The Rumors Are True... Avoid The Book of Eli

Simply put, The Book of Eli is just not very good. The general idea of the movie actually lends itself to the possibility of a pretty cool film. It tells the story of a man (Denzel Washington's Eli) traveling west through post-acopalyptic America, and he carries with him the last Bible in existence. The world has been scorched by the sun due to holes in our atmosphere. Water is scarce, and simple things like chap stick and wet naps are incredibly valuable. As the man travels, he encounters roaming bands of thugs but is able to easily dispatch them because he's basically the baddest mother still living. He eventually comes across a makeshift town (led by Gary Oldman's Carnegie) where he ends up fighting with the locals to protect his Bible and picks up a girl (Mila Kunis) to journey with him and run from the rest of the locals who will stop at nothing to get the book.

You might hear that and think, "Hey. That could be a pretty cool movie." I did (even though most critics had bashed it). And I guess a couple of the fight scenes were pretty cool. But, other than that, the final product is very flawed in many areas. I won't go into a lengthy review of this one because there really isn't that much to say. To start with, the Hughes brothers (directors of the movie) really need to take their foot off the slow-motion-intro-gas-pedal. Within about ten to fifteen minutes of the movie, Denzel had already made about four or five slow motion entrances. And they continued to the point where it actually became annoying. The dialogue was pretty dull and lacked any real creativity or wit. I can actually only think of one conversation in the entire movie (between Denzel and a shopkeeper pretty early on in the film) that made me chuckle or smile at all.

Gary Oldman, an actor I generally like, was not a very good villain. One of the few people alive who can still read, his obsession with obtaining the Bible to help his people seemed very odd considering his character basically stood for everything the Bible preaches against. Mila Kunis was just alright. And Denzel was only average at best. Nobody in the movie really stood out as giving a great performance. You won't find yourself invested in any of the characters. And, by the end, the movie feels as if it has dragged on for about fifteen or twenty minutes too long. The ending, by the way, has a pretty hilariously absurd twist to it. You may find it shocking and cool, but you'll probably just think it's stupid.

Bottom line: I've definitely seen worse movies, but I still can't recommend that anyone go see this. (D+)

Here's the trailer:

Youth In Revolt (Plus bip-bip. Turns 100)

Before we get to the review, bip-bip. would like to thank its readers for continuing to visit (and hopefully read) our little blog over the past few months. This post actually marks the blog's 100th, and, while that is a relatively small number in the world of blogging, we're still pretty excited about hitting the milestone and about the blog's progress to this point. Hopefully this is just the beginning. Now on to more important matters...

Youth in Revolt was much better than I expected it to be. I really didn't have high expectations. I didn't think director Miguel Arteta's The Good Girl was very good, and I've never seen any of his other work. I also had doubts that Michael Cera would be able to carry a movie on his own. Even though I can't really fault those who don't like him because he basically plays the same shy-and-insecure-yet-awkwardly-charming-and-secretly-cool character in everything he does, I still really like Cera. But he's always been part of a leading duo (i.e., with Jonah Hill in Superbad and with Jack Black in Year One) instead of the sole leading man.

But I was wrong. Michael Cera was more than capable of carrying the movie. Maybe it's because there was more than one of him (the movie's premise revolves around him creating an alter ego, Francois) or maybe it's because he had such a great supporting cast helping him out. But he definitely delivered. He plays 16-year-old Nick Twisp, an outcast and a virgin. When Nick goes with his mother (Jean Smart) and her boyfriend (Zach Galifianakis) on a trip to her boyfriend's "lake cabin" (it is actually just a trailer in a trailer park by the lake), he meets and instantly falls in love with Sheeni Saunders (Portia Doubleday), a local girl whose interests and personality would seem likely to maker her an outcast as well but who has somehow managed to become popular and win the heart of the most popular guy in school. But after they get to know each other, Nick is able to steal Sheeni's heart as well. And, although they've only known each other for a week when Nick has to go back home with his mom, they decide they must be together again.

To facilitate their reunion, the two hatch a plan whereby Sheeni will find a way to get Nick's dad (Steve Buscemi) a job close to her home. In the meantime, Nick will misbehave as much as possible to get himself thrown out of his mom's home and sent to live with his dad. We're not talking about simply misbehaving at home -- Nick, by creating an the alternate personality Francois that I mentioned earlier, does some pretty outrageous stuff. And, although Nick ends up getting sent to live with his father, things don't end up going exactly as planned. Nick/Francois's actions end up making him a wanted criminal, and things really get out of hand.

As I said earlier, Cera really delivers. His early narration in the movie sets the tone, and he continues to constantly provide laughs throughout the whole film. The supporting cast was also great -- especially Fred Willard as Nick's weird immigrant-smuggling neighbor Mr. Ferguson and Adhir Kalyan as Vijay Joshi, a friend of Nick's from school who tags along with Nick on a pretty crazy adventure to go see Sheeni and her "loose" friend Taggarty (Rooney Mara). There is one scene in particular, where the three characters (Cera, Willard, and Kalyan) are all together, that is sure to be a crowd pleaser. Of course, a lot of the credit belongs to the writing. Even though the movie dealt with subjects audiences have seen time and again (teen wants to lose virgnity, teen rebelling against parents, etc.), it somehow manages to make its jokes seem very fresh and original. It made me want to check out the source material, C.D. Payne's novel of the same name. The soundtrack was also pretty good. There were a couple of scenes where the movie switched from real life to different styles of animation that I didn't really like or think were worth anyone's time. But other than that, I have no real complaints.

Bottom line: This was a solid comedy. Cera and his supporting cast were much better than I expected. Check it out. (B)

Here's the preview:

Sometimes A Book Is Just Meant To Be A Book...

Several months ago, I posted about The Road. It's an adaptation of a Cormac McCarthy (author of No Country For Old Men) novel, one of my favorite books of all-time. Needless to say, I was excited about the movie's release. It actually came out back in October through a limited release but only recently expanded its theater count. Its release was accompanied by very minimal fanfare and very mediocre ratings. But I still had faith. This was largely because the adaptation of McCarthy's No Country For Old Men (an inferior book to The Road in this blogger's opinion) was so good. But, as I found out, better books don't always make better movies. And some books are really just meant to be books.

The movie tells the story of a father (Viggo Mortenson) and his son (newcomer Kodi Smit-Mcphee) in post-apocalyptic America. The world has essentially turned to rubble. There are no more cities, no governments, no hope. Gangs of cannibals patrol the streets looking for some of the few remaining humans left alive to feast on. After being abandoned by their wife/mother (Charlize Theron), the father and son are heading for the southeastern coast. Along the way, they run into trouble (escaping the cannibalistic gangs, finding food, staying warm, etc.). And that's really all there is to it.

Now, in Cormac McCarthy's Pulitzer Prize winning novel, this makes for a fascinating tale. It's full of suspense, and as Bookforum said of the novel, "[it is] nearly impossible to put down; it is as if you must keep reading in order for the characters to stay alive." But when the book becomes a movie (and, to be fair, the movie is very accurate in adapting the novel to the big screen), much of the story's appeal is lost. Without McCarthy's words to guide us, we're left watching a pretty boring tale of a couple of characters that are underdeveloped and generally uninteresting. And events that were packed with suspense in the novel were very much lacking it in the film. The movie does have a few positives -- the wasteland that director John Hilcoat created is really well done, and Viggo does a pretty admirable job as the unnamed father. He's almost exactly what I imagine from the book. And Robert Duvall is also very good in a supporting role. But there really is just not enough good things about the film to warrant seeing this.

Bottom line: Even if you are a huge fan of the book, wait until you can get the DVD from Netflix. (C-)

For those still interested, here's the trailer:

What's In Your Backpack?

The much-hyped Up In The Air lives up to its billing and is worthy of its spot in its two-horse race against Avatar as the front-runner for the Best Picture Oscar (although I'd probably give it to Inglourious Basterds). Jason Reitman's movie is really the total package -- a great story, great writing, and some great performances. It's really quite funny -- the script has a good bit of one-liners and humorous events that had this blogger chuckling pretty often and smiling for much of the movie. But it's also very emotionally charged and not afraid to tackle difficult questions on life and the relationships that define it. Although not a particularly sad movie, there were a few scenes where people cried, and you'll find that you actually care about the fate of Ryan Bingham (George Clooney) and his friends and family by the end of it.

The movie tells the story of Ryan Bingham, a corporate downsizer that spends his life on the road. He has no real friends, no woman in his life, and his family barely knows him. When he's not firing people from random companies, he spends his days traveling around giving "inspirational" talks that are titled, "What's In Your Backpack?" The message is that we should try to keep the relationships of our lives (the things that would fill our metaphorical backpack) to a minimum so we don't have anything weighing us down and can stay on the move (to Ryan, moving is living).

He meets fellow traveler Alex (Vera Farmiga), and the two start a casual relationship that essentially consists of the two meeting whenever they are in the same city. But shortly thereafter, his company then decides to follow the advice of rising star Natalie Keener (Anna Kendrick) and start operating via webcams instead of in person (effectively grounding Bingham). But first, Bingham must take Keener along to show her the ropes. During their travels, Keener begins to question Bingham's lifestyle and ultimately gets to Bingham to reevaluate his life, culminating in him asking Alex to join him at his sister's wedding. I know this plot might sound like a corny love story between Bingham and Alex, but I assure you it's far from it. In fact, the movie is just as much about Bingham's relationship with Keener and to a lesser extent, his family.

As I previously mentioned, many of the parts were written specifically for the actors in the film. And it really shows. This movie is wonderfully cast. Clooney is terrific, Farmiga is perfect for her part, and smaller parts played by Danny McBride, Zach Galifianakis, and Jason Bateman are also very good. But, to me, the real star of this film was Anna Kendrick (if you've never heard of her, don't feel bad -- her big screen resume is pretty much Twilight and nothing else). She was absolutely fantastic. Despite being beautiful and humorously charming, Kendrick really shows her range by playing a fiery young businesswoman determined to prove she belongs but who is also a bit of a softie, dreaming about the perfect man and crying over failed relationships. She was far and away my favorite character of the movie and, in this blogger's opinion, should take home this year's Oscar for Best Supporting Actress (yes, even over Mo'nique's performance in Precious).

Bottom line: Believe the hype. This one is worthy of its praise. Go check it out. (A-)

Third Time's A Charm

I'm from a small town in South Carolina. Unless you go to a neighboring city, there is literally one movie theater for you to go to, and it only has 8 screens. Now I'm not complaining. In fact, I generally like going to smaller theaters. But trying to go to go see Sherlock Holmes was a bit of a pain over the Christmas holiday -- I ended up having to try the theater on three different occasions before I finally made a showing that wasn't sold out. Apparently, everyone else in town also wanted to go to the movies this weekend. This was, of course, good for Hollywood, but bad for me. But I digress. Back to the point of this post -- Sherlock Holmes (preview post here).

The movie itself was decent. The soundtrack was pretty cool, a sort of mix between Irish and Eastern Eurpoean music (I know that sounds weird, but it's the only way I know to describe it). And the set of London in 1891 was pretty masterfully done. Predictably, Robert Downey Jr. was very good as Sherlock Holmes. He was by far the funniest character in the movie, full of witty comebacks to much of the rest of the cast. But he wasn’t exactly what I expected. Despite his brilliance and superior fighting skills (there are a few scenes where Holmes plans out how he will engage an opponent in battle that are really pretty cool), Holmes was a drunken, disheveled mess for much of the film. And without the help of the more composed Watson (Jude Law), one can’t help but think that Holmes would not have done much, if any, criminal investigation. Watson, by the way, is very much Holmes’s equal (and arguably a better fighter) in the film. The two have a constant internal struggle concerning Watson’s engagement (and subsequent resignation from crime investigation) to the beautiful Mary Morstan (Kelly Reilly).

The dynamic duo is joined by Rachel McAdams’ Irene Adler, a cunning thief in her own right and Holmes’ love interest. McAdams’ Adler is really only an average character. She doesn’t add much to this movie (despite being nice to look at) as her character is really never given a chance to develop, and I hope her role gets expanded if any sequels are made. She is employed by Moriarty (who does not play much of a role in this film either, but his presence leaves the door open for sequels – he is Holmes’ chief rival in the book series) to assist Holmes in stopping the sinister Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong). Through the use of chemistry and other clever tricks, Lord Blackwood has convinced the world that he is the risen dead and has dark magical powers. It’s up to Holmes and company to stop Blackwood and expose him as a fraud. I won’t lie to you. Blackwood is one of the least intimidating villains of any superhero movie of recent memory (I suppose you may not consider Holmes a superhero, but he really is when you think about it).

Despite some pretty solid performances in the film (especially Downey, Jr.), I say that this was only a decent film because the plot itself was somewhat lacking. Most of the movie is just strange events happening that make Lord Blackwood seem supernatural and Holmes and Watson fighting various Blackwood henchmen. Then, Holmes spends about five minutes at the end of the film explaining to Lord Blackwood (and the audience) that he’s figured out how Blackwood has managed to pull off his tricks. It feels very much like watching a cartoon episode of Scooby-Doo and having Velma explain everything at the end. I know that Guy Ritchie fans might have expected just such an ending (consider the ending of Snatch, for example, where we learn that a “pikey” reaction is “quite a f**king thing”). But there is a notable difference between a twist ending and watching a film where you know that truths will ultimately be revealed, only to have them done so in a seemingly arbitrary fashion at the end of the film.

Bottom line: This was a decent movie anchored by some good acting. But it wasn't really a great one. Guy Ritchie's career definitely needed a blockbuster like this, and I think a sequel could be much better than the first. (B-).

Here's the preview:

Avatar: The Next Step in Filmmaking?

Probably later than most readers of this blog, I finally got around to seeing James Cameron's Avatar (you can find the preview post here) today at my hometown IMAX theater. The much anticipated, much publicized (I'm not sure how many fans of The Tonight Show are out there, but Ben Stiller actually went on and promoted the movie even though he was not a part of it in any way -- never seen anyone do that before) movie did not disappoint. I'm not ready to give it best picture or anything, but the special effects are pretty incredible, and the story itself is a pretty good one.

Simply put, Avatar is the most technologically advanced movie that you've ever seen. Aside from the fact that it's in entirely in 3-D (although, to be honest, there really weren't that many scenes in the movie where things were "coming out of the screen" like you'd expect) on special stereoscopic cameras that were specially designed for Cameron's vision, the computer generated characters were created via a brand new type of motion capture technology. I won't get bogged down in the details of how it works, but it essentially allowed Cameron to watch the digital creation of his film in real-time, as his actors were actually acting (as opposed to other motion capture technologies where the digital world are created after the actor's motions are captured). The end result is a fantastic computer-generated world (Pandora) that is full of awesomely imaginative vegetation, creatures, and the Na'vi (the natives of the land).

The story itself is also very well done. Markedly similar to the classic tales of Dances With Wolves and The Last Samurai (and, as one of my friends said after he saw it -- it's "basically FernGully on steroids"), the movie tells the story of Jack Skully (Sam Worthington), a crippled former marine chosen to help a mining company explore Pandora by entering the world remotely through the control of a genetically created Na'vi. Skully also secretly agrees to provide intel to Colonel Quaritich (Stephen Lang), the head of the company's security detail (basically an army), on how to defeat the Na'vi. But after spending time with the Na'vi and learning their ways, Skully finds that he feels he belongs more with them than the human race, siding with the natives he originally set out to destroy (just like Kevin Costner and Tom Cruise's characters did in their respective movies). I won't go in to further detail, but trust me that the plot is both simple enough for young children to enjoy and complex enough that any seasoned movie-goer will not be disappointed. This is, after all, a James Cameron production, and this blogger has always thought that he is a master of drawing in audiences of all ages and backgrounds.

I was honestly a little bit underwhelmed with the acting performances of most of the cast, but they weren't bad enough to really put a dent in the armor that the rest of the movie's positives have created. Giovanni Ribisi's Parker Selfridge (the "suit" from the mining company in charge of the project) is really just not believable in his role (despite the fact that I actually think Ribisi is a pretty good actor in general). Worthington, Sigourney Weaver (who plays head researcher and fellow lover of the Na'vi , Dr. Grace Augustine), and Michelle Rodriguez (who plays fighter pilot Trudy Chacon -- and whose work I've honestly never really appreciated) were all average at best. And Stephen Lang's Quaritich is a little bit cliched and doesn't really contribute much to the film. I actually thought the best work of the film came from Zoe Saldana (who we never actually see, but whose voice work was very well done) as the Na'vi princess and Skully love interest, Neytiri. She is very believable as a tribal princess who is both proud and passionate in her love of all living creatures.

But don't let me lead you to believe these are reasons not to go see this movie. Aside from Ribisi, I really wouldn't complain about any actor in the film. I'm only emphasizing the fact that no performance really jumped out at me as anything close to Oscar worthy. The movie is still an absolute spectacle that is definitely worth the two and a half hours (as well as the increased ticket costs for IMAX or 3-D) that you'll need to devote to it.

Bottom line: As expected, Cameron strikes again. Let's hope the movie is successful enough to warrant the two sequels that he has planned. (B+)

I won't insult you with a trailer -- if you had any contact with the world in the last month, you've seen it.

Keep The Boat Rockin'

Objectively, Pirate Radio is really not that great of a movie. There's really not that much to the plot. The characters aren't really developed all that well (probably because there are so many of them). The writing is average. It's probably a little too long. And no acting performance really jumped out at me (sure, Philip Seymour Hoffman was good in the movie, but I don't know if he was Philip-Seymour-Hoffman-good). But, subjectively, I was really glad I went. The movie is funny and entertaining, if nothing else. And I really think that anyone who loves rock music should see this thing.

The movie is loosely based on real life (I love that phrase by the way -- I feel like any movie can be "loosely" based on real life). Back in the 1960's, the British government controlled the radio airwaves and would rarely play any rock or pop (it's weird to think of bands that we consider classic rock today as pop bands back in their day, but that's what a lot of them were). To combat this, pirate radio stations were set up on boats off the coast of Britain (in international waters). One of these stations was Radio Rock (loosely based on Radio Caroline -- a station that still exists today).

Carl (played by relative unknown Tom Sturridge) is sent by his mother to join the crew on board Radio Rock after getting in a bit of trouble (his grandfather, played by the legendary Bill Nighy, is the manager of the station). His arrival leads to some new revelations among the crew and its past that make up a good chunk of the movie's plot. The rest concerns the struggle between the station and British government minister Dormandy who is played by Kenneth Branagh (anyone who has ever watched TNT on a Sunday afternoon probably knows him better as Dr. Loveless from Wild Wild West). But don't try and concern yourself with the plot too much. The best way to enjoy the movie is to sit back and laugh at the shenanigans of the various DJ's. I think my favorite was definitely Rhys Darby's (Murray from Flight of the Conchords) Angus. But Philip Seymour Hoffman's The Count and Nick Frost's (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz) Dave were also really good.

And, as any of these fictional DJ's would tell you, it's all about the music. The soundtrack is terrific and might be the best part of the movie (especially for fellow classic rock lovers). The song selection is great and really goes with the movie pretty seamlessly. It's loaded with great classics (I'm no expert, but I assume they're all 60's rocks songs) and can be found here. And the end of the movie (one of my favorite parts -- but not because it meant it was over) also shows a pretty cool montage of famous album covers (as proof that rock has survived despite the British government's best efforts).

Bottom line: This movie won't blow you away -- not by a longshot. But any fan of rock 'n' roll who wants to sit back and be entertained for a couple of hours will surely enjoy it. (B-)

Here's the preview:

(Mostly) Fantastic Mr. Fox

Anyone who read my preview post about Fantastic Mr. Fox knows that I'm a big fan of Wes Anderson. And I was pretty excited about the movie. And for good reason -- aside from Wes Anderson's direction, the movie had a lot going for it: the voice cast was great, it was done in very cool and underused stop animation style, and the movie had been getting great reviews (including a nearly unheard of 100% rating on rottentomatoes). But, much to my chagrin, despite having been released for two weeks, the movie was not playing anywhere near me (Charlotte, NC) until the last few days.

To say I was disappointed would be misleading. I liked the movie. I really did. I just didn't like it as much as I thought I would. It was definitely enjoyable, and there were many things about it that were vintage Anderson. Despite being an adaptation of a children's book, it was certainly geared towards adults. It was full of the dark, humorous, and awkward one liners we've come to love from Anderson. I think my favorite character of the movie was actually Jason Schwartzman's "Ash," Mr. Fox's insecure son who is obsessed with proving himself to his father as being an athlete (the sport they play in the movie, called "whackbat," is pretty hilarious). His approval-seeking (and yet rebellious at the same time) attitude leads to some pretty funny moments. And George Clooney's "Mr. Fox" also had some pretty funny lines as well.

The stop animation was very well done and made me realize that more movies should be done this way. As I watched, I thought about how long it must take to produce a stop animation film -- according to WikiAnswers, it probably takes about 1 to 2 hours for every 30 seconds of animating; if you extrapolate that out to 90 minutes of movie, you're looking at about 180 to 360 hours. Keep in mind that this is only to shoot the movie and doesn't factor in all the prep time it takes to actually create the scenes. It's no small time commitment. And the voice work (especially Jason Schwartzman and Michael Gambon as "Mr. Bean") was also pretty good. Most of the movie was George Clooney's "Mr. Fox" talking, but his voice fit the part well. And Streep sounded like a natural as the supportive, yet frustrated, "Mrs. Fox."

But there seemed to be certain things that were lost in translation -- things that I would've appreciated and enjoyed much more if the movie had real people in it. I think it made various parts less funny than they otherwise could have been if real actors were on screen (i.e., I would've laughed much more if Bill Murray the man was on screen as opposed to Bill Murray the badger). It's really not anyone's fault -- pretty much all animated (especially stop animation) movies suffer from a similar fate. It's hard to convey certain facial expressions through animated characters, and, for the most part, real people are just funnier than animated characters (in this blogger's opinion anyway). Don't get me wrong -- I completely understand that this movie needed to be animated (it is, after all, about a group of talking animals), and, truthfully, many of the movie's strengths stem from the fact that it was. But I'm still much more of a fan of "real life" Wes Anderson movies. And I probably always will be.

Bottom line: Wes Anderson loyalists might be slightly disappointed with the film, but it is still a quality piece of work with many things you'd typically expect from him. The stop animation is pretty cool, and I'd recommend it to moviegoers of all ages. (B)

Here's the trailer:

Lost Treasures: A Guide To Recognizing Your Saints

As I scrolled through the "Watch Instantly" feature on my Netflix account, I stumbled across a 2006 film that I had never heard of, A Guide To Recognizing Your Saints. I noticed that it starred Robert Downey Jr. (just before his big breakout) so I decided to give it a shot. And I'm glad I did. It turns out the movie is actually pretty good. It's just that nobody has heard of it (well, nobody except the higher-ups at Sundance who gave it the Director's Award and Special Jury Prize in 2006). The film is a well-paced 100 minutes full of terrific acting (actually done by some very famous actors that would make for a huge movie if it was coming out today) and scenes of life in Queens, NY during the 1980's that seemed very genuine, but often heartbreaking and terrible at the same time.

I won't go into the details of the plot too much because, honestly, there isn't a lot to it. The movie is essentially a myriad of flashbacks from the real life of Dito Montiel (played in present day by Robert Downey Jr. and played in the past by Transformers star Shia Labeouf), and the events that led up to him leaving his hometown behind on a bus to California. Dito's day-to-day basically consists of hanging out with his friends, especially his best friend Antonio (basically the thug of the group; played really well by an actor I generally don't care for -- G.I. Joe and Fighting's Channing Tatum), during the day and getting into minor trouble here and there. They often spend time at Dito's house, talking to his father (played by Chaz Plaminteri from The Usual Suspects) and mother (played by Dianne West). And their nights are generally filled hanging out with a group of neighborhood girls, including Dito's high school girlfriend, Laurie (played in present day by Rosario Dawsome and in the past by relative unknown Melonie Diaz).

But, as the film progresses, tragedy strikes in various ways, including a conflict with group of neighborhood grafiti artists that really escalates in large part to Antonio. As things get worse and Dito's relationship with outsider Mike O'Shea (Martin Compston) begins to influence his thinking, Dito realizes he wants out of New York and wants to escape his troubles to flee to California. It is there that he becomes a famous writer before finally returning home 15 years later.

As I said before, the movie honestly doesn't have a great or powerful plot. It really is just a series of memories from Dito's life. But most of the scenes are compelling in their own way, and you aren't left feeling shortchanged at all. On top of that, the acting is really very good. Despite my opinion that he is usually not a very good actor, Channing Tatum may have had the best performance of the movie. And Labeouf does an admirable job as well.

The movie also used a couple of unique effects that I really liked. For one, it highlighted important dialogue between Dito and Mike as well as Dito and his father by silencing out all background noises so you only heard the two talking. That may not be the best way to describe it, but you'll see what I'm talking about if you ever see it. Another unique thing that the movie did was have its characters periodically look into the camera and say simple things that really define their characters (for example, Antonio looks into the camera and says, "I'm Antonio. I'm a piece of shit, and everyone knows it"), and, for reasons I can't explain, these seemed to resonate with me as I watched.

Bottom line: It's hard for me to understand why a movie packed with so many stars and so well received by critics flew under the radar like this one did. It's definitely worth checking out. (B)

Here's the preview:

Judd Apatow's Attempt at Dramatic Comedy

Judd Apatow's Funny People comes out on DVD today and, despite the film's title, is actually just as much of a drama as it is a comedy. The movie isn't just fun and games and that wonderful brand of raunchy comedy that we've come to expect (and love) from Apatow. Instead, it tries to be a lot more and actually enjoys modest success for its efforts.

It tells the story of superstar comedian George Simmons (Adam Sandler, Apatow's real life ex-roommate) who is somewhat of a self-important ass. Simmons is diagnosed with leukemia and given a very small chance to live. Facing this news, Simmons decides he wants to spend his remaining days doing stand-up, his first love. And he hires struggling comedian Ira Wright (Seth Rogen) to help him write jokes for his act and basically work as his personal assistant. As the two get closer, Ira convinces George to tell others about his illness.

George contacts his ex-wife Laura (played by Apatow's real life wife, Leslie Mann) who is now married with two daughters. She tells George that she misses him and is unhappy with her marriage. Eventually, George overcomes his illness. And events transpire that force Laura to really make a decision between George and her husband (played by Eric Bana). I won't ruin the rest of the movie for anyone, but, if you can't tell so far, the plot is much more developed and serious than your average Apatow film. Dealing with life threatening illnesses and lost loves, the film is as much a coming-of-age tale about both Ira and George as it is anything else. Although not as emotionally compelling as a really good drama, I still found myself actually caring what happened to our characters (really one of the key ways that I judge whether a drama is good or not).

For as much as I've talked about the drama in this movie, there is still some comedy in it. The stand-up bits (by the way, the stars of the movie actually traveled across the country doing live stand-up at various comedy spots for the footage in the movie) are moderately funny, but they actually would've been much funnier if the film had included more of the work of Aziz Ansari (you might know him from Scrubs or Parks & Recreation) whose work as "Raaaaaandy" has actually developed somewhat of a cult following. You can check out some of his stuff that was left out here. Jonah Hill (Superbad, Knocked Up) and Jason Schwartzman are both somewhat funny in supporting roles. And I'm also really starting to fall in love with Apatow's newest stars, his daughters Maude and Iris (also the daughters from Knocked Up). They're actually really funny. But, all in all, the comedy is somewhat lacking compared to Apatow's other films. And if you have no interest in anything but laughing, you will probably be disappointed. There is just too much time devoted to more serious matters.

Bottom Line: The movie is sort of a combination of an average comedy and an average drama. But for whatever reason, I actually thought it was pretty decent. Be warned that it is rather long, but I think it's definitely worth a watch. But maybe not a buy. (B-)

Here's the preview:

Other movies coming out on DVD:

Angels & Demons -- This was a very average thriller that had some pretty entertaining parts but seemed relatively uninspired. Unless you have to own it because of the book, I wouldn't bother. (C)

Live Long and Prosper (In an Alternate Reality...)

It's Tuesday so we've got another fresh batch of DVD's coming out. This week is highlighted by Star Trek. I've got to admit from the start -- I don't know anything about Star Trek culture. I've never once watched an old episode or movie. I have no clue who any of these characters are based off of or what the original actors who played them were like. But, nonetheless, I found the movie to be relatively entertaining.

The movie itself is essentially set up to provide a springboard for future films while giving audiences an explanation of why the characters are different. The plot is basically this: Nero (played by Eric Bana) travels back in time to destroy the world and the crew of the USS Enterprise before they become the well oiled machine they are in the old television series. To prevent him from succeeding, the Spock from the television series (Leonard Nimoy) travels back in time to warn his future friends (as well as himself). Captain Kirk (Chris Pine), the new Spock (Heroes' Zachary Quinto), and the rest of the crew finally get it together to save the day.

I know that the plot sounds sort of absurd, but I actually think it was sort of a genius way to provide an avenue for new movies to be made without erasing what happened in the television series. Now, the new guys are just living in alternate reality, forever changed by Nero's time travel. Then again, maybe I'm just a gigantic nerd, and we should all really just make fun of J.J. Abrams' dumb movie. Who knows? Either way, if you can embrace the plot for what it is and watch with an open mind, you'll probably find you enjoy the movie. The new members are pretty well cast. The writing is above average. And the special effects are top notch.

Bottom line: It's not as good as critics thought. But it's really entertaining and definitely worth seeing, if not owning, regardless of your Star Trek knowledge. (B)

Here's the trailer:

Other movies coming out on DVD:

Bruno -- It has its moments, but it's greatly inferior to Borat. (B-)

My Sister's Keeper --- This was just a horrible piece of film making, full of terrible dialogue and entirely too many three minute scenes set to some sad song to try and elicit tears from middle-aged women. It's one of the worst book adaptations I've ever seen. (D-)

Up, Up, Up and Away

Disney Pixar's Up comes out on DVD today. And if you're going out to buy a new release, I suggest you make this one your choice. I know, I know. It's an animated film, and you may usually avoid these. But Up is not your average animated film. You don't have to believe me. I'm not the only one. The movie has a 98% rating on the well respected critic database Rotten Tomatoes -- the highest ranking for any wide release movie of 2009.

Directed by Pete Docter (Monsters, Inc.), the movie tells the story of Carl Fredricksen, voiced by the legendary Ed Asner, a grumpy old man who decides to honor the memory of his dead wife by moving their home to a place known as Paradise Falls. To accomplish the feat, he ties about a million helium balloons to his house that lift it up off the ground (hence the name Up). A local boy, Russell, accidentally gets dragged along with Carl and his house. The two end up on quite an unusual adventure -- full of massive exotic birds, talking dogs, and even Carl's lifelong hero, famed explorer Charles F. Muntz (voiced by Christopher Plummer whose filmography is practically endless, but you may remember him best as Captain Georg von Trapp in The Sound of Music).

Up may very well be the funniest computer animated movie of all time (I would actually probably pick A Bug's Life as my personal choice, but I realize I'm in in a very small minority). The talking dogs and Russell are especially funny. But the reason Up stands apart from its peers isn't the fact that it's a funny movie. It's the fact that, unlike most animated movies, its plot is so emotionally mature. It's not just for kids. The movie actually develops its characters, and the relationships between Carl and Russell and Carl and his dead wife are very well done. There were actually several people crying in the theater at points. And if the movie doesn't touch you, maybe the story of Pixar fulfilling a dying girl's last wish to see the movie will.

Bottom line: I know that my praise for this movie may seem like a little much. But trust me when I say that it's an animated movie that isn't just worth seeing but is actually really good. (B+)

Here's the preview:

UP trailer

Trailer Park MySpace Video

George Clooney, Jedi Warrior

The Men Who Stare at Goats was barely worth seeing. If you read my preview post, you know that I had pretty high hopes for it. It didn't meet them. But it wasn't as big of a disappointment as some of the reviews I've been reading have said it would be. And it wasn't bad enough to actually walk out of the theater about an hour into the movie (as two people did when I saw it).

The movie is definitely lacking when it comes to anything resembling a cohesive plot. Most of the film is simply Bob Wilton (Ewan McGregor) following around George Clooney's character, Lyn Cassaday, in Iraq as Cassaday tells Wilton the history of a top secret sector of the military called the "New Earth Army." The New Earth Army was started by Bill Django (Jeff Bridges), basically a huge hippie that convinced the higher-ups in the military to give him approval for the team, and focused their training on psychic powers (for example, the group focuses on the ability to "remotely view" anywhere in the world by simply going there in their mind). Cassaday was the all-star of the group and considered himself a true Jedi warrior (and the only one ever portrayed as actually successful in any remote viewing).

But when another group member Larry Hooper (Kevin Spacey) convinces the military to start using the New Earth Army for "the dark side," Cassaday quits the team. Now, years later, Cassaday is going to reunite with Django at Hooper's facility in Iraq in an effort to stop him from psychic experiments torturing prisoners (using methods such as playing the Barney and Friends theme song for 24 hours straight in their prison cells).

That's all there is to it, really. You'll definitely be disappointed if you go expecting anything more. And the movie's climax (if it even really has one) and ending are such an insignificant and honestly stupid part of the movie that I won't even bother mentioning them.

But the movie still has its positives. You will definitely laugh more than a few times. Clooney has a bunch of great one liners and does a great job convincing you that his character really believes in everything he's saying. It's really funny to hear him describe some abilities that his psychic training has given him (for example, he says he can become "invisible," but he really just means hiding himself). The nerd in me also found it humorously ironic to watch McGregor (best known as Obi-Won Kenobi in the Star Wars prequel trilogy) ask Clooney explain to him what a Jedi warrior was. And Bridges has his moments as well. But Spacey's character and performance are really not very good. And, as a friend of mine said, the movie is essentially an SNL skit that would've been hilarious for 4 minutes stretched out into an hour and a half movie.

Bottom line: The movie has a few laughs but not much else. If there's anything else you'd rather see, don't feel like your missing out by avoiding this one. (C-)

Here's the trailer:

Taking A Serious Man Seriously

Odds are, if you were going to see the Coen brothers' A Serious Man, you would've already done so (it's been out in a limited release since early October). But I didn't see it until recently so I figured I'd put in my $.02. I should preface my post by saying that I'm not a blind follower of all things Coen brothers like many movie fans. They have definitely put out some good movies. O Brother, Where Art Thou? and No Country For Old Men were both great. Fargo and Intolerable Cruelty were decent. And The Big Lebowski is an all-time classic. But I wasn't really a fan of The Hudsucker Proxy, The Man Who Wasn't There, The Ladykillers, or Burn After Reading. And I honestly think they are slightly over hyped.

This being said, there is one constant through all their films. The Coen brothers know how to write some of the best dialogue you can find. And they don't just have one particular style. They have the ability to use dark and laconic language like that found in No Country as well as more playful, fast paced banter like that found in O Brother. They've actually won 3 Oscars for their screenplay efforts. But great dialogue can only take you so far. You need a good story and compelling characters -- two things I think the Coen brothers occasionally fail to develop. And that's why I'm sometimes not a fan.

A Serious Man falls under the "decent" category in this blogger's opinion. It's not a great movie, but I enjoyed it. It tells the story of Larry Gopnik (played by Michael Stuhlarg -- think an older looking Elijah Woods that has the demeanor and delivery of most every Jason Bateman character ever), a Jewish physics professor in the late 1960's (approximately). He is also a pretty big pushover and going through a rough time in his life. His wife is divorcing him for another man, his brother's life is falling apart, and he's having money and work problems as well. Facing all this, he ponders his place in the world and why things are the way they are. He seeks advice in a variety of places -- his lawyer, his neighbor's wife, and different rabbi. And as the title suggests, it's probably their most "serious" and "grown up" movie to date. It focuses on real questions like faith and mortality, even when there aren't real answers.

The movie doesn't have much of a plot other than that. There are a couple of stories on the side involving Larry's son's bat mitzvah and a South Korean student trying to bribe Larry for better grades (which is actually pretty funny). I'm guessing many viewers will want more from the plot (which, as I said before, is often a problem with the Coen brothers' work) and will feel a little letdown by the ending. But Larry is a strong and compelling character, and his story is oddly engrossing even if it's not necessarily a great one.

Bottom line: I would say it's worth a watch. Any Coen brothers fan will obviously want to check it out. And those who aren't may want to give it a shot. (C+)

Here's the preview:

The Terrifying Tale of Oldboy

A friend of mine recently told me about a South Korean film he watched called Oldboy. I did a little research and found out that he wasn't the only one raving about it. It won the Grand Prix at Cannes (in 2004 -- this is an older film). And CNN has called it one of the best Asian movies ever made. So I decided to check it out for myself (using the awesome "Instant Watch" feature on Netflix).

The movie tells the horrific tale of Oh Dae-su (played by Choi Min-sik). Oh Dae-su is kidnapped and held prisoner for 15 years without any clue as to who has kidnapped him or why. Eventually, he is mysteriously released. Having no explanation to any questions about his imprisonment (or why he was released), Oh Dae-su sets out to find answers and exact his revenge. The tale that follows is truly terrifying and tragic. There are lots of pretty gruesome events and pretty twisted plot developments. But I'll leave out much of the plot because I don't want to ruin surprises for potential viewers.

My only real beef with the movie is that it was dubbed over with English voice actors instead of subtitles. I can't stand dubbing. I generally feel it makes a movie worse. The voice actors picked never really seems to match up with the characters, and it's really distracting watching someone's lips move when they're obviously not saying the words you're hearing. Maybe it's just me, but I enjoy subtitles much more.

Despite the dubbing, the movie is still pretty good. The story itself is really unique and really powerful. It's sort of a mix between Man on Fire and Hostel (don't worry though -- no scene in Oldboy can rival the more grotesque stuff in Hostel). It has great action scenes and has a really great score. There are a few lines of dialogue where things are definitely lost in translation, but that's to be expected with any foreign film. Overall, I don't know if it matched the unfairly high expectations I had for it, but I'm definitely not mad I watched.

Bottom line: Definitely worth a watch. Check it out if you can. (B)

Here's the preview:

Law Abiding Citizen (Or Nonsensical Maniac)

Law Abiding Citizen is a pretty disappointing movie. It actually had the potential for the first 15 minutes or so to be a good, but it eventually unravels into a poorly written mess. The movie is billed as the story of Clyde Shelton (played by Gerard Butler of 300 fame) who lost his wife and daughter to murder getting revenge on those who did it and the people of the justice system (including the District Attorney Nick Rice, played by Jamie Foxx) that struck a deal to let one of the murderers out after only five years of jail. I went in expecting a story of righteousness similar to A Time to Kill, but the movie ends up being pretty far from it.

The problem is that Butler's Shelton ends up killing a ton of innocent people to prove his point, the flaws that he tries to point out in the justice system make no sense, and by the end of the movie, you really feel no pity for him at all anymore. That'd be fine if the movie was the story of some psycho killer like Silence of the Lambs, but that's not what it's meant to be. The movie also suffers from bad and cliched writing. A lot of parts don't make any sense, and Foxx's Rice is full of one liners that no real lawyer says except for in the movies (i. e., "It's not what's true. It's not what you can prove."). And the mayor, played by Viola Davis (Antwone Fisher, Syriana), really has nothing but over-the-top lines that will make you roll your eyes.

All this being said, the movie still has some entertainment value. Shelton comes up with some pretty crazy ways to kill people. And the movie keeps a nice quick pace. But it really had the potential to be much better than it was.

Bottom line: I wouldn't bother. (D)

Here's the preview:

Once (More) Upon a Time...

I already posted about Where the Wild Things Are here so I'll try and keep this as short as I can. The movie was not really what I expected, but I don't think that was such a bad thing. Spike Jonze (Adaptation and the newly released short film starring Kanye West that goes from annoying to very strange in about 10 minutes, We Were Once A Fairy Tale) definitely made a darker and more adult adaptation of the book than I expected. But it is also oddly hypnotizing. You can definitely find yourself lost in the beauty of the film's scenery and cinematography at various times throughout the film. And don't be surprised if you sort of start to watch the movie as if you were looking out through Max's (played by youngster Max Records) eyes. The majority of the story does, after all, take place in Max's imagination.

Like I said, Spike Jonze's version of the book is a little bit different than what I would have written. One of the subplots (involving a couple of random white owls) could particularly have been left out of the movie. But, ultimately, Jonze does an admirable job of a very difficult task -- creating a 90+ minute movie based on a 10 sentence story. He gives the beasts names and different personalities (each very different and representative of the different parts of Max's psyche). He creates a relatively simple story revolving around Max convincing the wild things that he is an all-powerful king and his failed attempts to make them happy. And, for all the simplicity of the movie, Jonze still manages to create a story full of emotions that is capable of reaching audience members of all ages.

Among the film's stars, a couple of performances jumped out at me. James Galdolfini is the voice for the "main" wild thing (or at least the one that plays the biggest part in the movie), Carol, representing the much more impulsive and violent of the beasts, and there really could not have been a better choice for the role. But I think the best voice work of the movie came from Lauren Ambrose (Six Feet Under) as KW, the more motherly and caring of the beasts. She ultimately comes to be Max's protector during the movie's climax, and her voice really does have a soothing quality to it that would make almost anyone feel safe when hearing it.

Last, Karen O and the Kids deserve some recognition for the wonderful original soundtrack they created for this movie. It fits beautifully with the movie and is probably the best that I can remember since Eddie Veder's masterpiece from Into the Wild. Anyway, check it out here.

Bottom line: Don't go expecting a little kid's story. The movie is emotionally charged and both visually and audially beautiful. But you might be a little disappointed with the simplicity of the story itself. I'd still say it's worth seeing. (B-)

Here's the preview again:

Marcel's Island Therapy

Couples Retreat is just ok. It's definitely not nearly as good as some of Vince Vaughn's other classics. But that's really an unfair standard. They can't all be Wedding Crashers. And you could do worse if you're looking for a comedy -- especially if you want it to be a date movie. Just be warned that you aren't going to laugh as much as you probably expect (and possibly not at all in the last 20 minutes or so).

It stars eight actors playing four couples: Vince Vaughn with Malin Akerman (The Heartbreak Kid, Watchmen), Jason Bateman (star of probably the funniest show-that-nobody-ever-watched Arrested Development) with Kristen Bell (Forgetting Sarah Marshall), Jon Favreau (who was so money he didn't even know it in Swingers with Vaughn) with Kristin Davis (Sex and the City), and Faizon Love (Elf, Idlewild) with Kali Hawk (basically unknown and really annoying in the movie as 20 year old trying to help Love get over his ex-wife). It is actually the first feature directed by Peter Billingsley (who you know as "Ralphie" from A Christmas Story). And Vaughn and Favreau wrote it. The title pretty much tells the plot of the movie -- the couples take a vacation to an all-inclusive resort, "Eden" to reignite the flames in their marriages. Hilarity ensues, etc., etc.

Despite the big names and beautiful women, the four couples themselves are really not that hilarious. And I found the staff on Eden delivered just as many laughs. Jean Reno (The Professional, Ronin) plays "Marcel," the owner of Eden. And he was probably my favorite character in the movie. John Michael Higgins (The Break Up, Best in Show) and Ken Jeong (Role Models, The Hangover) are also pretty good as therapists. Youngster Colin Baiocchi plays Vaughn and Akerman's youngest son and steals the show for much of the movie when the couples aren't on the island.

Bottom line: The movie reminds me a lot of Four Christmases. It's got some laughs, but you can't help but think that Vaughn and company could have done better. (C)

Here's the preview:

The United States of Zombieland

Comedy/horror movie Zombieland is really good. I saw it expecting something along the lines of Shaun of the Dead, but what I saw was much better. Be warned that it's more than a little gory, but the movie boasts a great cast, great writing, and pretty good special effects (it really does a nice job of using slow motion -- I know that sounds weird, but trust me). It also finds a way to actually develop the characters like most comedies struggle to do. Put all this together and you've got the ultimate zombie flick and comedy combo.

The story revolves around four main characters all trying to survive in a US that has been overrun with zombies. It stars Jessie Eisenberg, an actor who has had a fantastic year in this blogger's opinion with both Adventureland and Zombieland. Granted, he plays basically the same awkward-and-constantly-nervous-yet-somehow-still-cool character (think the character that Michael Cera always plays) in both movies, but they were exactly what the role called for, and neither would have been great movies without his performance. Eisenberg's "Columbus" (the characters all just call themselves by the towns they were born in) narrates the story, and his narration really adds to the film's humor. He starts the movie off on a high note by filling in audience members on some of the rules of his "Survival Guide to Zombieland." And these constantly come up throughout the movie. Trust me when I say you'll laugh more than once when a rule pops up.

Columbus teams up with zombie-slaying, twinkie-obsessed badass "Tallahassee," played by Woody Harrelson. I've never been a huge Harrelson fan (aside from his role as Roy Munson in Kingpin), but he's probably the funniest guy in the movie. The two eventually team up with two girls, "Wichita" and "Little Rock." Wichita, played by Emma Stone (Superbad, The Rocker), plays Columbus's love interest, and it's pretty funny when he finally gets the girl. And increasingly popular Abigail Breslin (Little Miss Sunshine, Definitely, Maybe, My Sister's Keeper) plays Little Rock.

Audience members are given a real treat when Bill Murray (reuniting with Harrelson after his turn as "Big Ern McCracken" in Kingpin) cameos as himself. It's not quite on the level of Matt Damon in Eurotrip or Val Kilmer in Entourage, but it's pretty damn good.

Bottom line: If you go to this movies this week, go see Zombieland; just good old fashioned family fun (for families where everyone is 17+). (B+)

Here's the preview:

Sidenote: I saw the preview for Saw VI before movie. Can we please stop making these?

Tucker Max (Duke's Chosen Son)

Really? This sounded like a good idea? Don't get me wrong. Tucker Max has some funny stories. And the book that I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell was based off actually made me laugh out loud at certain points. But turning those stories into a movie may not have been a great idea. For those who have no idea what I'm talking about, Tucker Max is a former Duke Law student (and grad sadly) who spent most of his time in school getting himself into absurd situations by drinking heavily, treating women like shit, and pretty much doing what he pleased. And then he decided to tell the world about it. He started a blog, wrote a book, and now has a movie out.

The problem is that his book is comprised of a lot of shorter (only a few pages or so) stories that, hilarious as they may be, lack enough material to make a movie about. And it's pretty obvious. The movie basically takes one of Max's stories, The Austin Road Trip, and stretches and adds to it in a feeble attempt to make a good story. A lot of it just seems forced, and I also thought the movie was poorly cast. Matt Czuchry just doesn't seem like he would ever actually be the true asshole that Tucker Max really is. And I've never been a fan of Jesse Bradford (Swimfan, Flags of our Fathers) who plays Drew (known as "Slingblade" in Max's stories). But it's really not fair to blame the cast though. I don't think any combination of actors could've made this a great movie.

Bottom line: Don't go expecting to see anything close to as funny as The Hangover. You'll be disappointed. Just read the stories on his blog. (D)

Here's the preview: