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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Hancock (Theatre) - Both

Will Smith is back to his July 4th blockbuster shenanigans once again. And as with his previous efforts this film smacks of mediocrity. It is inventive, interesting, and still somehow vacant.

The opening scene is boisterously ridiculous with a Michael Bay flamboyance - too much for me. It shows Hancock (Will Smith) drunkenly apprehend a cadre of thugs while showing that he is an asshole. This becomes a catch phrase ala Marty McFly’s dreaded nickname “chicken”. Don’t call Hancock an asshole or you will get what is coming to you.

This sort of lazy writing humbles this promising popcorn flick along with Will’s lackluster performance. However, along comes Jason Bateman’s P.R. character to save the day and the film. He befriends Hancock after being saved by him and works pro bono to build his rep. This is when the movie shines – Bateman is his affable self (I fear Bateman may be a one trick pony, but, oh - what a trick) playing against Smith’s cardboard cutout of a self-loathing man.

At this point in time the film has quite a lot of potential. The scene is set for a quality ending as Hancock rises to the occasion showing he is a worthy hero. This is until the small twist rears its ugly head. Every encounter Hancock has had with Bateman’s wife, played by Charlize Theron, has been filled with confused stares and glaring eyes. There is a history there, a lumbering gorilla in the room; these two mean something to each other. The film takes a detour on the way to becoming a hit as Theron throws Hancock through the room displaying her hidden superhero powers. Oh, my – what a twist!

This hack doesn’t completely ruin the film and on the positive side navigates around any attempt at creating a supervillain for Hancock to fight. However, I somehow disliked the addition. The film never really addresses the fact that Theron’s character could have been a superhero too, but chooses domestic life instead. They then simply avoid the fact that Theron and Smith obviously have an unrequited love, but she is married to Bateman. And the film ends on a horrible candy coated note that almost ruins the film entirely. I will be fascinated to get my hands on the disc and see what kind of alternate endings this film had (read: the endings before the homogenization). The garble of ideas that come after the twist do add to the story giving Hancock a background of sorts and allowing the leads to display some emotional growth, but I find it hard to swallow the incomprehensible mess that they force on the audience. I won’t say I hated it, because I didn’t, but I also can’t say I’d recommend it.

5 out of 10: I appreciate the novelty, and can see where it could have been good, but the second half betrayed the first half’s promise.

Sex and the City (Theatre) - Both

It appears this film was an event to some. Jennie and I witnessed a fanboy (girl) opening night like that of Lord of the Rings. Woman came to the theatre in sequined gowns and floppy hats. Some had glow in the dark martini glasses while others sported shiny footwear unlike anything I had ever seen. Large groups of women from fifteen to seventy put on their most club worthy attire in an effort to out do their compatriots. It was a sight to behold. While Jennie was unusually excited, I myself was only somewhat. It’s not that I don’t love Sex and the City, I do. I even said to Jennie that I would rather Sex come back on air then anything I could think of at the moment (this includes Arrested Development, Seinfeld, and Sportsnight). But, I wasn’t entirely sure that Sex and the City was movie material. It was prime time material for sure, but a movie could be big and obnoxious, and that was not the Sex and the City I loved. My favorite episodes were the ones were everyone was dating some tragically flawed individual, then they would have sex and break up, no muss no fuss. That couldn’t be movie material.

After watching the movie however, I said to Jennie, “That was like watching six episodes in one sitting,” I was quite pleased. They begin the movie with the inevitable wedding between Big and Carrie. This was what I expected. Obnoxious, big, outlandishly expensive, in short every thing I hated in Sex in the City in one bird headed mess. Carrie looked horrible in her dress, not just horrible, but silly. The fashion shoot for Vogue looked ridiculous; Sarah J.P. could never be mistaken for attractive. And Big got cold feet, but as the tamer died down and Carrie went on her honeymoon with her three friends the movie also became present to me. They had set up some fantastic storylines for the remainder of the movie and I anticipated their resolutions. Before I get to those I can only say that I felt Charlotte’s storyline was a lackluster. She berthed a child, yeah. That was about it. Though now that I think about it, her yelling at Big and being angry at him felt like a subplot for her. But when you compare it to Steve cheating on Miranda I feel Charlotte got the short end of the drama stick.

Speaking of Miranda and Steve – I loved this story most of all. I hated that they had Steve cheat, but they gave him a good enough reason. I’m not saying he is justified in cheating, but any prolonged time without sex can hinder a relationship. As Samantha said in one of the episodes, “Sex is a barometer for the relationship.” The emotion in that story was well played by both actors. But I think their resolution was what I enjoyed the most. They wrote that with extreme delicacy and treated the violation between Steve and Miranda with very realistic solutions. However, I juxtapose this with Big and Carrie’s resolution. I was not entirely happy with how they treated Big’s “violation” (I secretly feel he had very little blame in the whole thing. I could discuss that more, but only if you are interested). Their resolution seemed like a quick oh-no-we’ve-already-spent-two-hours-on-this fix. He asks her to marry him right after they resolve his violation? If they would have spent half the time on their resolution as they did with Steve and Miranda I might have been happy, but oh well. You can’t always win. Jennie thought that the audience just wanted them together to get it over with. Which sounds sort of right to me.

A few quick notes before I wrap up. I thought that they played Charlotte’s mess herself scene a little too slapstick. I could have done without all the fart noises. I loved the addition of Carrie’s assistant, though she came and went a little too quickly. And I thought Samantha story was well done except they played Smith too nicely. Overall, as a fan of Sex and the City I was pleasantly surprised. We will defiantly be buying this as it seems like a short seventh season, but I can’t recommend it for none fans. I would have no clue what you would think of it.

7 out of 10 – it was exactly what I wanted, another season.

Forgetting Sarah Marshall (Theatre) - Both

Judd Apatow is a man that can get things done – now. Back in early 2000 when he was trying to keep his television show about siblings growing up in Chippewa, Mi on the air this was not the case. Today things are vastly different, though his friends are not. With this power to get things done Apatow has had any and every film he and his friends can think of green lit and made into critically loved films. Seth Rogan put together Knocked Up (2007) and Superbad (2007) with help from Apatow and now Jason Segel is getting his Apatow-boost. These Freaks and Geeks alums aren’t alone; this August James Franco is getting his with the buddy flick The Pineapple Express (2008).
In this film Jason Segel plays a lovelorn loser that resembles his Freaks and Geeks role. He is dumped by his girlfriend of six years and decides to take a vacation to get his mind off things. The scene in which he gets dumped is particularly hilarious in that Segel is naked throughout the whole scene. He attempts to stall the breakup by not getting dressed which further humiliates him as he is then subsequently dumped while flaccid (a fact that is shown multiple times). This humiliation is not his last as Segel’s character garners many of his laughs from his degradation. The shining moment is when Segel plays a song from his incomplete Dracula musical. This scene is particularly funny and well played by Segel as a crowd looks on with confusion.
The key to most of Apatow’s projects are raunchy humor and a secret ingredient. Films like Waiting (2005) and Good Luck Chuck (2007) have raunchy humor and don’t understand this so they fail. Apatow knows that good humor is real (for lack of a better term, “it has heart”). I don’t know how else to put it. But I see it in every one of Apatow’s projects. Knocked Up had true soul searching in Rogen’s character as he struggles to quickly grow up, Superbad had a friendship that felt genuine and faced the trauma of a separation after high school, and Sarah Marshall has a breakup with real substance. The two protagonists both do things to ruin the relationship they have spent six years on and this is devastating. This film doesn’t pretend it isn’t, but it finds the humor in this devastation.
While I can’t say this is my favorite of the Apatow’s Crews’ flicks I must say they are operating on a different level than the Frat Pack of the early 2000s. And while Jason Segel isn’t a leading man – he just isn’t, I can’t help but fall for the old Andopolis charm.

7 out of 10: Segel gets humor out of real life a feat which is both hard and rewarding for the audience.

Smart People (Theatre) - Jennie

Noam Murro hasn’t directed before, Mark Poirer hasn’t written any other film – according to IMDB this film is the fledgling ship for both of these artists. So, why does this film feel so familiar? In the landscape of Hollywood today most films can be categorized pretty easily: big budget blockbuster, chick flick, raunchy comedy, and charming “indie” just to name a few. This falls so squarely in the latter’s category that I know I have watched this film before. The struggling college professor who must raise his children despite having no clue how to, the hip child who doesn’t know how hip she is, and the icing on this cake of déjà vu – Thomas Haden Church playing an overgrown child who bares his ass for laughs. Didn’t he play this same exact character in Sideways sans the middle school mustache? Despite this being a fairly entertaining film I found myself disappointed by its lack of flavor. I laughed at most of Church’s Man-Child antics, Dennis Quaid sold me on his beleaguered father shtick, hell, even Ellen Page’s rightwing incestuous student seemed fleshed out and real. I’m not sure what I was expecting. This was exactly the film anyone could have guessed would come out of this premise, but for a first film, how can this seem so rehashed?
I also have problems with the idea that all professors of English are depressed while maintaining a delightfully introspective hermit quality. Examples abound: The Squid and the Whale (2005), Wonder Boys (2000), even Sideways (2004) contained an English teacher who couldn’t get his career off the ground. This theme runs rampant in literature as well – John Irving comes to mind. Were all our English professors in college mollycoddled sourpusses? Mine certainly wasn’t. Though, as I think about it now I can understand the impetuous for such characters. I don’t know many English majors who focus on writing and want to become English teachers. No, they want to become writers. Thus becoming a teacher is settling, and writing about how they settled is more interesting than anything else that has happened in their life thus far. Well, I guess I changed my mind. But I still have a problem with it. Can these people only write about their life experiences?
Anyways, back to the film (warning: big spoiler here), the end completely pissed me off. For some odd reason they had Dennis Quaid impregnate Sarah Jessica Parker’s character – this was an annoying plot device in the first place. The two wanted to work with this development and so they get back together in the closing seconds of the film… uh… yeah. The most confusing and thus annoying thing about this was they showed shots of Quaid happily handling a child in the closing credit – ok. But, then, in the last shot they showed him cradling two children, one a baby girl, one a baby boy… she had twins! Yup, after a relatively well written albeit unoriginal film they end with a sitcom quality twist, maybe in real life that is what happened and as we all know English professor can’t write about anything but what they know.

6 out of 10: a humorous film for those that enjoy beards, butts, and books though it was bleakly bland.

Leatherheads (Theatre) - Both

George Clooney creates yet another love letter to the golden age of film in this simple story. With slapstick gags, miscommunication with humorous results, and a feisty relationship between to female and male protagonists I half expected this film to be set in black and white with stalk cards providing the dialog. I’m sure some enjoyed it, but to me, Clooney is loosing his charm. I hate to admit that. He seems cocky not confident, pushy not charming, I no longer want what he is selling. Clooney wants to sell me on the idea that a woman is only good if she can make it in a man’s world as a woman with a man’s attitude. He wants me to believe that fooling the police by dressing like a policeman is funny. It isn’t. It isn’t even entertaining really. These jokes don’t work anymore for a reason. We aren’t watching moving pictures for the novelty. Charlie Chaplin don’t cut it in my book. This is what I feel Clooney misunderstands or if he does understand it he wants to lead the charge back to making these things funny. Clooney and Soderbergh make yet another misstep in predicting that Clooney’s charm is limitless and can hold anything together.

4 out of 10: John Krasinski gives a worthwhile performance in this Clooney smarmfest though it isn’t nearly enough to be worth it.

Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day (Theatre) - Jennie & Matt

This film chronicles a hectic day for a recently out of work nanny who finds herself waltzed into the breezy life of an up-and-coming actress. Miss Pettigrew (Frances Mcdormand) fibs her way into becoming Delysia Lafosse’s (Amy Adams) social secretary after being fired from her previous nanny job. We are directed to believe that Delysia’s life is a whirlwind of men, sex, and stardom, but we are shown that this is all a lie and she is actually a poor girl from New York just trying to make in this world. This farce leads to a love quadrilateral that ends with the guy with the heart of gold getting Amy Adams. And on the way Miss Pettigrew finds love, the ability to smoke cigars, and a bite to eat.

If this all sounds very simple and somewhat stale I can understand that. But this movie was going for that 1960’s whimsy. It felt very much like Breakfast at Tiffany’s (1961) to me, in that oddly paced, wacky-love-winning-the-day kind of way. The problem is it didn’t go far enough. Back in 2003 Renee Zellweger and Ewan Mcgregor starred in a 1960s style farce called Down with Love (2003). This film took that style and ran with it, campy couches and all. I feel like Miss Pettigrew was attempting to compete with this but didn’t fully commit. Where Down with Love had the lame puns and the absurd misunderstandings, Miss Pettigrew wanted to find a middle ground, maybe to make it more relevant to today’s audience. This, however, makes Miss Pettigrew feel just a little bit stale and not fully confident with what it was trying to do.

I also feel compelled to add that Jennie, my wife, thoroughly enjoyed this movie. She particularly enjoyed Lee Pace, the entirely delightful lead from Pushing Daisies. She believes him to be her new celebrity crush. I'm not entirely sure how this effects the film, but I will admit he is particularly dreamy in this film, so there's that.

5 out of 10: A fun film, but Down with Love would scratch the itch in a much more satisfying way if you had both to choose from.

Howard the Duck (OnDemand) - Matt

I have to explain why this movie is even on this list. Notice, this is a Matt pick. Matt Siblo, brother and consistent contributor to this blog’s comments page, is visiting me this weekend as a surprise by my lovely wife and himself.
Now, last time Matt and I visited each other we watched six movies in two days. We love to do this: eat bad food, watch movies, and discuss them. Occasionally other topics sneak in, but these are rare occasions and often happen on the way to a movie. So, when we arrived back home from picking Matt up from the airport and Matt asked to view our offerings OnDemand the pickings were slim. So, Howard the Duck was chosen.

Howard T. Duck lives on a planet inhabited by anthropomorphized ducks whose civilization apparently evolved exactly as ours did; only ducks were the dominant species. Their civilization even has duck related media. This leads to such mallard-enhanced naming schemes as Playduck and Indiana Duck. After a hard day at work Howard sits in an easy chair and is instantly transported through a wormhole. He lands in Cleveland, Ohio and waddles out into our world where he is gawked at as he is a 3 foot walking talking duck. After getting thrown out of a punk rock club, I’m not sure how he got there; he is witness to Lea Thompson’s character’s potential rape. Howard comes to the rescue, I guess, by distracting them enough to be browbeaten by a 3-foot water fowl and a punk rock version of Marty Mcfly’s mom. Beverly, Lea Thompson’s poorly named character, almost instantly feels sorry for the poor mallard alien and asked if he wants to come over. This leads to a series of odd happenings that added to the running time of this movie and culminate in a very awkward scene in which Beverly seduces Howard. Matt and I were turning away from the T.V. at this point as no amount of Lea Thompson nakedness could make us stomach the idea of a duck and a woman. Eventually, this is broken up by scientists who break into Beverly’s house and tell Howard they were the reason he was brought here and they can get him home. This is about at the forty-five minute mark of an hour and a half duck movie so Matt and I were confused at how a resolution to this farce could take another forty-five minutes of our lives. Sadly, it could. Here is the fast version: Howard is brought to a facility where he was pulled down by some tractor beam, but as he arrives something has gone horribly wrong and another being has been brought back, but not from the duck-verse! It turns out it is a demon from some unknown demon-verse who possess a scientist and plans to take over the earth! The cops show up! Everyone runs! Howard gets separated from Beverly and this leads to a fifteen minute scene in which Howard flies an ultralight (a very small aircraft that looks like a hang-glider)! Howard kills the demon and destroys the tractor beam now he can’t get home! Beverly and her band play a monster gig rocking the song “Howard the duck”!

So, to say this is a waste of time is an understatement. An hour in Matt was pleading me to fast forward but I claimed that for the honesty of this blog I must watch the whole movie. Matt did this several times, but I refuted his pleas. This movie was far too long. Multiple scenes were pointlessly added and the ending took thirty minutes from my life which I could have used to brush up on my duck puns. This seems on par for George Lucas, who has done his best to hide this mallardy (yeah thats right, a duck pun), and hasn’t done something relevant since Last Crusade. But, Based on the premise of this movie I can’t say I didn’t see this coming. However, when the execution on a 37 million dollar project is this bad it is a thing to watch. 37 million-1980-dollars that is insane to think about. Matt and I weren’t entirely sure who this movie was even marketed to as it was too racy for 1986 kids to see (there were duck boobs), but the premise was too stupid for anyone else to see. The score, which was written by Academy Award winning composer John Barry, seemed out of place in this tottery world of ducks and Lea Thompson. But, it did help remind me of films like Flight of the Navigator (1986) and The Explorers (1985) which contained science fiction with a starkly family feel. So, maybe it did have some sort of audience that it thought it could cater to, but they were obviously misguided in thinking this film would reach anyone as this film eventually became known as a clausal bomb.

2 out of 10: bloated, overly long, and poorly executed, though some fun can be garnered from mocking it.

Be Kind Rewind (Theatre) - Ashleigh

Michel Gondry’s work is certainly unique. If you have seen any of his previous work from his music videos to the four films that he has created there is a similar thread running through each piece that imbues a child like awe when viewing his work. Gondry is a wizard of the old school of film making, though he occasionally uses special effects, most of his visually stunning work is simple camera tricks exploited to their fullest extent, and Be Kind Rewind is no exception. In fact, I believe it is the purpose of this film. I can picture the meeting to get this film green lit going like so:
Gondry: I want to make classic films that everyone knows and loves using only technology that a pair of idiots can get their hands on.
Studio Head: What?
Gondry: Like if two guys simply made every classic film.
Studio Head: What?
Gondry: Like if two guys tried to make King Kong with a super 8 machine, one guy standing real close to the camera and the other guy stands far away to simulate depth. You know. The close guy is King Kong the far guy is an onlooker – depth.
Studio Head: What?
And though Gondry successfully pulls this feat off with a spectacular flourish it is lacking something very important. This was my problem with his previous work, Science of Sleep (2006), though the visually stunning pieces in both movies were eye-popping, how-did-he-do-that masterpieces, the story took a back seat. This is also why Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004) succeeded where these two movies fail. With Eternal Sunshine Charlie Kaufman’s story was accented with Gondry’s visual flair, but Gondry sans Kaufman is like the Jagger-Bowie collabortaion, “Daning in the Street”: all flash, no substance.

The movie opens with a confusing biopic about a jazz piano player named Fats Waller. This biopic is played in pieces through the film and threads together the story like a loose fitting sweater draped over the idea of recreating previous films. This also plays as a theme for Gondry’s filmmaking itself, jazzy and improvisational, skirting convention with sour notes and syncopation, but it does not let him off the hook for his lazy story telling. Jerry, played by Jack Black who once again overplays the annoying sidekick he once hit perfectly in High Fidelity, and Mike, played with a little too much sap by Mos Def, are forced to recreate a slew of VHS tapes that were destroyed. They dub this sweding a film (it had something to do with Sweden and Jack Black rambling, so I lost what this meant) and then become minor celebrities as their sweded films are more popular than the original. But this story line takes far too long to get to and the film recreations, the meat and potatoes, are few and far between. Gondry hits a few sweet notes with his display of filmmaking as a community affair bringing people together to create art, which is a nice little band-aid for this post-writer’s strike Hollywood, but the overall plot seems shoehorned into the desire to recreate classic films.

6.5 out of 10: Visually melodic when it wants to be, but, like pop music, missing any real substance.

This is a mind blowing piece Gondry did a few years back.
Steriograms - Walkie Talkie Man
Director: Michel Gondry