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.

My Bloody Valentine 3D (Theatre) - Jennifer

Jennie was unusually amped for this movie. I remember when we were dating I was dragged to Spy Kids 3-D. It seems I married a teenager from the 1950s. Boy, does she love her some 3-D. I’m not sure I get why, but I go and usually enjoy the interesting film experience that the technology can give.

Now, it seems horror is a genre that is perfect for the out-dated technology. Think about it, scary men popping out, items being thrown at you, weapons being brandished in your general direction it’s all ripe for 3-Dedafacation. And this film actually used the technology well.

I’ll give you some examples. As the killer attacks a helpless victim she throws a bed frame in front of her to block the weapon, then the camera turns and we see things from the victims prospective and we see the weapon lunging out of the screen at us being blocked by the bed frame. It’s all very exciting. Another staple of the horror genre is the naked female that has just had sex, but now is killed for her indiscretion. Well, the director or maybe the writer – well, someone – seemed to love this concept cause they 3-D’ed the hell out of it. I'm not saying that is a good thing. I'm saying it is a ludicrously hammy thing. I’ve got a feeling that this is the first full frontal 3-D ever created, but I could be wrong.

As for the plot itself, it wasn’t bad – well, until the ending. It was classic horror film: killer on the loose in a small town. The players were set up nicely and there were false leads as to the identity of the killer. It was all very exciting. But when it came right down to brass tacks the killer was revealed with a whimper – the old boyfriend who just went crazy and thus was killing people when he didn’t know it. There were no clues, no way to figure it out. Even the killer didn’t know it was himself until it was revealed. The ridiculous nature of this reveal worked against the mediocre horror film that had constructed itself, and the 3-D aspect remained the only support the film had going for it.

I’m not sure what future 3-D has in the world of film, but it seems that it’s making a comeback. I can’t wait for the 3-D remake of The Big Chill (1983)!

3 out of 10 – would have been a solid five if it weren’t for the ending. Coming for the 3-D stay for the… 3-D.

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.

Bride Wars (Theatre) - Jennie

Weddings are amazing. I mean that. Mine was the second happiest day of my life. Only to be surpassed the very next day as my new bride and I drove to our hotel in Maui. So how does Hollywood take the romance, joy, and love out of weddings?! How do Cinema weddings turn into what was displayed by this film?

This film was horrible. It highlighted a rare strain of female that wants so badly to have the perfect wedding that nothing, not even a cardboard cutout of a fiancé will stand in her way. Now, technically I don’t know any woman who has acted like that on their wedding day. So I feel that Hollywood is doing the fairer gender a disservice by producing this schlock. But it was obviously made for females. Not one male of note even graced the cast.

I’m not sure what anyone can get from this movie either. It depicts two wedding hungry girls who happen to be best friends. They both get engaged around the same time as well, one by forcing her boyfriend to ask her and the other by a nonchalant sigh of resignation. After finding that the wedding planner of their dreams booked them on the same day they fight to see who gets to keep the wedding date. No one wins and they both put on their weddings but not before attempting to sabotage the others. Along the way the husbands to be are pushed aside and barely even noticeable except for the occasional quip about how “crazy” girls are about weddings.

Eventually, one’s wedding falls apart on the day of the dual weddings and they make up. They both attend the wedding that is still on– while both of them are in wedding dresses – um, yeah. There is a little wrapper that shows that the two have been playing wedding together since they were children and the final voiceover reads something like this "Sometimes in life there really are bonds formed that can never be broken. Sometimes you really can find that one person who will stand by you no matter what; maybe you'll find it in a spouse and celebrate it with your dream wedding, but there is also the chance that the one person you can count on for a lifetime, the one person who knows you, sometimes better than you know yourself, is the same person who's been standing beside you all along."

Now I don’t know about you. I don’t know about your partner. I don’t know about anything other than my own marriage, and if that last sentence isn’t talking about your partner then you probably shouldn’t be getting married in my opinion. I wanted to start this review of with a remark about how Sex and the City has given woman the courage to say that a good group of friends is really all they need, if a life partner comes along so be it. And I think that is great, but that also means you shouldn’t then get married because it is some rite of passage. I guess what I’m trying to say is you can’t have your cake and eat it too. If you can’t give everything to your partner, then why get married, what is the point? Stay dating forever and leave it at that. If you really do want to be there for that person in good or bad times, sickness and health, zit or no zit (thank you Mrs. New!) – do it. But don’t marry someone for the ceremony. It is just rude.

I know I got off on a tangent, but this movie simply pissed me off. Marriages, between men, women, both – who cares – should be held in high regard. If you don’t – don’t get married. This movie simply mocks what it supposedly obsesses over.

1 out of 10 – simply a waste of time. And even somewhat offensive to weddings in general.

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.