2008 in Review

So it looks like my list is littered with a bunch of comedies something I think is somewhat weird, but maybe I needed comedy in my life this year, not sure why. These are the top films as I see it to come out this year, which I saw in this year. This hinders several films from being on here, because I saw them after the first of Jan, but here we go.

The List as a whole, all 72 in order from favorite to least favorite is in the comments section.

Top Ten

The Dark Knight – This is the obvious choice. But it’s not like I’m trying to be sneaky with my picks here, this filmed defied its genre. And as rare as the case may be, the hype surrounding Heath Ledger’s performance was real. He was that good, and all the praise and awards and accolades that come posthumously are worth it. This film will be remembered the longest of all of the films that came out this year.

Iron Man – Yes. The second place is also a superhero movie. I know. And let’s face it, if it wasn’t for Dark Knight we would all still be talking about Robert Downey Jr. performance in this fantastically exciting film. This film was the best superhero movie I had seen to this point. But like Matthew Robinson, brother of Jackie Robinson – who remembers second place?

Wall-E – Ah, the lovable, cute-as-a-button, pull-at-your-heartstrings charm of a robot who simple does his job. What a great little tale that allows Pixar to maintain its track record of perfection. I think the movie fell apart half-way through with a preachy message and a lackluster climax, but the first half of the movie was classic cinema.

Cloverfield – This film is the first real monster movie I have enjoyed. Granted there aren’t many to choose from, but this film was a great fun. It was loud, exciting, and the claustrophobic camera had the perfect angle. The characters were boring and cardboard, but who the hell cares, they all die.

Funny Games –This could have technically been rated PG, if the psychological damage to your child wouldn’t have mattered to you. No violence, no “bad word” that I remember. Just unnerving situations between a family and two uninvited guests. And that isn’t even the best part. This incredibly simple movie toyed with the movie going experience. A must see for movie buffs.

Forgetting Sarah Marshall – I’m a little surprised this movie was this good. I like Jason Segal, but not that much, I like Russell Brand, but not that much, I like male nudity, but not that much. This was a solid comedy who’s emotional core was realistic and true.

Rock'n'Rolla – Guy Ritchie doing what he does.

Tropic Thunder – Again, Robert Downey Jr. makes a film. This film would have been nothing without him, and worse, it would have been too much Ben Stiller, but as it was, this movie was the perfect mix of outrageous comedy and humor.

Sex and the City – Yup, I liked it that much.

Zack and Miri Make a Porno – I’m not sure how this made it to the top ten, but as my excel spreadsheet tabulates it, it did. Yes, I enjoyed it, but top ten? Huh.

Bottom 5:

Leatherheads – George Clooney takes a giant leap to never being invited into my theatre again. We get it. You are charming. But you aren’t charming when you are wasting my hard earned money doing shtick from the 1930. And believe me, it can be done well. Just look at my top ten, Wall-E up there gets to number 3 by doing classic shtick. George, you are no Wall-E.

Saw V – Still? Stop making these, please?! For some stupid reason my wife and I feel the need to go to these when they come out, so if they aren’t made I don’t have to go, right?

27 Dresses – as vanilla as RomComs can get.

Untraceable – Another, female-cop-gets-in-trouble film that Ashley Judd is so famous for. Luckily, she stayed away and Diane Lane took the hit. But, I think Hollywood would be better suited making something with substance than wasting 35,000,000 on this. I couldn’t even remember the plot, I had to look it up on Wikipedia.

Vantage Point – Oh, certainly the worst movie that came out all year. Well, at least that I saw. I know Beverly Hill Chihuahuas (2008) came out this year, so I won’t sink this to the absolute bottom. But good lord, with as many B-rated actors in this film as there were you would think they could do something better. And the concept has been done before, by much better people. What a waste of my brain cells.

Best and Worst from years past.

As I can't watch everything the year it comes out, this is the best and worst of the stuff that I saw this year, but wasn't made this year.

Rocket Science (BEST) – oh, how I loved this movie and its young star. This tale of a young boy’s attempt at getting on the debate team while struggling with a debilitating stutter was pitch perfect. I can’t recommend this enough.

The King of Kong: a fistful of quarters (BEST) – a fantastic little David and Goliath tale about two video game players. This might just make you cry tears of joy.

Hotrod (WORST) – And with that Andy Samberg slinks back into the whole he came from. Never to be seen again?!?

Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium (WORST) – Oh, my goodness what horribleness is on my screen. I wanted this to stop so badly. This tale of an idiot who runs a toy store is an affront to children everywhere, is this what you think children like, Hollywood?

Seven Pounds (Theatre) - Both

When the advertisements for a movie are as cryptic as they were for Seven Pounds, I go into the movie looking for some profound puzzle that I work at cracking the whole movie. I watch each scene with prying eyes attempting to see something I’m not really supposed to see. A lingering camera, a focused lens, an audio tell, these are some of the things I look for. Often I’m rewarded for my efforts as I foresee a coming danger, or can tell a plot twist coming before it is revealed. I certainly don’t say this to brag, anyone can do it, Jennie often points things out that I have missed, but the joy I get when I catch these hidden minutia usually makes the movie that much more enjoyable.

Will Smith has taken to doing about one film a year. This means he better make that film he does worth it. I loved I Am Legend (2007), despite its inability to give you the amazing ending the novel had. Hancock (2008) wasn’t horrible, but it certainly wasn’t a once a year film. So Smith gave us Seven Pounds. I don’t question his abilities as an actor, I’ve always loved Smith’s characters and go to see almost anything he is in (I have my limits Bad Boys II (2003)). And Seven Pounds doesn’t disappoint.

In one of the first few scenes we see Smith call a telemarketer. This individual, played by Woody Harrelson, is berated by Smith character in an emotionally awkward way for what appears to be no reason. You aren’t sure if Smith is a horrible person or not simply because of Smith’s abilities as an actor. His conflicted facial and body movements seem to contradict every hurtful word his character spews from his mouth. This scene is somewhat confusing in the context of the film as we are not privy to enough information as of yet but Smith’s abilities in this scene are riveting.

The first hour of the movie continues on in this fashion, and the audience is meant to piece things together. As I stated earlier I love doing this. As the scenes reveal themselves you are treated to a rather mundane, if not uplifting thought. Smith’s character is slowly donating parts of his body to good individuals who deserve the transplants. Smith eventually goes so far as to kill himself so that Rosario Dawson’s character may have his heart and continue living.

Although this is certainly an amazing gesture, it doesn’t make for an enthralling plot. Emotional? Certainly. But, I couldn’t help but think that if the timeline of the film would have been linear then there would be no film. As it was the timeline jumped from scene to scene.

I also had to wrestle with the ultimate resolution to Smith’s relationship with Dawson. What made her character so good? What did she do to deserve such a sacrifice? I found no plot point that made her such a great candidate for Will’s gift. In fact, the whole romance that was spun from the two seemed like a wasted plot point.

It certainly made me and Jennie cry, and it was ultimately an uplifting film of sorts, but I question its conviction. And I ultimately ask - what was the point to deciphering the clues?

5 out of 10 – Smith worked hard at pulling the heartstrings, and overall he achieves his goal, but that is about it.

Step Brothers (Dvd) - Ashleigh

Will Ferrell hasn’t been hitting them out of the park with his last couple of efforts. Semi-Pro (2008), Blades of Glory (2007), Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby (2006) – this list reads like a sad memoir of an ex-SNL cast member trying to make it in the real world without the watchful eye of Lorne Michaels. This somewhat depressing fate was thought to have escaped Ferrell, but if he keeps tossing out these bombs I’m not sure what else we can do for him.

As this Ferrell/McKay film was presented with a little bit more meat with it, Jennie and I figured we would give it a shot. After all, this isn’t some bland sports movie with a yards of footage of Ferrell riffing. I can’t say we were fully rewarded for our efforts, but this is certainly his best film since Stranger Than Fiction (2005).

The premise is comedy gold, as Kenny Bania would have said. The alarming fact that someone at that age is still living with his parents is wrought with landmines of laughter. And to have two individuals who are in the same situation thrown together by their parent’s nuptials is an amazing concept. I liken this idea, a purely great comedic situation, to Idiocracy (2006). How can it not win?

And though Step Brothers does surpass Idiocracy, in that it uses its ingenious concept to create some great comedic moment, I can’t help but think the loose feeling that McKay’s films seem to generate is this films downfall. John C. Reilly and Will Ferrell were made to play these roles. There is just the right amount of tension and lunacy to create some amazingly funny moments. I loved Reilly’s reaction to Ferrell using his drums, I laughed out loud when Ferrell and Reilly instantly became friends over a shared love of John Stamos, and to watch the pair play “Time to Say Goodbye” was a moment from my life I didn’t know I was missing.

But let’s get back to McKay’s inability to restrain his actors. I know it is the in-thing in comedy to let the cameras roll – pick up enough footage and you will make a hilarious film. At least, I think that is the idea. But without some tightly written jokes and scenarios the film as a whole feels like a riff. Missing are the details and thought behind well written comedy. It is hard to make a call back when you forget what the hell is going into the film in the first place. Also with this method you create a slew of miscues that can be fixed but create an aura of disbelief. If the actors don’t know what is ‘real’ to them then how are they to keep that world intact.

Ultimately, though, I really did enjoy this film. I thought its concept certainly worked along with its principle actors, and they were genuinely funny. But, McKay’s loose construct makes for a somewhat bumpy ride.

4 out of 10 – Ferrell/Reilly/McKay present a great concept and garnish it with a few purely comical moments, but the whole structure is too loose for my taste.

The Day the Earth Stood Still (Theatre) - Both

Jennie and I love our “destroy the world” flicks Day After Tomorrow (2004), Independence Day (1996), War of the Worlds (2005). I don’t fully understand why Jennie, in particular, loves these films, but I can say that I enjoy them because they are big, wide screen, Movies (with a capital M). They usher me into a childish fantasy where the world is fragile. I don’t love explosions, but when the head gets torn off the Statue of Liberty in Cloverfield (2008) I get the message that something big happened. I don’t know if I am explaining my love for these films right, but I’ll end it at that.

In this remake of the end of the world Keanu Reeves plays an alien, Klaatu, who has come to earth to decide the fate of humanity. His decision is pretty much made for him when as he exits his ship the shoot-first-ask-questions-later American military attacks his alien form. Only America’s top science type person understands that he isn’t necessarily a threat, played by Jennifer Connelly.

She saves him from being sliced and diced, a constant threat to sentient beings who wander to this planet, and finds out he was sent here to see if the human race could turn things around. The Intergalactic Space Council decided that humans were ruining their planet. A planet with other beings on it – dogs, cats, platypuses, you get the idea. Our wasteful habits have brought the wrath of the Space Pope down on us and humans are to be exterminated.

You see, unlike the film this was derived from, this remake no longer believes war is a destructive human construct, or at least it isn’t as important as picking up our litter. To quote the producer, "the specifics of [how] we now have the capability to destroy ourselves have changed". While I agree that the human effect on the environment is substantial I beg to differ that our effects on the environment are as damning to the human race as war has been.

Keanu plays Klaatu well. Though I’m sure we all knew he would. His deadpan looks of logic are straight from Keanu’s past performances. And as for Connelly, well, she is a grade A actress working in a grade C movie, so her abilities fall flat. Jaden Smith is given a horrible role as a child that just can’t make up his mind. Does he love his step mother? Why is he unevenly angry at the world? His acting abilities aren’t as evident as other child stars, and his pedigree seems to be his ticket in, let’s hope he picks up some lessons.

As for the movie on a whole, I wouldn’t run to the few remaining theatres that are playing it, you will be disappointed. It is simply a quick get-in-and-get-out disaster film that is lacking in plot and character development.

3 out of 10 – This remake replaces our guilt of war with our guilt of recycling. The over handed message could have had some gravitas but the stakes were too low.

Sex and the City (Dvd) - Both

Well, I have my first repeat movie! I’m not entirely sure what to do with a repeat, but I think I will simply give a short review on how it held up. I will also link to the first review for those that missed it.

Jennie and I purchased this DVD. Pause for dramatic effect. It is the first DVD purchase we have made since… Oh, man. I think, the Ghostbusters two pack over two years ago. We don’t really watch that many movies twice, and thus we never buy them. Though technically isn’t this a TV on DVD kind of thing? I don’t know, you be the judge. Jennie and I certainly buy a lot of TV on DVD so maybe this counts as that.

Anyway, how did the further tales of the Manhattan four stand up, you ask? Not bad actually. I liked the film when it came out, and I still enjoyed it on the second watch. This certainly held up to the standards of the show, unlike some television to movies, and I enjoyed the return to the characters.

I will agree with Matthew’s comments on the original post. Louise, played by Jennifer Hudson, did feel tacked on the second go round. She was there in six scenes tops and then goes off to marry some dude without affecting the lives of anyone. I think I initially liked her because if she had stayed on she would have been a great fifth female to follow. Oh, well.

We purchased the Blu-Ray extended edition, our first Blu-Ray purchase. This contained the added scenes which would have made the movie a lengthy 3 hours. And, not one of the added scenes were that interesting. One or two of them involved Miranda’s mundane actions after Steve told of his infidelity. There was a scene that gave Charlotte a little emotional meat to her movie character which in the previous review I lamented was wafer thin. But over all they were good cuts.

The one scene I might have kept, if it hadn’t had been for the somewhat racially awkward moments, would have been the Goldenblatt's trick-or-treating with Carrie. In this scene we see Charlotte dressed as a cow, Harry dressed as Uncle Fester, and Charlotte’s child dressed as a princess, with a white girl princess mask (very awkward). This mask later plays a role in the scene as Carrie must hide herself from the Halloween parents who recognize her from her messy nuptials. But, I can easily tell you the white princess mask was the reason this scene got dropped. I mean really, did you think it was a good idea to put a white girl mask on a little Asian child? Not sure what they were thinking there.

Will I watch this again? Yes. Well I watch it as often as I watch the show? No, probably not. It is a great translation of the show to screen – a very hard feat. And in this I praise its efforts.

6 out of 10 – A solid watch. Though the only reason I go back is my love for the characters.

Four Christmases (Theatre) - Jennifer

When it comes to Romcoms Vince Vaughn is the king of male leads these days, but ask I you: has Vince Vaughn ever played anything other than a smooth talking, quick witted man’s man? So, I posit that he is actually not an actor, but a man who gets paid to be himself on screen. And in the female lead we have Reese Witherspoon who seems to be coming out of hiding. What was the last movie she was in? After checking IMDB I find that Rendition (2007) has been her last film. And before that we have to go to 2005’s Just Like Heaven, good lord.

But, back to the film at hand, we find Reese and Vince in a perfect relationship. No marriage to, I guess, ruin the fun of being eternally boyfriend and girlfriend, no children to mess up their tidy multimillion dollar pad, and no families to muddle with. This well tailored relationship hinges on honesty and a likeminded view of the future. This future includes blatant lies to get out of the dreaded family Christmas.

I want to stop here and ask: are all of you out there in the same boat? Do you hate your families so much that you would never want to see them? I have no clue what that would be like, I love the time I get to spend with my family during the holidays. That goes for my in-laws as well. I admit that sometimes it is an emotional gauntlet, but I wouldn’t want to miss it if I didn’t have to.

Reese and Vince get caught lying on TV about their whereabouts and are then relegated to visit their four parents. The scene in which they get caught is particularly interesting because for this to happen every one of their parents would have to be watching TV at the same moment, watching the same local news channel. Not only that, but, they must live in the same area meaning that Reese and Vince are complete bastards to their family the rest of the year as well. Who doesn’t visit their family at least once a year when they all live in the same city?

As their journey is played out we meet the unevenly written families that they were looking to avoid. Each character in the family is just a little crazy and then poignant. At points Kristen Chenoweth’s character who played a sister to Reese would be a childish berating little sister and then flip to a caring big sister vibe. I would blame the bumpy writing for this, not Chenoweth. This goes for Mary Steenburgen’s character as well.

The problem here was that the writers had to make the families look horrible in the beginning and then lighten up as they went on so that the viewers and the on screen couple of Vince and Reese could see what they were missing by being so standoffish. This poorly written solution included a father figure for Reese played by Jon Voight who seemed genuine and made Reese’s character seem like a complete asshole for avoiding him all these years.

Voight's character simply helps Reese when her well tailored relationship ship finds a single thread that is pulled and destroys the whole thing. And his thanks? Not being invited to the birth of his grandchild in the last scene of the film.

There were a few laughs to be had. And I have say, I loved seeing King of Kong’s Steve Wiebe in the background of a lot of shots playing Chenoweth’s husband. Go Wiebe! But ultimately this is a very forgettable script with horribly unforgettable characters.

3 out of 10: a watchable Romcom, but ultimately a waste of time.

The Simpsons Movie (Dvd)

The Simpsons film has come and gone, and with it the small amount of fanfare that had been built up. Left now are the bitter ashes of a film found on a five dollar call out shelf at Target.

When this originally came out I was excited to see it. The marathon that the Simpsons have participated in has been a grueling testament to Groening’s ability to disregard quality. This is coming from a man who still has a season pass of the Simpsons on his DVR, and willingly watches each episode. I feel like a pig that has been shot from the sewers as Homer yells after me, “It’s still good. It’s still good.”

I wanted the movie to be great. I wanted it to hearken back to those heady days when the tale of Nelson Muntz and his bosom chum Martin Prince were told, when Homer choose crab juice over Mountain Dew, or even Homer’s disastrous turn as a sugar salesman. I wanted something that couldn’t be delivered.

The story was big enough for the movies, the box-office takings were high enough, and everyone claimed that despite the resent turn the show had taken that the movie was good. But as I popped in the dvd and waited for the choir to sing, “The Simspons” I felt deflated.

This isn’t the feeling I get when I go rewatch “Bart Sells His Soul”, “The PTA Disbands”, or even “Bart on the Road”. These episodes I could watch right now and have myself an enjoyable 22 minutes of solid entertainment. But upon my second airing of the Simpsons Movie I found myself waiting for the end to release me. I didn’t want to stick around.

The story line was grandiose on a ridiculous scale. Some of my favorite moments in the Simpsons are simple and sweet while being humorous. When Bart gets medically turned into a nerd in “The Last Temptation of Homer” the gag isn’t monumental, the world doesn’t change, but the human emotion of not fitting in is universal. They didn’t need Springfield to be cupped in a large dome; they played off of real life. This has been the key to Simpsons connecting to everyone, something I feel they have stopped doing in the last couple of seasons and in this movie.

They also played with continuity. I know that is a stupid fanboy annoyance, but come on. You are dealing with an historical series here, get it right. Homer and Marge were married by themselves, no family with them! Bah!

While I laughed and enjoyed my second viewing of this film I won’t say I loved it. I won’t say the Simpsons Movie is a success – it isn’t. It is the continuation of the degradation of the brand name, and I will continue to purchase your wares no matter what…

4 out of 10: Where are your roots, friend? Find them.

Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa (Theatre) - Neither

The movie theatre is a barren wasteland recently. High School Musical 3 (2008)? Come on! I’ve never watched a Bond flick. The Changeling (2008)? I hate Angelina Jolie. So, with this in mind and money burning a hole in our pockets Jennie and I begrudgingly went to see this film.

My hatred for children’s flicks these days is well documented. And barring Pixar, I find the bevy of CGI films geared towards children to be a waste of time. Their morals are a wash in friendship themes and the villains are innocuous castrated beings just waiting for their chance to be redeemed. I guess the helicopter parents can’t let their kids see evil in any form.

Madagascar wasn’t the train wreck that some of these post Pixar films are, but it was not a walk in the park to sit through. The cast of big name actors portraying animals did the minimal work to make you believe their characters, as the writing meandered into a past that the second film created for its purposes only.

There was a smattering of the adult humor that Pixar uses to create their masterworks but Dreamwork’s productions never have been able to achieve the finesse that Pixar exhibits in this area. Stiller’s Lion and Rock’s Zebra bicker about race in a thinly veiled argument giving the adults a chuckle cause they get that Rock is black and Stiller isn’t, but this sort of humor is a low blow for Rock who I expect more out of. Stiller on the other hand, I expected this from.

Then there is the father son story line evolving Bernie Mac and Ben Stiller. Mac wants Stiller’s lion character to be a man (manly lion). Stiller can only dance/act - he is weak. Eventually Mac discovers that his son’s talent in dancing is just as good as being a good fighter. I’m not sure if I get/understand what this means, but the moral is so ham-fisted that I grew tired of the two the first scene they shared.

I keep thinking I’m getting too old for these movies, but then I forget, and Jennie and I go, and I realize - I’m too old for these movies.

3 out of 10: Oh children’s movies when will I learn, you offer nothing new.

Zack and Miri Make a Porno (Theatre) - Both

Kevin Smith hasn’t been relevant in years. I’m not sure, even when he was relevant, if I even liked him then. Mallrats (1995) was o.k. as was Chasing Amy (1997). Jersey Girl (2004) wasn’t horrible – it wasn’t! Clerks (1994), though it is hailed as… well, something, was horrible in my opinion. The only quality film he has ever made was Dogma (1999), which I loved.

With this smashing intro you’d think I’d be down on Prono, but I’m not. I enjoyed it just fine. Jennie was unmentionably excited about this film as her new actress crush was staring in it. I’m not sure how Elizabeth Banks came to be held in such high regard by my wife, but she was positively giddy about her role in this.

Porno is a romcom at its core, a Harry Met Sally for the millennials. Zack and Miri have been best friends forever and their catalyst for change is that they find themselves in dire straights financially. After what seems like a minute they decide that the only lifeboat to their troubles is making a pornographic film that their high school friends can purchase. They set about casting it, making sets, and writing the script (who knew erotic films needed a script?). But while filming Zack and Miri fight about who gets to knob who, and how many different times this takes place. It appears they each do not want the other to biblically know anyone else. They mate on camera for their first scene and Zack feels a connection. Jealousy rears its head and the porno falls apart. Zack runs, a friend tells him that Miri felt the same way, he comes back and boom, ending.

It’s a romcom, what did you expect.

The acting is great. I have loved Seth Rogan from my virgin viewing of Freaks and Geeks and have wanted nothing but success for him ever since. Elizabeth Banks pulls off some good emotional scenes in a complicated role. I know comedies are never praised for their acting. I know comedy isn’t an actor’s skill according to Oscar, but I don’t think Angelina Jolie could have taken this role, and Elizabeth Banks is great with both the laughs and the tears. Also, Brandon Routh (superman, if you forgot) plays the straight man to Justin Long in a quick scene at a high school reunion and the couple makes some quality laughs with their portrayal as gay porn actors.

I also applaud the fact that this film didn’t reek of Smith. His directing skills were more subtle this time around. His dialog wasn’t as heavy handed. Smith may be lightening his touch, which I appreciate.

5 out of 10: Prono hit’s the romcom wall with quality acting and heavy petting.

RocknRolla (Theatre) - Ashleigh

Guy Ritchie’s film career started at the peek. His first two films were brilliantly shot, fast paced gangsta flicks that left me wanting to move to England. Then he met Madonna. She ruined him. She destroyed everything he touched. First she stared in the laughably bad Swept Away (2002) a remake of a classic that allowed Madonna to “act” like a selfish princess. Then came the train wreck Revolver (2005), a movie that took three years to cross the pond. Revolver was an abolishment that tried to mix Ritchie’s gangstas with Madonna’s kabala philosophies. Then rumblings of a breakup – were they divorced – weren’t they. Who cares.

Fucking Guy Ritchie is back. During the tumultuous times Ritchie wrote and directed his return to greatness and while RocknRolla isn’t Ritchie’s peek it shines a light into the darkened alley that his career had become.

RocknRolla is Ritchie back to his roots: British thugs running scams. While it does returns to the formula - it’s ending isn’t as complicated nor twisting as his first two. The film starts by introducing the main players. This has worked for Guy quite well in the past and when something isn’t broke you shouldn’t try to fix it. The cast is a massive mix of characters that seem eager to go at each other in a mad dash for money.

The fun of Guy’s first two efforts is back as well. Gone are Revolver’s preachy messages; gone are the horrible acting and influence of Guys former wife. In its place is a well made crime thriller that has been Ritchie’s signature.

Is it anything new? Not really. The main villain gets taken to task. The anti-hero is given just rewards. The ragtag group of misfits is certainly something to root for. And I’m not sure I want Guy Ritchie to do anything else. If he gave me a movie like this every two years I would be happy.

Technically there were one or two new additions. For the first time Ritchie has added a well written/acted female to the cast of characters. The gorgeous Thandie Newton certainly responds well to the boys club that has been Guy’s cast. Also the promise of a proper sequel was splashed across the screen at the end of the film, so I guess I might get my wish after Sherlock Holmes (2009).

But I am grateful for Guy’s return. It is a welcomed return for me. Recently I have been lamenting the current state of films, and it could be because I live in Michigan. It could be because I’m growing older and people just don’t make movies for people like me anymore. I’m not sure, but I feel Guy’s return will give me something, even if it isn’t perfect, to look forward to.

6 out of 10: Guy Ritchie returns to what works.

Saw V (Theatre) - Both

The yearly output of Saw is an interesting feat. Is it impressive? Not really, they aren’t great movies. Is it sad? Not really, people still enjoy the films. Is it necessary? Not really, I’m not sure anyone would care if they stop. I have a feeling that it is coming to an end with the much-hyped sixth edition that has a role cast by an MTV show. So the fact that the killer has been dead for three movies might actually finally kill the Halloween juggernaut.

This particular iteration brings us up to date with Jigsaw’s secret apprentice. Supposedly this man had been with Jigsaw after his second or third killing. But not wanting to simply rehash old set pieces there is a new batch of young actors to slaughter in inventive ways. The apprentice is simply carrying out Jigsaws dying wish, and Jigsaw reveals that the apprentice will not fully understand the implications of this particular action until later. I have a feeling this means the sixth movie will reveal some master plan of Jigsaws to eliminate the apprentice. We shall see.

Jennie and I are driven to these films by little more than tradition, and I think we stopped enjoying ourselves in the middle of the second film, but on we trudge. The reason this particular Saw outing was so disappointing was the ending montage.

As most Saw fans have come to expect the last ten minutes are a solid reveal orchestrated to some steady drum and base revealing that which we thought we knew, but were wrong about. The first Saw was the only one to truly do this with any lasting effect, and the fifth Saw does this with the least amount of surprise. They reveal everything we already knew, and nothing we didn’t, a subpar reveal at best.

The acting is straight-to-dvd as well as the directing. Any innovation has since fled the theatre in search for children’s fantasy (a booming genre right now). Maybe in a year or two we will have a horror film that redefines the genre and sends Hollywood running to make a quick buck, but for now Saw will have to do.

By now most have grown weary of this durable brand and are surprised by the yearly treatments. Maybe one day we will live in a land without Saw, but if they are released it looks like Jennie and I will be there. Reboot in 2010?

2 out of 10 - Barely watchable. Not even much to say about it. Beat that dead horse!

The Fall (Dvd) - Ashleigh

The Fall is a gorgeous film that goes nowhere. The plot is a simple story within a story which is told by an injured stuntman to an injured girl, both of whom are recovering from unrelated falls in the depression era. The little girl is an immigrant who fell while picking oranges while the stuntman had an on the job accident which paralyzed him from the waist down.

This film came to my attention when I was perusing Spike Jonze’s latest films. How is it possible that he and David Fincher where involved in a film and I knew nothing of it. Compounding my interest was the actor who portrayed the injured stuntman, one Lee Pace of Pushing Daisies fame.

Oh, wait, Spike Jonze and David Fincher are only presenting this film. (Whatever the hell that means.) One thing I’m sure that means is that they had nothing to do with the production of this film. Shoot.

Lee Pace’s character Roy tells a grand story of five heroes who vow to kill a man named Odious for one reason or another. Roy’s story is told on an epic scale spanning, the back of the box says, 4 continents as these five men track Odious to his country. The back of the box also informs me that it took four years to craft this film. A fact which leads me to believe they should have spent some of that time on plot/character development.

Roy injects himself and the little girl into the story and will only continue the tale each day if the little girl retrieves medicine for him. Her repeated attempts to follow Roy’s orders quickly show that Roy wants the medicine for more than just pain relief. He is looking to kill himself.

The story Roy tells becomes increasingly dark as Roy’s depression sinks lower, but the relationship between Roy and the girl seems genuine and well constructed, and as the narration slips back to Roy’s hyper color hero tale the construction of character development falls apart.

These brief stints into the imagination of Roy’s tale are scene of great cinematic beauty. I truly believe they shot the film on four different continents, and as the camera angles arc and the focus blurs the line between art and film the eye is presented with a magnificent presentation of the filmmaker’s imagination. But while the scene are saturated eye popping wonders the plot is a dull knife serrating the film’s beauty.

Lee Pace’s skills are truly on display in this film and this is exciting. I feared, while watching Pushing Daisies, that his charm and impish idealism wasn’t true acting and maybe Pace was simply that optimistic. But the juxtaposition of Roy with the pie maker shows that Pace has true range – an exciting proposition for the actor’s future.

Ultimately the tale Pace weaves is the downfall of the entire film as it is not very interesting and often drags. I can’t help but think Tarsem Singh needs to find new writers to work with. His only other film, 2000’s The Cell, was similar to The Fall in that it was beautifully shot but the plot was horrible.

3 out of 10: superb visuals and quality acting are betrayed by the horribly slow and mind numbing plot.

Choke (Theatre) - Ashleigh

I would have loved this movie at the turn of the century. I was always in the mode for nihilistic mood altering cinema. I would have found a message to carry away with me. But, since we are no longer in the glory days of pre-millennial film where apocalyptic views were the norm I feel this film misses the mark. Is this because I no longer think that way? Or could it be because the landscape of cinema is so different now that this type of film can’t be given the budget or the creative time that it takes to truly sculpt the nuances of the plot?

I vote the latter.

While the only other attempt to repackage Chuck Palahniuk’s work gleamed in its perfected anarchic dogma, Choke seems to wallow in nothingness. Was there a message for me to take away from the film? I’m not sure. When I read the novel I seem to remember the same empty moral. So perhaps the film did succeed in giving me nothing.

Victor Mancini, played masterfully by one of my favorite actors Sam Rockwell, is a sex addict. And similarly to Palahniuk’s previous protagonist, Victor attends meetings in dingy churches and VFW halls to cauterize his psychological wounds with other similarly afflicted individuals.

Many of Victor’s psychological scars were inflicted by his mother who is willowing away her remaining years in a pysch-ward. As her time approaches Victor attempts to ferret out his true origins from his mother and through this process begins to believe that he is the illegitimate child of Jesus. After reflecting on his life as a devious man he is lead to a revelation of sorts that he can be saved.

Being saved is a major theme in this work as Victor’s other main source of income is from victims of his con. Victor fakes that he is choking in an expensive restaurant and finds a sap to save his life. This sap then is given an overinflated since of power and importance and in turn they send Victor money every month to refresh the act of saving a life in their mind.

Victor reflects after his revelation of his birthright that Jesus didn’t start his good works till he was thirty-three – so why can’t he turn it all around? Though, as the delusion comes crashing down and Victor discovers he was actually abducted from his true family by his now dying mother Victor faces the dilemma of change. He may not be the child of the Christ, but that doesn’t mean he can’t remain a decent human.

The plot seems rather tame as I write it out. And while Palahniuk’s signature oversaturated themes of sex and grit abound the plot does seem that simple. Was I looking for too much from Palahniuk? Was this simply a story of self redemption? Possibly. But I could do with more of Palahniuk’s work.

5 out of 10: Palahniuk’s story is told with marginal success. But it isn’t something I would rush out to see.

Speed Racer (Dvd) - Asheligh

My expectations of this movie were somewhat low. When it opened in May of this year it was berated by the critics and nobody went to see it, how far the Wachoski siblings have fallen. However, I quite enjoyed this film. The plot was tight, the action was only a little bit gratuitous, and the characters where enjoyable.

The recent influx of movies that attempt to be like comic books is an interesting concept. They take an image directly from the source material and attempt to recreate that scene on film in exactly the same way it was drawn. 300 (2007), Sin City (2005), and even the Wachoski siblings directing the Matrix trilogy are examples that use this technique. Speed Racer is loosely related to this because it is attempting to make a Japanese style animation cartoon into a feature film and while doing this they employee some of the same techniques that style of animation is known for. As this is the case we are presented with an over-saturated, sometimes vaudevillian, piece of cinema that works most of the time.

If you go into this film wanting anything other than a cartoon brought to life I can imagine disappointment. This isn’t to say it was perfectly executed – far from it. The beginning hour seemed to drag like a speedster with a flat tire. The viewer didn’t need to see Speed as a little boy in school. The moments establishing his relationship with his brother would have been enough. Also, I would fear for an epileptic to watch this film as its bright colors and flashy special effects sometimes overwhelmed the action. But, our hero was given his plot, as the forty-five minute mark rolled around, and from there the movie picked up its pace.

The plot was actually somewhat complicated as emotions were shouldered and details of financial intrigue forced the characters through their evolutions. I would find it hard to believe that a child could understand what was going on. But, I enjoyed how detailed the plot was. It made me work to understand the motivations of the characters and for a children’s film to do this is unique.

I will not recommend this movie as I’m not sure many would like it. Hell, Jennie fell asleep. But, if you were at all interested in it when you saw it in theatres, take a chance. Just, make it past the first hour.

5 out of 10: when it failed it did so monumentally, but the successes were there as well.

Baby Mama (Dvd) - Both

Tina Fey churns out a horribly predictable comedy. It is hard to believe that someone who has the ability to make television incredibly watchable can put out a movie that is so uninspired. I have to admit I laughed a couple of times, and I didn’t hate it. But, my aversion for this conventional tired story line leads me to hate it more and more as I turn this thing over in my head.

The story sets up Tina Fey as a successful business woman who contracts a dangerous strain of baby fever. However, since Tina Fey’s reproductive organs are broken she decides to hire a surrogate. Amy Poehler was often relegated to play the dumb version of Tina Fey on SNL, and her role here is no different as she plays the hillbilly woman carrying Fey’s baby making ingredients. I find this relationship between the two stars growing old. Poehler has the chops to play many different characters both smart and dimwitted, but I feel the comedy team grasps what is comfortable and rely on this relationship too much.

The moment Tina Fey impregnates Poehler we are introduced to a male lead played by Greg Kinnear. If you are at all a fan of movies then you know what will happen with this revelation. The second I saw Kinnear on screen I knew Fey’s character, who previous to meeting Kinnear had a one in a million shot at getting pregnant, would be infected with child by Kinnear’s doing. True to form this was the case. The baby in Poehler is explained away and wacky romcom plot points are hit. Kinnear finds out about Fey’s baby mama, Kinnear runs and is mad, Fey finds out she is pregnant – tells Kinnear, happy endings all around!

Despite the tired formula, Steve Martin’s overacted C.E.O., and my politically incorrect views on single female surrogating/implantations I enjoyed this film more than I thought I would. I had a few laughs and is not that the goal of a comedy?

On a side note: For some reason, I can’t wrap my head around, I dislike the idea of single woman choosing to get pregnant on purpose just to fulfill a somewhat selfish need to be a mother. I’m not saying I think each family has to have at least two non-gender specific adults in it. Single mothers/fathers have a difficult and noble task. But for someone to choose that path is selfish, in my mind, and that is all. Additionally, think about this – a single man hiring a surrogate to create a baby. Is that not weird? Do you really think noble thoughts of this man? Any thoughts blog ‘o sphere?

3 out of 10 – Laughed a couple of times, but the lack of creativity stifled this romcom’s mojo.

Burn After Reading (Theatre) - Both

About halfway through this Coen brothers farce we are presented with a scene depicting a C.I.A. agent talking to his boss. He tells a tale of five idiots who engage each other in a convoluted saga that destroys their lives. By the end of the scene the superior asks if they know anything. The subordinate informs him that they know nothing, and don’t truly understand what is going on. The superior asks to be informed when they understand what is going on.

This scene was put in place, I thought, to inform the patrons in the theatre who were lost where they should be in the story, and set up the ending. But I now believe the Coen brothers inserted this scene so it could bookended with the last scene and assure the audience that this tale of the idiotic was simply that - nothing more.

John Malkovich plays an ex-C.I.A. agent on the bad end of a failing marriage to Tilda Swinton who is having an affair with the lascivious Harry Pfarrer, played by George Clooney. After burning her husband’s financials onto a disc for her attorney, Swinton’s character initiates a divorce. This disc ends up in the hands of the self-involved Linda Litzke, played artfully by Joel Coen’s wife Francis McDormand, who with the help of her co-worker at Hard Bodies attempts to blackmail the ex-C.I.A. agent. Linda and Chad, played with hysterical accuracy by Brad Pitt, believe this disc contains C.I.A. secrets and play spy until Chad is killed. Pitt is marvelous as a foulmouthed moron and provides the movie with its biggest laughs. He skillfully delivers his line, “Osbourne Cox? I thought you might be worried about the security of your shit,” with such passion and well timed pauses that I found myself wishing Pitt played for humor more often.

In what can only be a screenplay coincidence Linda and Harry meet each other for a tryst tying the whole gang together in a nice little knot. Harry shoots Chad and runs to Linda. Harry then believes that Linda is in league with the ex-C.I.A. agent and gets arrested. The ex-C.I.A. agent murders the manager of Hard Bodies and promptly gets shot. And Linda gets cosmetic surgery.

As the film ends we return to the two C.I.A. agents discussing these events. The superior asks if all the loose ends are tied up. The subordinate informs him all but one. Linda needs her cosmetic surgery paid for. The superior oks the payment and states that he just wishes he knew what the hell just went on.

6 out of 10: I enjoyed the return to whimsy for the Coen Brothers, but I feel the stakes were so low that it made it impossible to enjoy fully.

Tropic Thunder (Theatre) - Ashleigh

Ben Stiller doesn’t need to continue making films. His lack of acting ability is quite evident in that he plays the same exact character in every movie he has ever been in. If his character had been in Tropic Thunder another five minutes it may have tanked this movie. This, thankfully, isn’t the case and we are left with a pretty descent comedy spoofing the acting community in general and their immature desire for acclaim in their jobs.

The movie opens with a bevy of metamedia including several fake movie trailers and an ad. I doubt if anyone was fooled by these add-ons but I don’t think that was the point. They did add several laughs and introduced you relatively quickly to the main characters. After this metamedia the movie depicts a scene of a war movie that is being made staring the actors from the fake previews. The scene is confusing and drawn out to the point that it annoyed me. Stiller’s character, Tugg Speedman and Robert Downey Jr.’s character, Kirk Lazarus, battle with each other as actors about how the scene should be played out and end up missing an effects cue that wastes a lot of money. This initiates an intervention by the studio head, Tom Cruise playing Tom Cruise in a fat suit, who busts the director’s balls for wasting so much money.

The director, forced to do something drastic, then turns to the “war hero” screen writer who offers the crazy idea of taking the five actors out of their comfortable hotels and beds and dropping them into an effects laden forest to “get the real experience” of being a soldier in Vietnam. The director informs his actors that he is doing this to get gorilla style footage and promptly gets blown up accidently when he steps on an old land mine. Most of the actors believe this is part of the immersion and start their scenes. It is quickly discovered that this is not the case and all but Stiller’s character stop acting and attempt to get back to civilization. A delusional Stiller treks on through the jungle and the movie script till he is captured by drug lords, realizes it is no longer a script, and needs to be rescued by the crew of actors that knew something had gone wrong initially.

The meat of the film, and some of the funniest moments are created with the gang of actors as they make their way to save Stiller. Robert Downey Jr. takes on an unimaginable role as a white actor who plays a black man for the film. I can’t imagine a single actor who could actually pull this off without offending everyone, but Downey seems to walk the line splendidly. Downey has truly come into his own this summer with his role in Iron Man (2008) and this. Here’s to hoping this is the permanent return to greatness that he deserves. Jack Black is almost a none-issue here as he is neither a distraction nor a service to the movie as a whole. Brandon T. Jackson plays a black rapper who is attempting to spread his revenue stream to films, but, in a twist everyone in the theatre saw coming, reveals his homosexual leanings that juxtapose his “pimp” persona he displays as a rapper.

While this crew attempts to rescue Stiller, Matthew McConaughey, Stiller’s agent, attempts to get him a Tivo on set. McConaughey brings his trademark drawl and good looks to a relatively small part, boosting the role from a nonentity to a rather humorous addition. As Stiller is rescued and the crew takes off McConaughey inexplicably shows up to save the day with a Tivo box set, a great scene for McConaughey.

Overall I quite enjoyed this comedy. I wouldn’t really want to see it again, but I think one viewing would be warranted for most comedy fans. The addition of my new favorite bit part player, Danny R. McBride, made me quite happy. And it’s always nice to see an actor rise from self-imposed ashes as Tom Cruise does here and restore a tiny bit of faith that one day I could enjoy a movie with him as a lead. But Tom, don’t test this newly minted trust – it is tenuous at best.

6 out of 10 – Stiller has helped his directorial resume with this quality outing, but stay behind the camera, friend. No one wants to see you in front of it.

Harold & Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay (Dvd) - Ashleigh

Who knows why the first Harold and Kumar movie was decent? Was the concept of a movie about two guys going to White Castle just that great? Was Neil Patrick Harris’ cameo/comeback that unexpected? Was it the cheetah ride? I don’t know. But I do know Harold and Kumar’s second adventure fails in just as many ways as their first escapade succeeds.

The film begins just as the first film ends. Harold is about to follow his crush to Amsterdam so that he can profess his love for her, and score some legal weed while there. The pair pack and get to the airport. While on the plane Kumar lights up a unique bong, which is confused for a bomb and they turn the plane around. Robert Corddry plays a hot headed idiot who works for the government in some capacity and thinks Harold and Kumar are out to get the U. S. of A. Corddry then sends them to Gitmo as terror suspects. In an entirely idiotic and repugnant scene the two see a pair of detainees eat a “cockmeat sandwich” (b.j.) while doing so the detainees bite the guards penis off and run for the exit. Harold and Kumar see their escape and make for the United States. There story then zigzags in and out of ridiculous situation after ridiculous situation. In this montage they run into NPH again, an incestuous couple, and Christopher Meloni. Nothing new, really. They get out of the trouble they are in when they smoke a marijuana cigarette with George Bush and he decides they are “cool”. And they all live happily ever after.

I think one of the reasons the first film worked was its scope was unusually small. The saga took place in one night that just had a lot of crazy things going on while in route to a local White Castle. The sequel, on the other hand, was a cross country affair ending in Texas that took the better part of a week. The scale just seemed idiotically big. Also, some of the racial humor was sophomoric to the point that it lost any laughs. This was the case in a scene where Ed Helms interpreted for Robert Corddry between Harold’s parents, who spoke perfectly good English, and Corddy. As they shouted at the idiot in English Helms’ character claimed they were speaking gibberish. My last complaint was just the sheer volume of previously used material. There was even a sex scene with a giant bag of mary jane! Are their no new ideas?

3 out 10 – So reminiscent of the first film that it begs the question – “Why make a sequel?”

Drillbit Taylor (Dvd) - Ashleigh

After seeing the trailer for this movie I had no desire to partake in Owen Wilson playing Owen Wilson with a bunch of kids. However, after a conversation with bosom chum and fellow blogger, Travis, I decided to take a chance. During said conversation Travis informed me that this movie was actually quite good, and that I should give it a try. I now curse his name for wasting precious hours of my life that I could have spent finding album artwork online for my Ipod!

First of all, I hate Owen Wilson. I’m not sure I have ever found the butterscotch stallion appealing in anything, with his “chill” vibe and broken nose looks he is the poor man’s Matthew McConaughey. I’ve never thought he could carry a film, and Drillbit is certainly not new territory for the golden haired jester.

The film’s story centers around three kids who are starting high school and are ruthlessly picked on by a bully who randomly chooses them as his punching bag. This bully is ridiculously brutal and Jennie and I found ourselves constantly guffawing at his unlikely antics. He made the boys pee on themselves, shoves them in lockers (does this actually happen to anyone?), and in one insane scene of gratuitous shenanigans he attempts to murder them by running them down in his car. They decide to hire a bodyguard and after some interviews they choose Drillbit. He follows the well trod road of the Hans Solo storyline as he uses the boys for cash at first, they find out – get pissed off, then Drillbit decides he should help them after all, and saves the day when the boys had given up hope.

There is very little to laugh at in this movie. It was difficult even getting through it. I feel a little bit betrayed by Seth Rogan, who helped write this, and Judd Apatow, who produced this. Couldn’t they tell this was a stinker? I ask this, but then notice that Apatow’s name appears in the credits of Will Ferrell’s bomb Kicking & Screaming (1995) which has a similar amount of stink in it. Apatow and crew really need to stay away from children. They seem to fail miserably when they try to make a non R rated film.

2 out of 10 – Owen Wilson fails… again.

Pineapple Express (Theatre) - Both

Pineapple Express has had large quantities of press and almost every word of it has to do with pot. What kind of research did they do (the reporters ask this with a giggle usually associated with tweens and the latest Disney pop group), did they actually use the product in the movie (more giggles). These reports and interviewers then usually discuss this film with comparisons to stoner movies like Cheech and Chong or Harold and Kumar. I don’t see the reference at all. This film certainly has pot being smoked and drugs being referenced, but little to know drug influenced scenes. Harold and Kumar rode a cheetah. Ultimately, Pineapple Express was an action buddy flick more in the vein of Nothing to Lose (1997) but funnier.

Seth Rogan, again, plays himself. I’m fine with that. I’m not looking for Rogan to win any awards. He is a process server whose only distinction is his love of pot and his high school girlfriend. His dealer, affably played by James Franco, seems to like Rogan more than their current dealer/customer relationship allows. Franco gives Rogan his top stash while dealing the twigs and roots to his other customers; however Rogan simply views the two as business relations. When Rogan witnesses a murder while smoking Franco’s top stuff called Pineapple Express he throws the spliff out the window and drives off. The murderers know that someone was watching them and find the spliff with the rare weed. They then track the weed down to get rid of the witness. Illogically Rogan runs to Franco’s apartment informing him about what he witnessed and the two then run. I couldn’t find any motivation for Franco’s character to run with Rogan. He wasn’t really in any sort of trouble, but I guess that was Franco’s character’s personality. Just a friendly guy.

The film garners the most laughs in the beginning with subtle off camera adlibs, but as Saul, Fraco’s character, and Dale, Rogan’s character, reach Saul’s hook-up, Red, to find out if the murderers know who witnessed the killing the laughs come from well written dialog and physical comedy as well. Red, who is played by the fantastic new comer, Danny R. McBride, steals the show. His dialogue and delivery lend the movie its top laughs and his invincibility, which brings to mind Monty Pythonesc humor, keeps his character thankfully on screen.

Saul eventually gets caught after Dale informs them they are not friends and they part ways. Dale then figures out Saul was truly his best friend, and enlists Red to come and help him save Saul. They fail, yet succeed in a mundane action scene that ends with Red crawling out of the rubble of demolished building and the three go to a diner to cheer their friendship and react to each others wounds. This last scene goes on for a minute longer than it needs to, but has some fantastic dialogue from Red.

This movie certainly wasn’t a stoner movie. If anything I believe it would be worse when stoned, but being as I’m a square and have never hit the ganja, I’m not sure. I also believe that the scenes with his girlfriend were rather unnecessary. She was a cut out character. There were a few lines of dialogue that sprung from these scenes that were funny, but ultimately she didn’t need to be in the film. I also think the Asian gang was a little to stereotypical for my tastes. I got no humor from them.

7 out of 10: Not the best form the Apatow gang, but certainly better than the worst. I actually think this one is worth multiple viewings.

The X-Files: I Want to Believe (Theatre) - Jennie

I’m not really the biggest X Files fan. I watched it when I caught it, but was never too enthusiastic about catching it. My wife, to my knowledge, is also only the smallest of casual fans. So why did she want to see it? I’m not entirely sure. Part of the reason had to do with it being the only five dollar movie we hadn’t watched and still wanted to see, but Jennie genuinely wanted to watch it. So with only an inkling of interest we sat down to view this film.

I had read that it was going to be a Monster of the Week (MotW) movie. To explain: some of the best X Files episodes I have seen had nothing to do with conspiracy theories and aliens, but simply highlighted a weird group of people, or a particularly interesting unexplained phenomenon. Mulder and Scully would investigate, get to the bottom of it, though sometimes the resolution was vague, and that would be that. These were dubbed MotW episodes, and as had been reported this film was just such a story.

Scully is approached by a federal agent inquiring about the whereabouts of the, now underground, Mulder so that he may be brought in on a case that had supernatural elements. The following two hours was a very procedural resolution to the case. Mulder and Scully slept together, told each other that they loved one another, but couldn’t act on that love, and eventually came to the conclusion that each of them, in the vaguest of terms, brought out the dark in each other. But other than the slight nods to the series this movie was simply an extended MotW episode.

What baffles me is – why bring the series back to the big screen for something like this? They aren’t trying to resurrect the series to my knowledge. This could have easily been shown on television as a reunion type special and many people would have been happy. And my speculation is that that is what this was supposed to be, but when Fox found out about it they thought they might be able to make some money off of it. But then why release it in summer. It certainly wasn’t the blockbuster popcorn selling edge of the seat thrill ride that summer movies are thought to be. It felt like a fall movie. I could have lengthy discussions on the release of this film, but ultimately I point the finger at Chris Carter.

4 out of 10 – an alright thriller with familiar characters. I’m not entirely sure why or how this movie even came to be, but there it is in all its mundane glory.

The Dark Knight (Theatre) - Both

Many people have been talking about Heath Ledgers performance as the Joker. The internet has been hot with debate discussing if it will be the definitive version of what Wizard magazine once called the most horrific villain in comic books. The Joker has had many iterations throughout the years; he has been a childish prankster, a mastermind of Gotham’s criminal underworld, and even in one deranged moment of glee killed one of the many Robins floating around. I begin this review of the Batman movie by talking about the Joker because to put it simply this is not a Batman movie. It is a movie about the Joker and Batman is only a side character.

Remarkably, the writer/director Christopher Nolan allows the Joker to be a visitor dropped into Gotham with no back story. I applaud this open ended origin. I feared an origin story that granted humanity to the Joker. I feel that is one of the downfalls of Tim Burton's Joker. The Joker is twisted and foul, amusing and dangerous – extremes. There is no beginning. One of the beautiful little nuances of this character is the Joker’s story about how he obtained his scarred grin. Was it an abusive father? Did he do it to himself because of his disfigured wife? The mirror that the Joker provides in this film to his nemesis propels the action and the drama. The point I’m trying to make is that while Ledger’s performance is fantastic, the writing and story is equally artistic.

This film makes art out of a blockbuster. It still has blockbuster elements that degrade some of the more subtle moments, like the Batpod, or whatever it is called, whipping through the streets of Gotham taking out trucks and generally being ridiculous, but in that same sequence we see the Joker in all his sadistic glory simply climb out of the broken truck and maniacally approach the deadly vehicle in quite defiance. The film is almost all climax.

There is one glaring chink in the Bat armor. One thing that picks at my brain and makes me want to take the perfect rating from this almost perfect film. When Christian Bale dons the cowl and cape he brashly lowers his voice and whisper/screams his dialog rendering every scene with Batman conversing unintentionally comedic. It could be argued that Christian Bale is the best Bruce Wayne, but his Batman is certainly the worst.

Despite this glaring problem Nolan has done what very few, if any, could do – make art out of a commercial product. Much like Alan Moore did with the comic book itself, Nolan has achieved here – an example that a blockbuster could be both artistic and crowd pleasing.

10 out of 10: Near perfect film, with the acting and writing that can top most films, I fear a superhero movie will never be made that can better this.

Back to the Future Part III (Dvd) - Both

See Back to the Future (Dvd) - Both for full review

6 out of 10: a rather episodic adventure for Marty and the Doc, but retains the feeling of the previous films.

Back to the Future Part II (Dvd) - Both

See Back to the Future (Dvd) - Both for full review

7 out of 10: a relatively interesting look at the future with some heady time travel to keep the fun going

Back to the Future (Dvd) - Both

In the world of movie trilogies I believe, for most people, Back to the Future (BttF) ranks somewhere in the middle. For me it ranks somewhere near the top. I was the perfect age for this to blow my young mind when I first watched it and to this day it holds a place in my heart as being the first set of movies I really could not wait to see as each installment came out. Granted I believe I watched the first one on VHS and caught the last two in the theatre, but still. Jennie had never seen these films so to catch her up on great eighties flicks we watched this on our bored Sunday afternoon. Ghostbusters is next!

The first BttF film still holds up with few glaring eighties moments. These don’t necessarily take away from the enjoyment of the film, but they do date the film. The story holds up as a unique and imaginative plot that reflects the creative decade in which it was made. The intricacies of time travel are dealt with in a theoretically logical way and an attempt at an explanation of time travel allows this movie the latitude to hold my disbelief. While the fact that Marty is lusted after and stalked by his mother may have been a risky plot device, the relationship is played with such delicate humor and innocent teenage angst by Lea Thompson that it is impossible to get too dirty with it. The tightrope that Bob Gale and Robert Zemeckis, the writers, walk is awe-inspiring compared with the clunky work of today’s blockbuster scribes.

By not taking the visual effects root and having time travel be an instantaneous blip the movie’s look and feel is only dated by Michael J. Fox’s hair and colloquialisms. The DeLorean still looks like a very cool way to travel through time, and overall the film is as exciting and fun as I had remembered it to be. This is an example of a good story with thoroughly imagined characters being able to hold up against time.

The saga continues with back to back sequels produced and written at the same time. Bob Gale sets up a myriad of dominos to topple as the series completes itself and finds satisfying ways in which to end the tale. I remember as a child liking the second film better than the third film as the second film actually went to the future. Doc explains at one point in time that he has always wanted to explore the future to see where mankind takes itself. This is in fact, why I would want to visit the future and thus my bias is reveled.

Now that I have seen it again I believe the second film is still my favorite but for an entirely different reason. The film has a relatively convoluted plot that twists in and out of itself and even into the first film. The second film holds to the trilogy doctrine as it is the darkest of the three, and this twisted dark tale is satisfying because of its refusal to take the easy road and be The Time Traveling Adventure of Marty and Doc. The third film, while entertaining certainly feels like just such an episode.

The future that is displayed in part two is a bright happy place with a color palette of extreme hues and synthetic clothing. While most of the technologies displayed in this vision are impossible and impractical I found the most glaring inaccuracy to be the clothing. Though I can’t help but think that is simply due to the hyper colors of the late eighties and early nineties bleeding into the clothing designer’s consciousness.

The third film seems to be a self contained adventure that features Doc and Marty in the old west. This isn’t to say that I would have enjoyed another film with Marty fixing 1955, so I guess this is the best that could have been, but I still find it somewhat episodic in nature. There are some lovely call backs to the previous films, some of which are glaring, while others are subtle. One that I feel I missed the first time round was in dark 1985 in which Biff rules Hill Valley as a casino lord he is seen watching a movie in which Clint Eastwood saves his life with a bulletproof vest in an old west shoot out. Tannen loves this at the time but his relative is then fooled in the third film by the very same trick when Marty defeats Buford Tannen. These subtle call backs are what really make this film fantastic as it feels like the adventure is truly a continuation.

I believe this trilogy stands the test of time relatively unscathed. Jennie seemed to really enjoy her first viewing and that is saying a lot as Jennie usually hates older movies (read older than 1995). I myself was completely entertained and was left wanting more as I feel all good movies do. I am glad they have yet to tarnish the honor by making a sequel recently as they have with Indiana Jones, but I anticipate somewhere in Hollywood is a young scribe who is penning the continued adventures of Doc and Marty as I write this, or, hush my mouth, a remake!

Back to the Future - 7 out of 10: still a great film that contains the fun and excitiment I still look for in my blockbusters

Back to the Future Part II - 7 out of 10: a relatively interesting look at the future with some heady time travel to keep the fun going

Back to the Future Part III - 6 out of 10: a rather episodic adventure for Marty and the Doc, but retains the feeling of the previous films.

Enchanted (Dvd) - Jennifer, Natania

Jennie and I had already seen this movie when it came out in theatres last year, but since my sister and her four year old daughter were coming to visit we decided to rent this with them. So, this will be a short review.

This movie was originally brought to Disney as an R rated film that poked fun at its history. Obviously Disney didn’t like that, but thought the overarching themes were smart enough. The next couple of years brought revisions and cast changes until you get the homogenized version that they released as a vehicle to get the young girls to spend money on princess merchandise. Giselle isn’t really a princess, but the idea is floated about with a quick marriage to a prince, but she never actually marries him.

The songs in this film do remind me of the golden era of Disney musicals (i.e. Beauty and the Beast (1991), Aladdin (1992), Lion King (1994), etc.). They even retain some of the jabs that I’m assuming the R rated version was full of: as Giselle begins “That’s How You Know” Patrick Dempsey’s character questions how both singers know the song when in fact he has never heard the song before in his life, and Giselle, seemingly, has never met the man she is singing with. This sort of irreverent humor gives this movie its best moments, but they are few and far between.

The film has a paper thin girl empowerment message which seems forced. The Disney princesses aren’t really role models in any since of the word. They all seem to find trouble and need to be rescued by a man. With Giselle, Disney rectifies this idea by having her save Patrick Dempsey all while in a lovely purple evening gown. A girl has to look her best. And despite the anti-love message of the first half of the film they all live happily ever after in perfect marital bliss. I can only imagine how the R rated version ended.

5 out of 10: Disney is finally able to capture the magic of its previous musicals, but as always melts it down till there is only a shadow of originality.