Eagle Eye (Dvd) - Both

Computers are terribly dangerous. They can do some crazy stuff that you don’t even know about, like change traffic lights, operate cranes, blow the airbag in a truck, anything and everything you think a computer can do – it can. Plus computers hate humans. They find us dangerous. They believe that we are a hindrance to ourselves and to the world. Thus every time a movie imagines a world where computers think, they kick our ass. As long as we can maintain our dominance over conscious thought we’re good, but if they ever gain even semi-conscious thought . . .

Well, Shia Laboof lives in that world.

Shit.

The computers are going to get us. Not only does the computer in this movie hate humans, but it hates humans on the basis that we don’t follow a largely philosophical document that states our desires for our nation.

Wow.

This computer can think, hate and interpret the documents our forefathers wrote. We are in trouble.

The rogue sister of HAL believes that the president has broken a law and thus he needs to be eliminated along with the entire executive branch. The computer then devises an insanely complicated plot involving a trumpet and a diamond necklace to pull off the assassination.

Hell, man. Computers are amazing.

Now, why wouldn’t the computer simply take control of a plane and bomb the white off the executive branch – I don’t’ know. During the course of the movie we see that computers can do that sort of thing. But, I guess, our computer has a flare for the dramatic. Trumpet and diamond necklace – that’s the ticket.

Oh, computers, you are a dangerous match that humans love to play with. When will we actually get burnt?

Shia stumbles through his dialog as he does his fame and drags the film down a notch or two, but with a ridiculous plot like this, I’m not sure this ever had a chance of being good anyways. There are car chases, there are guns, and there is an individual who gets shot, but survives – it’s your basic action movie.

I largely don’t go for these types of movies, and neither does Jennie, but this film seemed to garner some praise, all be it a small amount, and I can’t, for the life of me, figure out why. The bland plot that mixed any action film with 2001: a space odyssey was straight from the latest airplane novel sitting in the tiny Barns & Nobles. I don’t get it. Where did any praise come from?

3 out of 10: I wouldn’t waste my time. This fil[ERROR] JRun Servlet [ERROR](SecModConnectionPool.java:705)[ERROR] THIS MOVIE WAS GREAT \nl GO WATCH IT NOW

Ghost Town (Dvd) - Both

I watched Ricky Gervais earlier this month on Inside the Actor’s Studio he stated that some of the best comedians did one thing, and they did it really well, he named Abbot and Costello as prime examples. They also had a lovable loser thing going on, because according to Gervais confidence aint funny. This, I’m assuming, was said to combat the critics who call Gervais a one trick pony. I tend to agree with the critics but I can see where Gervais is coming from as well.

In Ghost World Gervias remains true to his ideal stated to James Lipton and plays a largely anti-social extrovert whose near death experience leaves him with the unintended side effect of being able to speak with the dead. Since he is incredibly anti-social this irks him a great deal as now he has even more people crowding his world. In an attempt to get rid of them he finds love.

Yes, this is a romcom staring Ricky Gervais. This, in my mind, is as bad of a casting call as Ellen DeGeneres in Mr. Wrong (1996). I’m not sure who thought he would be a good lead in a romcom but I don’t have the big Hollywood pockets.

This film has a heart to it – that’s undisputable. Gervais is given the chance to help the dead move on from what is keeping them trapped in limbo. In these acts of good will and kindness the lovable loser that Gervais plays finds that the closed world he has been living in his whole life is somewhat meaningless and vapid. This is not a horribly surprising message, but Gervais plays the emotions well, and I genuinely felt good when he helped people.

The scant hour and maybe thirty minutes that this movie takes to tell its tale is a bit short, but I wouldn’t have wanted them to spend any more time on the ghosts, nor would I have wanted any more riffing from Gervais, so I guess win win.

4 out of 10 – Gervais plays Gervias once again, but this time with emotion.

Wanted (Dvd)

I would figure a Matrix (1999) rip-off would have been made a little earlier, I mean isn’t this about 5 years late? And when I say rip-off I don’t mean like Heathcliff v. Garfield, I’m talking plagiarism right down to the pseudo-attractive female that kicks ass. This film is the Matrix without computers. I can actually picture the Hollywood heads using that exact phrase, “Matrix without computers,” to describe what this was and how it was going to make money.

The hero is starts in a cubicle where he is picked on by his “best” friend and boss and is ignored by the office hottie.

Oh man, what a set up.

His girlfriend is cheating on him with his “best” friend from the office though she isn’t nice to him anyways. This cardboard situation isn’t developed in anyway though so when his estranged dad turns out to be in a secret group of assassins it seems like a great deal for the main character Wesley “Neo” Gibson. Eventually, this group of assassins needs to show this nobody that he is a somebody by teaching him the ways of his father so that he can track down his father’s killer who just so happens to be the best assassin ever.

I can’t tell you how many Matrix type situations and characters are in this film and as it turns out the graphic novel this film was adapted from was published in 2003 so I think we all know where Mark Miller got is inspiration. And though the plot was a direct rip-off of a better work it is actually a pretty universal plot, so you would think that the audience could get behind this loser with a destiny plot. But the action and actors seem so clichéd and flat it felt like watching an hour and a half commercial for some hot new cell phone, caffeine drink or at least some other product that the kids like. There was absolutely no weight to the characters.

The one character I found that they gave at least an attempt at fleshing out is big-lips herself, Mrs. Angelina Jolie – shudder. I dislike her. I don’t think she is a good actress, and I don’t know why. I won’t watch Changeling (2008) though I have heard great things about, because she is the central actor. She is like the female Vince Vaughn, always adding her sleek “sexiness” to every character she plays. Her back story here involves a clichéd rough childhood, and, I guess, that means she can kick ass.

Yeah.

There is a betrayal, what we thought was true wasn’t – and, finally, a twist a Romcom fan could see coming a mile away - oh, and a huge scene with ass kicking. Ho-hum. There is room for a sequel, of course, but if this is a mediocre Matrix, and the Matrix sequels were horrible, then the amount of suck that a Wanted sequel would create would be monumental.

3 out of 10 – Just rewatch the Matrix.

Snow Angels (Dvd) - Matt Suggestion

I’m not sure what is more surprising – the idea that this film hasn’t had any praise whatsoever in a lackluster year for award movies, or that this film was directed by the same individual who directed Pineapple Express (2008). You choose.

The film is a sparse drama set in a snow fallen small town that while showing the cycle of relationships reflects on the pain and loss that can be born from mediocrity in effort. Sam Rockwell, brilliant as always, plays Glenn Marchand, a recently divorced recently born again Christian who skirts the line of worthlessness and significance as he attempts to regain the life he once had. His ex, Annie, played against type by Kate Beckinsale, is obviously done with any relationship that the two could possibly produce and is self-destructive with her other relationships in the small town. The two stumble through their parental duties until the rising action of the film when the here-to-for pawn in their relationship embodied by the little girl goes missing.

Backinsale’s character works in a shabby Chinese restaurant the type you know is about as Chinese as a fortune cookie, while Rockwell works as a wholesale carpet dealer attempting to parlay his newfound religion into sales and advancement. The town’s high school band plays a soulless and mournful version of Peter Gabriel’s Sledgehammer while the band leader screams for them to feel it. Meaning – the tangible qualities of the town are additions to the morose feelings the jilted relationship emanates, it’s all rather depressing.

There are four central relationships that this film attempts to portray that displays four distinct stages in relationships in general: birth (young love), angst (a couple who is being torn apart by infidelity), acceptance (a couple divorcing due to infidelity), and death (a couple destroying their relationship and each other). Rockwell and Beckinsale play the latter of the four who are falling deep into a gulch of self loathing and after the loss of their daughter Rockwell’s character is sunk. It’s all rather depressing.

My biggest complaint in this film lies with its youngest actors and the writing done for them. They are given poor dialog and seemingly worse motivation. Their relationship seems born of confidence and a mutual attraction both of which are hard to come by in high school. This isn’t to say it is impossible, but with the characters, I find it to be against the grain.

But overall this film is a well done yet miserable. Despite the young love flub the relationships are stark and realistic. Accolades are deserved all around, but I fear none will come, which is all rather depressing.

7 out of 10 – a great film that should be seen, but I would never want to watch it again thus it loses a point.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (Theatre) - Both

David Fincher is known for making dark films – Fight Club (1999), Se7en (1995), Zodiac (2007) these are all rather pessimistic movies that don’t really celebrate the human endeavor – even Panic Room is darker than most cinema fair. However, Fincher’s latest effort is close to the exact opposite. It has the light charm and sullied optimism of Forrest Gump (1994), and that isn’t the last reference to that film I will make here.

Fincher's touch isn’t as heavy handed as it has been in the past, there are no scoping shots parsing rooms out as action takes place, but as the director grows older his touch with the scissors seems to be waning. While Zodiac came to 158 minutes Button runs the marathon of 166 minutes. And there are numerable scenes that could have found a home on the editing room floor.

To give you an example – the wrapper was a waist of emotion, money, and time. We see Daisy, the central female protagonist, as an old woman slowly dying has hurricane Katrina threatens to strike New Orleans. Why Katrina needed to be thrown into this film, I will never know. Her daughter reads to her the diary that Benjamin has left behind as she, Daisy, dies. This mirrors Forrest Gump’s wrapper in that the audience is constantly drawn out of the story by the two individuals telling it to rehash the information learned. Additionally, we get the emotional dead weight of a daughter finding out that her father is clearly not who she thought it was, but as she finds out through the diary, he was a curious man who happens to age backwards. The wrapper could have never been in the story and the film would have been the same.

The love story in the film also mirrors Gump in its breadth and scope. We are lead to believe that the two main characters fell in love when they were both around the age of ten. This means that we need to believe that a ten year old girl fell for, what looked like, a seventy year old man. An odd concept, I know. And much like Gump, the love isn’t really kindled until much later. They are torn apart and brought together on several occasions, all the while one is growing older and the other younger.

Now, it seems like I’m down on this film. I’m not. In fact, when walking to the car with my wife I exclaimed that I enjoyed this film more than Slumdog Millionaire (2008). But I find that while I thought the film was a subtle epic, which played its cards at just the right moment, it doesn’t stay fresh as I turn its central themes around in my head.

I continue to believe that I loved this film while watching, I love a good epic. They seem so grand. But epics, even Forrest Gump, my favorite, don’t always maintain their luster when taken away from the viewing experience. I’m not sure why. Maybe, it has to do with the fact that you are no longer having to buy each and every coincidence. Maybe, it has to do with the fact that our lives never mirror the majestic highs, lows, or battles that appear in the individual’s life. I’m not sure. But, I can’t think of an epic that stays epic after the theatre.

7 out of 10 – an epic piece of cinema that tries its hardest to maintain the paces it sets for itself.

Slumdog Millionaire (Theatre) - Both

From the opening scene of Danny Boyle’s tale, India is a sight to behold. The bombastic movement that follows the children as they run through their slum depicts a tangible world for his characters to inhabit. Boyle’s cardinal filming techniques are present with quick edits, bright colors, and variable focus lengths. The pinnacle establishing shot jump cuts to a view that shows the children escape through a clearing in the hodgepodge of tin roofs that provide shelter for the slum. And much like Boyle’s last film, the amazing Sunshine, Boyle makes his set piece a character.

But to speak of only Boyle’s filming techniques would be a misstep. The script that Boyle puts to film is a classic tale that brings about thoughts of other old stories from Britain’s great authors. The film’s plot is a mixture of both Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet and Dickens’ Oliver Twist, with a little twenty-first century wrapper that pulls the plot together. The wrapper is truly what makes the plot stand out from a simple rehash of old tales of orphans and unrequited love and gives an easy climax to the old narratives.

Jamal Malik, awkwardly played by Dev Patel, uses Who Wants to be a Millionaire to get in touch with his lost love Latika. However, the police are interrogating him based on the idea that a man from the slums can, in no way, know all of the answers to get as far as he has gotten in the contest. The story of how Jamal came to know and fall in love with Latika is then told through his interrogation as he explains how he knows the answers to the entire list of questions. Each subsequent answer to the twenty or so questions chronologically steps us forward in his relationship with Latika.

And while this is one of the better films I have seen in the last year or so, I do have one major qualm with it. Joel pointed this one out before I had seen the film, and so while watching all I could think was the love between Latika and Jamal wasn’t based on anything really. They met as children, had a few harrowing adventures, but that is it. Are you in love with anyone you met when you were five? While this is not unlike Romeo and Juliet, and I still have problems with this plot device. Why would you love someone whom you’ve had very little contact with?

Boyle’s film gives the viewer a tangible India and a classic tale. It’s an optimistic film in a pessimistic season. I can’t wait to see Boyle’s next trick.

8 out of 10 – a fantastic view of India with a universal story.

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.

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.