community theatre. Wait, what's that?! Listen children, if you're very, very quiet you may just be able to make out the sound of a child actor's career being quietly suffocated in its sleep.

Again, while it's not horrible, I can't really justify telling you to spend any of your time watching it. If you accidentally end up with the DVD in your possession, maybe it's worth fast forwarding through just to see Emmanuelle Vaugier (one of the sexiest women in Hollywood today) spend some scenes as an Arab harem girl. But overall, the dialogue makes most Disney movies look like a Tarantino film and the pace is about as dull as a party at Sad Keanu Reeves' house.

Vantage Point

Vantage Point

"The President of the United States is in Salamanca, Spain, about to address the city in a public square. We see a plain-clothes cop, his girlfriend with another man, a mother and child, an American tourist with a video camera, and a Secret Service agent newly returned from medical leave. Shots ring out and the President falls; a few minutes later, we hear a distant explosion, then a bomb goes off in the square. Those minutes are retold, several times, emphasizing different characters' actions. Gradually, we discover who's behind the plot. Is the Secret Service one step ahead, or have the President's adversaries thought of everything?"

1 star

I had almost forgotten about this movie until I saw a preview for it coming up on the FX network this weekend. After re-watching about 10 minutes of the movie, I realized that I hadn't forgotten about it as much as I had intentionally blocked its lackluster existence from my memory. This movie is bad, like eye rolling bad. There are plenty of movies out there that are awful, but some of them are at least aware of it (American Pie 4,5,&6 I'm looking at you). But because a movie is aware of its shittiness, it doesn't take itself too seriously and sometimes it can actually pass for watchable fare. Unfortunately someone forgot to tell this to the filmmakers of Vantage Point because the movie's own pretentiousness does nothing more than add to the already copious amount of nails in this particular cinematic coffin.

Once again I was disappointed by a movie whose trailer looked bad ass. The premise seemed to have a lot of potential and the fact that the movie was set in Salamanca (where I studied for a summer) made this a movie I actually went to see in theaters. If only I had known . . .

The film, predictably, relies too heavily on the "replay gimmick". The assassination is basically a 10 minute segment that is replayed 8 times from 8 different perspectives. Had the plot been halfway intriguing or at least provided enough mystery to keep the audience engaged then maybe the movie could have been saved. Instead it's just dull, so much so that the audience I was with actually started laughing by the time the 5th replay started. It was clear we all knew that this was a piece of crap and the mood changed to everyone trying to guess in their heads just how much longer this exercise in futility was going to take to roll over and die. As you might have guessed, the "twist ending" wasn't a "twist" at all and had it come about 45 mintutes sooner, we would have all been a lot happier.

I'll go ahead and make a statement that I will stick by in ALL future reviews. There are only 2 movies out there that revolved around a distinctive narrative style and were still able to be thoroughly entertaining despite the fact that they contained relatively mediocre plot lines. Those film would be Pulp Fiction and Memento. Everything else, this movie in particular, just couldn't quite pull it off. I hate panning this movie so hard especially since Forest Whitaker is in it and I'm a big fan of his. But luckily he had the good sense to pass on directing this one so his sin was only limited to the acting arena.

Scent of a Woman

Scent of a Woman

"Charlie Simms is a boy from Oregon who attends Baird School a Boys boarding school. Not unlike most of the other boys who come from affluent backgrounds Simms is there on a scholarship. He hangs around with George Willis, who's a daddy's boy, and his friends. Now George's friends decides to pull a little prank on the pompous headmaster. The headmaster learns that Charlie and George know who pulled the prank and they refuse to say who. He gives the Thanksgiving Holiday to think about it. He also tells Charlie that he's recommending him to an Ivy League College. Charlie then goes off to a Thanksgiving job--taking care of retired Colonel Frank Slade who's blind when his family goes to visit some family for Thanksgiving. After they leave Slade tells Charlie that he's taking him to New York for his own Thanksgiving celebration."

4.5 stars

Lt. Colonel Frank Slade: Clear them little bottles off. And when I get off the phone here, call the bell man and tell him I want it wall to wall with John Daniels.

Charlie Simms: Don’t you mean Jack Daniels?

Lt. Colonel Frank Slade: He may be Jack to you son, but when you've known him as long as I have...

This was one of the quotes from the first 30 minutes of this film. Needless to say, after this line I WAS IN. Not only does Lt. Colonel Slade (Al Pacino) appreciate the finer things in life like the decadence of a hotel room at The Plaza or the taste of a freshly cut Montecristo cigar, he shares my infatuation with all the mysteries that are women; the way they move, the way they laugh, and (most important to a blind man) the way they smell.

Now, I realize this is an old movie, but I have really never seen the entire film. Sure, I have caught pieces of it while flipping through the channels on a Sunday afternoon, but that is the television version. A version, apparently, that director Martin Brest has disowned because it suffers from censorship and time editing. That’s why I wanted to watch the unabridged, unadulterated version to see what the fuss was all about. Needless to say, the movie did not disappoint. Everything worked in this movie ranging from the setting (New York, New York) to the writing to the music to the acting. Pacino was superb in his portrayal of a tortured War Hero and was able to evoke scenes of such raw emotion that I found myself going 3-4 minutes without blinking. I do feel that I was slighted a little bit just because I am so late to the party in viewing this film. His exclamation of “Hoo-wah!” and unique speaking style in the movie have been emulated and parodied so many times since the movie was released in 1993 that it almost elicited a comedic reaction for me at several points that should have come across as more dramatic. But I can’t place any blame on him because if I had seen the movie when it actually came out I probably would have had a more appropriate response. Then again, I was only 8.

The only two complaints I have with the film are relatively minor. For about 2 hours of the movie, I thought that Chris O’Donnell was the perfect casting choice for the role of Charlie Simms. His boyish demeanor and glaring insecurities were consistent with that of a small town kid from the wrong side of the tracks trying to assimilate into the world of over-privileged children and their powerful families. But the whole point of the movie is to witness Charlie’s transition from adolescence to manhood. While I think O’Donnell did the best he could, the transition is supposed to be exhibited in the penultimate scene of the movie. Well, Pacino definitely puts forth his all and THEN some in the scene, but O’Donnell just doesn’t dig quite deep enough and it left me wanting. My second complaint is about the nature of the “crime” itself. The final scene has a great message about leadership and integrity, but I felt like the actions of Charlie’s colleagues could have been more sinister and, in turn, produced a more complicated and powerful moral dilemma for him. As it stands, the “crime” is just pouring paint on the car of the Headmaster.

Nevertheless, it is a great film worthy of our time and appreciation, if only for the appearance of Gabrielle Anwar. Honestly, I thought she was going to be in the entire movie based on her billing and the fact that she is the main thing I remembered about the movie before watching the entire version. It turns out she is only on the screen for literally 5 minutes. But, needless to say, she makes the most of them.

Pacino basically personified the term “pimp” when it came to his dealings with women in this movie and I think every guy out there would admit either openly or just to themselves that his swagger is something we all want to have. This personification may best be described in the advice he give his cat when Charlie and he are about to leave the house for New York. “When in doubt . . . fuck.”

This Film is Not Yet Rated

This Film is Not Yet Rated

"Documents a history of the MPAA ratings board. Talks to numerous directors and actors about the censorship of their movies before they could be released. Includes directors, Kevin Smith, Matt Stone, John Waters, Darren Aronosfsky, Maria Bello, Atom Egoyan. Director, Kirby Dick hires a lesbian family of private investigators to find out the names of the MPAA ratings board and see if the raters are actually parents of children 5-17 like the MPAA tells American parents they are."

DISCLAIMER: My 3 Star rating of this film is soley based on the artistic nature. It is my firm belief that everyone should see this film.

3.5 Stars

I don’t think this film is really going to SHOCK anyone. In this day and age, we have come to realize and (unfortunately) accept that many aspects of our day to day lives are controlled by large corporations, and the film industry is no different. But even though it may not shock you, the things revealed in this documentary will present you with some very sobering facts.

Filmmaker Kirby Dick tries to expose the hypocrisy and secrecy of the MPAA ratings board who assign the ratings to all movies released in the United States and he does a pretty good job. One major drawback for me was the private investigator he hires to try and gain access to (and later gather more information about) the MPAA. She is, in one word, amateur. Just from watching television and movies, I could have done a better job than this woman. And there is even a random, seemingly pointless conversation in the movie where she talks about how she thinks she may be a lesbian . . . huh? How does that relate to anything?

Regardless, she more or less gets the job done and is able to find the information that the filmmaker is looking for, most importantly the true identities of the MPAA raters. The MPAA goes to such lengths to keep their identities secret because, they claim, it prevents the people from being harassed or influenced (a fact that is contested later in the film). This was my only major disagreement with the filmmaker. I got over the fact that Kirby is a bit of a prick and that the film seemed to be a little more “dramaticized” than a documentary needs to be, but he hurts the wrong people with the information. The raters themselves are just parents making a whopping $30,000 per year. While I am not so glib to assume that the raters don’t know what’s going on or that they may not be getting other forms of compensation under the table, I really don’t think he needed to expose them. Screwing the people at the bottom of the totem pole doesn’t result in hurting the big guys, it just results in NEW people at the bottom of the totem pole.

One of the most interesting points in the movie, though, is the argument made about the way sex and violence are dealt with in the ratings. While we have all heard the arguments over and over about how American society is downright Puritanical when it comes to sex, it never really hit me how much disparity there is in dealing with sex versus violence. Case in point, the movie Saw can show dismemberment, castration, and many other acts of graphic violence and receive and R while a movie whose only offense is to show a woman’s vagina receives an NC-17. I could go off on a tangent here about what’s a bigger social problem today in America violence or nudity . . . but I won’t. The disparity in ratings of love scenes between homosexuals and heterosexuals is also glaringly obvious, but that’s almost worth an entirely different film.

As you would expect, the filmmaker eventually submits his documentary to the MPAA for a rating and (surprise, surprise) it comes back with an NC-17 rating. So, he goes through the appeals process to try and get an R rating. One of the most ironic moments in the film comes at the end where we find out the identities of this “appeals board”. While I shouldn’t have been surprised by who the people ended up being, I still had to shake my head in disbelief.

Now, you might ask what’s the big deal about an NC-17 rating? It’s just a guideline for parents and if the film is still good people will hear about it. Well, unfortunately that’s not the case. If you get the NC-17 no major studio is going to produce the movie or advertise for it or even really promote it. On top of that, Blockbuster, Movie Gallery, and all the other chain video stores won’t carry it. So, while you may not realize the importance of the MPAA ratings, after this film you will come to realize that they have the American filmmaker by the balls.

100 Girls

100 Girls

"This sexy, teen-comedy is about a freshman, Matthew, at college who meets his dream girl in a dorm elevator during a blackout. He never sees her face, but instantly falls in love. In the morning, the power is restored, but the "dream girl" has vanished. All Matthew knows is that she lives in an all-girls dorm. He sets out on a semester-long journey to find his mystery girl amongst a hundred female suspects. Could it be Wendy? Dora? Arlene? Patty? Cynthia? Or the 95 other girls, any of whom could have been in that elevator with Matthew."

1 Star

“Oh my God, Oh my God, Oh my God, Oh my God, Oh my God, Oh my God, Oh my God.” This is the mantra I kept repeating to myself out loud while watching this movie? Why did I do this you ask? Well, the simple answer is I had to preoccupy my mind with something so that I wouldn’t grab the ball point pen laying two feet across from me and proceed to jam it in my eye. I’m still new to Netflix but Robyn has hyped it up so much, that I finally thought I would give it a try. One of the features they offer is suggesting movies you may like based on previous movies that you have rated highly. Well, someone needs to check the algorithm that produces these suggestions because the damn thing’s broken.

It was bad, and I mean BAD bad. Some of the reviews I read afterwards said that it was a Teen movie, but should have been more geared towards adults. I’m gonna go in the exact opposite direction. It was as if the writer was a 12 year old boy, and all he really knew of college was the stereotypes he garnered from, well, other teen movies. Now, don’t get me wrong, I know that all teen movies are chocked full of stereotypes, but most of them are at least somewhat self aware of this fact. This movie tried to paint itself as penetrating and insightful. I hate to break it to the writer, but every “revelation” that he tries to convey to us through the main character is one that 99.9% of college freshmen guys have come to realize by the third month of school. Hell, most guys probably have made these revelations by their senior year in high school. It just takes some of us a little longer because we weren’t in the Ultra-kid cool clique in high school. Instead we were pretty involved in clubs and student government. And, come on, that’s just as cool in its own right. I mean, I’m not talking about me, I’m just saying hypothetically . . . shut up.

Anyway, I wish I could recommend this movie just so the guys out there could see Jaime Pressly, Larisa Oleynik (remember Alex Mack? Don’t lie, you had a rush on her too), Katherine Heigl, and Emmanuelle Chriqui in the same place at one time. Let’s be honest, when Sloan from Entourage is in ANYTHING, you suck it up and go see the movie. Alas, I still can’t bring myself to do it. If you do see this movie you will end up wanting the same thing I did . . . your hour and a half back.

Post Grad

Post Grad
"Ryden Malby (Alexis Bledel) always assumed it would be easy to find a job with a college diploma. But when nothing materializes after graduation, she's forced to move back in with her dysfunctional family and work full-time at maintaining her sanity. The only bright spot is her steady relationship with her best friend, Adam (Zach Gilford), but even that's starting to feel a little awkward."

2.5 of stars

A pretty standard movie with a pretty standard storyline. Naive girl with big plans, forced to adapt when things don't go her way, with a 90-minute-mark revelation of true love. 

I like Alexis Bledel, but she plays the same character all the time (variations on Rory Gilmore). Michael Keaton and Carol Burnett as the father and grandmother were entertaining, though written as caricatures. Jane Lynch is seriously miscast the mother - does she strike you as maternal at all?! There's also an extraneous little brother, a sexy next-door neighbor, and a surprisingly funny scene about burying a cat in a pizza box. But that's about it. Inoffensive and unmemorable.

Run, Fatboy, Run

Run Fatboy Run
"After leaving his pregnant fiancée, Libby (Thandie Newton), at the altar five years ago, a remorseful Dennis (Simon Pegg) tries to repair the damage and win Libby away from her sleazy new boyfriend (Hank Azaria) by training for a marathon. Trouble is, he's hopelessly out of shape. Will losing the pounds and catching his breath be enough to get her back?"

3 of stars

Tonite's review is in honor of Valentine's Day (and Simon Pegg's birthday!). I didn't realize this was a romantic comedy - I figured since it was starring Simon Pegg it was going to be raunchier. But I was pleasantly surprised. It's got a Nick Hornby flavor, told from the man-boy's point of view.

Dennis (Pegg) has always regretted leaving his pregnant girlfriend (Thandie Newton) at the altar five years earlier. He's a bit of a screw-up, working as a security guard, when his ex starts dating Whit (Hank Azaria). Azaria plays the nice guy/smarmy asshole well - and after a scene in the locker room, who knew he was so ripped?! Dennis decides that anything Whit can do, he can do better, and decides to run a marathon (despite a pack-a-day habit and a three-week deadline). Typical training montages and hilarity ensue, with a heartwarming, if predictable, ending.

In Bruges: Robyn's Response

(Todd's review here)

4 Stars

I was in love with Colin Farrell when I was younger. Three friends and I even formed the CFFC: Colin Farrell Fan Club. As I grew older and wiser, I realized that Colin is a hit-or-miss actor, with mostly misses (Miami Vice, Alexander, and The New World, just to name a few). But there are a handful of movies where he really shines: Tigerland (one of my few 5 star movies), Phone Booth, and In Bruges.

In Bruges started off slow for me, and I was just starting to lose interest when things started picking up. I originally thought this was going to be another fast-paced British crime story, but it's grittier and more realistic than that. It has it's violence and dark humor; it's got layers. I loved the interaction between Colin Farrell (Ray) and Brendan Gleeson (Ken). And while Farrell is good, Gleeson is the one who really carries the movie. Ray has baggage, but Ken is helping him shoulder it.

The ending was great, and not what I was expecting. I love it when that happens.

Amelie

Amelie

"Amélie is looking for love, and perhaps for the meaning of life in general. We see her grow up in an original if slightly dysfunctional family. Now a waitress in central Paris, she interacts curiously with her neighbors and customers, as well as a mysterious Photomaton-image collector and one of his even more mysterious photo subjects. Little by little, Amélie realizes that the way to happiness (and yet more subtle humor) requires her to take her own initiative and reach out to others."

4.5 Stars

If I had to describe this movie in two words, it would be “Wonderfully Weird” because that pretty much sums it up. I haven’t seen a movie make so much out of just the simple pleasures of life in a long time. The director really does a great job of seamlessly intertwining the simplicity of the real world to the fantasy world that Amelie has created in her head. But I think one of the best things about the movie is that it doesn’t take the daydream aspect too far. True, there are some strange fantasy sequences here or there, but they don’t overpower the story SO much that you forget what the film is really all about . . . taking chances.

Like many of us, Amelie watches television, movies, and most importantly the lives of other people. She becomes very interested in how people react to situations and, in turn, each other. She maintains a childlike curiosity of the human condition and how it perpetually defies predictability. Amelie also take on a personal mission to better the lives of those around her through both direct and indirect contact. But, as the movie goes on, we start to realize how sad she may really be inside. While she is always surrounded by people, she never truly seems to be connected to any of them. When it comes to relationships she really plays the role of observer more than participant.

This longing for contact manifests itself through the games she plays with a man whose scrapbook she has found. She is in love with him (or at least the idea of him) and decides to engage in a playfully romantic game to learn more about him and hopefully bring herself closer to actually making a true human connection. She tries to convince herself that she is being brave and taking risks that other people wouldn’t dare take, but she is really just fooling herself. I say that because when it finally comes time for the wild goose chase to meet its end, she balks. She hasn’t built up the courage to finally put herself out there and, just like the metaphorical “girl with the glass of water” that her shut-in neighbor struggles to paint, she acts cowardly.

I don’t blame her, though. The reason she acts cowardly is the same reason that most of us might act the same way, because we don’t want to be let down. While the lives of the people around her really shouldn’t be described as sad, they are (for lack of a better word) real. They aren’t like the fantasies she has. The lives are real and are subject to all the disappointments and heart breaks that are a part of life. And that is what scares her most, that when the bubble bursts, will what is left be enough? Luckily her shut-in neighbor gives one final piece of advice and makes her realize that if her heart is never subject to BOTH the joy and pain of love, then it will become just as dry and brittle as his old body.

Now, this movie is visually dazzling and the music does a lot to support the fantasyland motif, but I take something different away from the film. For me, it makes you feel good about believing in the hope of true love. Now, that’s not to say that Amelie necessarily found it. The movie ends where most romantic films do, with a picturesque montage of the happy couple. And you really hope that they ended up staying together for a long time and had a great life, but there is no way to be sure of that. Then again, that’s life and no one can ever really know. That’s why I think this film is saying that it is important to continue to have that hope. Things may not always end up the way we dreamed or planned, but if we continue to put ourselves out there, then hopefully we will eventually get what we need.


Robyn's Response
5 Stars

I love this movie. This movie provides everything the movie-going experience should: visually and musically beautiful, with a unique storytelling style and characters you can't help but fall in love with. Todd said it best when he wrote that this movie does so much with the simple pleasures in life.

In Bruges

In Bruges

"The Irish hit-men Ken and Ray are sent by the Londoner mobster Harry Waters to the medieval Belgium city of Bruges in Christmas after an awry job in a London church. Ray bungles it. While Ken enjoys the historic city, Ray feels completely bored and misses his home. Ray meets the small time drug-dealer and crook Chloë, who sells drug to the cast and crew of a movie that is filmed in Bruges, and has an incident with a Canadian tourist and later with Chloë's boyfriend. Meanwhile Harry, who has an stringent code of principles, gives Ken special orders."

4 Stars

I completely admit that I may be biased because I was actually in Bruges about a month ago, but I really like this movie. It is definitely one of those weird-in-a-good-way films. Colin Farrell plays a wet behind the ears hit man under the tutelage of Brendan McCann. The movie opens interestingly enough with them engaged in witty banter that you really have to pay attention to. Not only is the writing smart, but both actors’ accents are so thick that you sometimes wonder if they’re talking gibberish just to see if you’re paying attention. The mentor/mentee relationship is evident and amusing, especially since Ken is absolutely enamored to be in the “fairy tale” like Bruges while Ray is bored out of his mind and can’t wait to get back to the much faster pace of London.

Unfortunately, Ray can’t go back to London because he has committed a terrible mistake. In his first job as a hit man he was sent to assassinate a priest, which he did. What he didn’t plan on was one of his stray bullets killing a nearby 8 year old boy who was getting ready to take confession. This clearly haunts Ray throughout the movie. Even with the heavy subject matter of the movie it does a good job of keeping a humorous attitude that doesn’t let the inhumanity involved in the men’s work overshadow the entire movie. Plus, I don’t think I have heard the name of a movie be actually spoken in that movie more in my life.

There is also an intriguing “code of the hit man” that is explored. Even though their profession would cause a knee jerk reaction of disgust because they take human lives for a living, Ken and Ray bring an aspect of humanity to it. They justify it to themselves by saying that they have only killed bad men or only killed in self defense. And they have a strict code about when and where they kill. In essence, they treat it like an actual job and try not to let it consume them.

Chloe (Clémence Poésy) is another bright spot in the film. I really can’t put my finger on it, but there is something incredibly sexy about her. At first glance she’s not drop dead gorgeous, but something about her personality just draws you in. Plus, she has one of the coolest/sexiest moments that I have seen in a long time. When Ken initially asks her out to dinner she just laughs and walks away, leaving us to believe that she is blowing him off. But after she gets about 20 feet away she drops a card with her phone number over her shoulder without even glancing back or breaking stride. I don’t know how to explain it, but watch the scene and tell me you don’t have the same reaction that Colin Farrell does.

If you still aren’t convinced to rent this movie, then I have three words for you: Midgets, Hookers, and Cocaine. If that doesn’t get your Spidey Sense tingling, nothing will. Now, I will admit that the ending fell a little flat for me. There is a metaphor involving some miscommunication that just feels forced. And, I don’t think I’m giving anything away, the movie ends on sort of a cliff hanger. While I think the last scene is executed very well, I don’t like the fact that a movie ends on a cliff hanger. You can do that with a TV show or a movie where a sequel is inevitable, but rarely can you get away with that in a standalone movie.

The Puffy Chair

The Puffy Chair

"Josh and Emily are in a relationship, but he can be inattentive and unromantic and she can shift her focus from small things to emotional issues in a moment. He invites her to drive from New York City to somewhere in Virginia to pick up a chair that he's bought on eBay for his father's birthday. On the way, he stops at his brother Rhett's, outside Philly, and invites him along. Josh tries to save money at a motel, has to negotiate with the seller of the chair and with an upholsterer, and faces tough questions from Emily. He calls her "Dude," he's moody, and it looks as if the relationship will end soon. Is there more than meets the eye here? How do people decide?"

1 Star

I wanted to like this movie SO much, I really did. It had a couple of the same actors of my new favorite TV show “The League”. It is also considered part of the new mumblecore movement which is predicated on the idea of filmmakers shying away from big studios and making the films they want to make, hopefully without compromise. No big studio, though, means no big money so you have entire productions being made for less than $5,000. All I can say it if you’re going to rely that heavily on the story because you can’t hide dazzle with amazing shots and special effects, then you better have a hell of a story or be able to write some amazing dialogue. Unfortunately this movie had neither.

Kevin Smith actually is the litmus test for this genre. He made his signature film “Clerks” for less than $5,000. The difference was that Smith is pretty damn good with dialogue and he made sure his actors stuck to the script. The Duplass brothers admitted that the story line was planned, but much of the dialogue was improvised. This really doesn’t work for a drama. Once in a while we see great comedy movies with a large degree of improvisation, but it’s just hard to create the same magic with drama.

The movie tried to be more than it actually was. It tried to come off as an in depth exploration of the relationships between fathers, sons, and girlfriends. Unfortunately, none of these attempts are developed enough to really be sustainable. The blatant attempts at humor feels forced and the characters are hard to get attached to. Josh’s brother (Rhett Wilkins) is the stereotypical detached stoner that is fun for 15 minutes, but makes you want to punch him in the temple after that. Josh’s girlfriend (played by Mark Duplass' real life wife Katie Aselton) finely dances that line between crazy/psycho/bitch and annoying as hell. And Josh (Mark Duplass) himself is just a lazy unfocused sack of shit who (and I don’t know why this bothered me so much) kept calling his girlfriend "dude".

I have to respect what young filmmakers are trying to do, but it also makes you appreciate the diamonds in the rough that are able to rise to the top and garner the appropriate attention. This movie ends very abruptly and leaves you scratching your head. Unfortunately, instead of leaving the viewer wanting more I found myself flipping to the other channel without much hesitation.

Defiance

Defiance

"On the run and hiding in the deep forests of the then German occupied Poland and Belorussia (World War II), the three Bielski brothers find the impossible task of foraging for food and weapons for their survival. They live, not only with the fear of discovery, contending with neighboring Soviet partisans and knowing whom to trust but also take the responsibility of looking after a large mass of fleeing Polish Jews from the German war machine. Women, men, children, the elderly and the young alike are all hiding in makeshift homes in the dark, cold and unforgiving forests in the darkest times of German occupied Eastern Europe."

4.5 Stars

This is what a film should be. From top to bottom, this is one of the best film’s I have seen in a long time. There are so many layers and aspects to the story that come together beautifully.

It has sort of a Lord of the Flies feel to it, except this story is actually true and not about children. It could almost be a study in sociological behavior. What happens when everything is taken away from you by an evil adversary? How far would you go to survive? Would the situation actually arise where it might be necessary to sacrifice your own humanity to save the lives of others? These questions and many more just scratch the surface of the moral dilemma that permeates through the plot of Defiance.

I really felt like this could have been a novel because there were so many different story lines. The most obvious was the nature of humanity and its perseverance in the form of a community. These were real people and no one was perfect. Mistakes were made by everyone even Tavia (Daniel Craig). So many times in movies we are used to seeing the infallible leader who may have a slight crisis of confidence, but conveniently enough is able to overcome it just before his defining moment. That isn’t really the case here. Tavia actually falters in several of his key moments and falters BIG, but his brothers are able to pick up the slack when it’s needed and the group pushes on, the group does the only thing it can do, it survives.
I think there are an endless number of topics that can be debated on what occurred in these majestic woods. Just how far do people need to go in order to survive when they are being persecuted by a tormenter that has absolutely no regard for their life? Is that even a valid question? Should the immediate response be that there is no limit? As sophisticated as we may like to think we have become as a society, we all have basic animal instincts for survival and that may be one of the few times that our true characters are exposed. At one point, Tuvia shoots and kills a man in front of the group because he was conspiring against him. First off, the situation is much more complicated than it sounds so you have to see the movie. But in this case I think the military state he had created in this community was necessary. Any faction or flicker of fracture within the leadership may have had devastating effects on the morale of the group and, in turn, their future. And it’s easy for us to debate the fact now, when we are so far removed from it. Truth is, these people stared into the face of death everyday and had only one choice, to lower their heads at death and move forward.

Another intriguing aspect was that of the Baglia brothers and their family dynamic. They were brothers in every sense of the word, but had plenty of both similar and conflicting ideologies. Tuvia was more concerned about maintaining a sense of humanity while Zus wanted revenge (and rightfully so) for a slaughtered wife and daughter. But in the end, their mutual respect for one another led them in different paths, but helped them to learn crucial lessons.

The character study in this movie was just amazing. There wasn’t enough time to delve into the complexity that was these people lives and emotions. One of the first things to be wiped away was social status, they were no longer poor or rich, educated or not, spiritual or apathetic, they were just people who came together in an effort to survive. And no one, to me, was predictable. They were so human. Yes, as in real life, you can tell when certain people will make particular choices over others, but that wasn’t always the case here. I couldn’t fit any particular character into a box and stick a label on them because it was too hard. Just when you thought you had a character pegged, they would do or say something that just left your head spinning. You start to think about what you may have done, but I think that’s impossible. Seeing what these people lived through is so harrowing that I don’t think anyone could walk a mile in their shoes.

The movie hit all the aspects of basic human nature like food, shelter, community, and love. But one area that I thought wasn’t touched on enough was sex. Now before you think I just wanted to be a voyeuristic horn dog, hear me out. It is actually touched on (ever so slightly) in the movie a couple of times, but it is never really explored. Pregnancies were forbidden in the group. Now, that may sound harsh, but it was necessary because they could not accommodate a child in their surroundings. But some of the undertones hinted that they were having sex. And they HAD to be. They were in the forest for 3 years and it’s only human nature to want to act on sexual desires, especially when your existence seems to be getting continually more primal. On character does mention briefly that “She knows what it expected of the women.” But that is all that is said. I honestly think the movie would have been a little more well rounded if the physical relationship between the men and women was explored a little more. Even the emotional side was only touched on enough to satisfy a need for the audience to have hope.

Anyway, by the length of my review so far, I bet you can tell that I could probably go on and on about this because there is so much to discuss, but I will spare you and let you decide for yourself. In closing I will touch on the only real objections I had to the movie, and there weren’t many. Some critics have come out saying that some of the details were left out concerning the possible brutality that the Briglias implemented to raid from the local farms. I don’t think it’s that big a deal, though. This wasn’t a documentary; it was a movie with the purpose of telling a story and, in that, I think they fully succeeded. The final battle scene did feel a little forced a couple times and a little predictable, but that happens. By far the rest of the movie does not feel formulaic and I think that is what is so refreshing.

The Ugly Truth

The Ugly Truth

"In Sacramento, Abby Richter produces a morning news show that's about to be canceled. To boost ratings, her boss hires Mike Chadway, a local cable call-in host who promotes the ugly truth: sex is the only glue in a relationship, men can't change, and they only respond to women's looks. Mike offends Abby's sensibility: she has a checklist about the perfect man, and she's found him in her new neighbor, Colin, a hunky doctor. Mike offers to help her reel in Colin if she'll work with Mike on the show; she accepts the deal, ratings go up, and, with Mike's help, so does Colin's interest in her. Craig Ferguson, a hot air balloon, and the ugly truth help this take on "Cyrano" play out."

3 Stars

I have to be honest; I really struggled over renting this movie. Not because it is a chick flick, I have not made it any secret that they are one of my guilty pleasures. The reason that I wasn’t sure if I wanted to rent it was because Katherine Heigel was in it. I find her to be one of the most irritating women in the film business today and I really can’t stand her opinions. She gets paid to act and look pretty, and I could really care less about her opinion on politics or moral dilemmas. None the less, she seems more than happy to spout her moronic dribble even when no one is asking her any questions. But, I decided to be fair. Just because I hope she chokes on her own self satisfaction doesn’t mean that I should write her off as an actress. I’m glad I did decide to think about it because I realized I actually enjoy her as an actress.

Granted, I have a very limited exposure to her “body of work”. I think I have only seen about 3 episodes of Grey’s Anatomy and I really wasn’t paying attention because I was more concerned with getting in the pants of the she-devil who was making me watch the show instead of Sunday Night Football . . . but I digress. I have seen her in The Ringer in which she was pretty good, and Knocked Up in which I thought she was great. I’m sorry but the point in the movie when she is trying to help Seth Rogen’s website by watching pornos made her one of the coolest movie girlfriends ever. I’m serious. Just hearing her yell, “2 minutes in, BOOBS AND BUSH! BOOBS AND BUSH!” almost brought a prideful tear to my eye.

With all of that, I decided to watch The Ugly Truth. The male lead played by Gerard Butler gave me less pause about renting the movie. I don’t care how much this makes me sound like a 13 year old boy, but 300 was one of the most badass movies to come out in my lifetime. King Leonidas can be in damn near any movie and I will be happy to pay my $8.50! Well, except for P.S. I Love you, but that is just because Hillary Swank should never be the lead in a romantic comedy because she looks like a man. So much so that she actually won an academy award for playing one because the role didn’t require that much acting. But again, I am getting off topic.

I wouldn’t put The Ugly Truth up in the realm of Knocked Up or The 40 Year Old Virgin, but it’s pretty damn funny none the less. The film gives a pretty good representation of modern day relationships and the hypocrisies that are associated with them. Heigl even impressed me so much that I would almost compare her slapstick comedic prowess to that of Lucille Ball. In one particular scene she accidently goes to a formal dinner with a pair of remote controlled vibrating panties on. I don’t care how sophisticated you think you are, I challenge anyone to watch that scene and not laugh til you cry. And, as much as I dislike her as a person, she really is good looking. Shockingly enough, it turns out guys are into that kind of thing because we’re shallow and that might be just enough to get us to go see a movie. The end is predictable, but I don’t think anyone who rents this was expecting Citizen Kane. All that matters is that the writing is pretty sharp and the social commentary is relatively fresh. All of that adds up to a movie worth seeing.

Slackers

No, not Slackers the movie. But us, your friendly movie reviewers. Todd at least has kind of an excuse - he recently moved and doesn't have his internet hooked up yet. But me? I guess I've just been lazy.

To make up for it, here are some rapid-fire reviews:

Angus, Thongs, and Perfect Snogging

'The story of a 14-year-old girl who keeps a diary about the ups and downs of being a teenager, including the things she learns about kissing.'

1 star

Just because a movie is targeted towards 14-year-old girls doesn't mean it will suck (see Mean Girls). This is not one of those exceptions. The characters are one note, and the main actress makes the same face for every emotion: the patented Joey Tribbiani 'Who farted?' face (crinkled lip and raised eyebrow). I finished the movie, but I fast-forwarded more than once.


American Teen

'A documentary on seniors at a high school in a small Indiana town and their various cliques.'

3 stars

A lot has been said about this movie, about how the storylines were contrived and edited to make certain outcomes happen. I didn't mind, since the stories were entertaining. I got surprisingly invested in the 'characters'. Worth watching if you like documentaries and/or movies about teenagers.  




(500) Days of Summer

'An offbeat romantic comedy about a woman who doesn't believe true love exists, and the young man who falls for her.'

2 stars

This movie tries too hard. The bones of the story are interesting, and the two leads are good, but the movies drowns in cutesy indie gimmicks. These include but are not limited to: an omniscient narrator who speaks directly to the audience; a timeline shown out of order (jumping from Day 8 to Day 371 to Day 94); a group musical number to a popular 80s tune; a split-screen alternate reality bit; and a black-and-white foreign film fantasy. Puh-lease.



Extract

 'Joel, the owner of an Extract plant, tries to contend with myriad personal and professional problems, such as his potentially unfaithful wife and employees who want to take advantage of him.'

3 stars

This is the 'follow up' to Mike Judge's cult hit Office Space, and it's got similar dry and juvenile humor. I loved Jason Bateman and Kristen Wiig, but Ben Affleck as Bateman's best friend seemed like stunt-casting, and I couldn't get past his weird hair and beard. If you clear your mind of expectations, the movie is fine and enjoyable.


Boogie Nights

'The story of a young man's adventures in the Californian pornography industry of the 1970s and 1980s.'

1 star

How this movie got to have cult status when it is one of the most depressing things I have ever seen, I have no idea. Just fast-forward to the end if you want to see Mark Wahlberg's (fake) penis.