Win Win

Sometimes you luck out and the word of mouth you hear is exactly right. I had not seen the trailer for this movie, and I knew very little about it. It's an independent film so it was not going to be playing everywhere, but a quick search found it at the Edwards Theater in West Covina, so off we went. Basically all I knew about the movie was that it starred Paul Giamatti, he plays a lawyer and he is also a wrestling coach. This does not really sound like a set up for a great story, but it turns out that if you know much more, it might not be as appealing. I don't want to go into depth about the story but I do have some opinions that I want to share, so I will keep it focused on theme rather than plot.

Life is hard. It is really hard for some people, and most of us who are lucky enough to be blogging at all, much less about movies, probably will never know the difficulties that two thirds of the world faces on any given day. We barely get a chance to know the hard truths that face people in this country. We have crime, and emotional betrayal and poverty and drugs. They are present in different degrees in most places in the world. We also have the problems that plague the average hard working person. Those include physical maladies, financial difficulties and self loathing of one kind or another. We do what we can each day to make it work. Some days are better than others. Most of us don't whine about the issues but they trouble us and we often need the release that comes from sharing those burdens. This movie is about the attempt to do the right thing, and sometimes failing. That failure does not mean that we are wrong or worthless but that this attempt did not work. So what are you going to do then?

I know that I saw Paul Giamatti in films before he appeared in "Sideways" but he was never a lead character and I can't say any of the parts he played were memorable. Since then he has been on a winning streak that any actor would love. He has starred in major films, independent cinema, television programs and cable movies and mini-series. Not to put to fine a point on it but he may very well be the least visually arresting actor on screen ever. He looks like your next door neighbor or the guy who works a couple of offices away. He is the most average looking actor that ever starred in a film. So it is abundantly clear that his appeal in entirely in his gifts. He can bring the characters he plays to life. We feel as if we know these characters because they are portrayed by someone who got the job because he could act not because his picture will look good on the poster. He is as good in this movie as he has been in anything. I think this is the kind of performance that gets by people because he turns them in so effortlessly they don't notice. His character is trying to make it through the day, the week, the month and the year like all of us are. Some days are so tough that it is hard to function physically, other days give you a sense of pride that will leave pleasure for weeks. Everyday decisions have an impact, and the law of unintended consequences suggests that the results will be very surprising at times. The advantage is that if you are trying to do the right thing, in the long run you can recover from those things that you did that are not always as savory as you think they are.

There is a kid in the story that comes into the main character's life. He is played by a newcomer named Alex Shaffer. This is the second performance I've seen in the last few months from a new actor, that really suggests that this is someone with some ability. Hailee Steinfeld from "True Grit" was a find who commanded the screen because her's was the starring part. This guy is memorable because he is so much the character he played and his personality meshes so well with the story arc. Nothing is ever over the top, but a real personable character emerges. The part is very well written because he acts like a kid in his situation might, if given a chance to be a solid human.

I don't know what Burt Young has been doing lately, but if you are a casting director in Hollywood, please remember him more often. This is another guy that is a natural when given a chance. In 1974 he played Curly in "Chinatown", a big lug that helps out Jack Nicholson's character, but we know he has also roughed up his wife who was cheating on him. In "Rocky" he is the self-pitying brother of Adrian, Rocky's friend who is prone to violent outbursts. Here, he plays a version of the same character, a guy who has had a hard life and may not have always been a good guy. Having lived with someone with dementia, I thought he was spot on with the underlying suspicion but also the docile charm that a person in that part of life can experience.

All of the actors do a solid job showing the daily struggles that make living a chore but also a gift. There is abundant humor in the story but it really is a drama in the end. We care about the outcome, and not just of the wrestling matches. Somewhere, years ago, someone found a way to make wrestling a part of Hollywood story telling. It seems an unlikely background for a film yet it seems to work repeatedly. Here, the reason is plain, it is about the struggle to get though the challenge and the question you must constantly ask yourself. "What are you going to do about it?" This movie has some good answers, they are not always the things we would hope for, but they do tell us about our true character.

Rubber 2011

If you have ever spent time at a college with a cinema department, you have probably seen some student films that have a clever idea and run just a few minutes. They can be frightening, hilarious or perhaps poignant. Those films usually benefit from a tight budget which forces creativity. They are also strengthened by a dedicated crew of film makers, that are anxious to show off what they can do. Some student films have been adapted to the big screen over the years as commercial projects, the most famous of which is probably George Lucas's THX 1138. The movie I saw today, feels like a student project, that has been fattened up and extended to make a theatrical film. It suffers from the same problems that any good idea is subject to, too much of a good thing.

Rubber is at it's heart a horror movie with a ridiculous premise. An old tire becomes animated and can kill with the force of it's concentration. Watch the trailer above and you will get the idea. There is inherent humor in the notion of a tire wandering across the desert, looking for meaning, but it is even funnier when the tire has a killer psychokinetic personality. There, that's your movie idea, and it can be done in a twenty minute or less film and have a great memorable impact. Here, it is almost ninety minutes, and it is undermined by a mixture of satire on movie going (maybe at the expense of the very audience that might embrace such a film), drama involving unrequited love, and then comedy featuring the cast from a minor league version of Reno 911.

I will be honest, I laughed several times. There are some good jokes in the movie and there are several actors that play their parts just daffy enough to get away with some pretty stupid stuff. The problem is that it is all an exercise in meaningless audience manipulation. As soon as we get set for one consistent idea, the movie veers off on another twisted loop and as the film makers themselves would say, "for no good reason." There are some movie conventions that are observed, and others that are subverted, but it is entirely arbitrary as to which one will be next. I can't say I hated the movie, it was not terrible and at times I was entertained. I can say I was frustrated by it because there are so many potentially great ways the movie could go, but it never follows up on any of them.

If you are a regular reader, you know that I like exploitation films as much as the next person. A little crap is a good way to clear the mind and remind yourself what makes real movies so valuable. I enjoy creativity, but the direct approach is often the better way to go and this is one of those places where directness would have succeeded more than what is finally given to us. "Drive Angry", "Snakes on a Plane", "Machete" or even "Sharktopus" tell us what we are getting and deliver on the promise. Sometimes those films get sidetracked and they lose something as a result. "Machete" is a good example, an exploitation picture that features gratuitous sex and violence, got bogged down by a pseudo-political theme that did not belong in the movie. Rubber is a horror comedy that makes the mistake of trying to break down the fourth wall between the film and the audience, and instead becomes less than it should be.


Not all of the parts fail, in fact taken on their own, they might make good ideas for other films. I got the impression that the film makers did not feel like they would get another chance at financing, so they went ahead with all the ideas they had, even though they do not go well together. If you are intrigued by the trailer and the poster, go ahead and see the movie. My advice though is to catch it this week on the free preview being offered on HD Net You don't have to pay for parking and if you hate the movie at least you did not pay to see it.

The Adjustment Bureau

The Adjustment Bureau - #1 Trailer by hawkbcn

We actually saw this movie yesterday, right after we had gone to "Battle Los Angeles". My daughter Allison is an English major, and she wants to do a dissertation on Phillip K. Dick when she gets into grad school. This is a story based on one of his many works and adds to the legacy of movies inspired by his writing. At some point Hollywood will run out of Stephen King and Phillip K. Dick, and then no more movies can be made. She was very enthusiastic about seeing this and I was not. This film was originally scheduled to come out back in September of last year. I saw the first trailer nearly a year ago. When a delay like this happens there is often a reason, and not a good one. While it did not turn out to be a disaster, I can see why they waited to release it,they needed to find a way to market a chase film without any excitement in it.

Allison quite liked the movie, but I was indifferent to it. As we talked after the film, I said that it seemed a little bi-polar, never sure if it believed in religion or was dismissive of the concept. Her answer is that a lot of Dick's work is about the uncertainty of whether there is a god or whether we have tricked ourselves into believing in God. (In fact according to her, Dick saw God but did not know if it was a real experience or a drug induced experience, thus inspiring a series of stories.) So, this film would be great for college theology or philosophy students, high on grass, to spend a late night speculating over. If you are interested in story or entertainment, seek out something else.

If you watch the trailer above, you have a reasonable grasp of the story. Everything else that happens, simply repeats itself. This couple, is not supposed to get together, and each time they do they get separated again. And then it happens again, and then again, and then again and.., while you get the point. Ultimately the climax of the movie is a series of chases through doors that take you on a tour of New York City, for no particular reason except the film makers have scouted some amazing vistas and architecture for the protagonists to run through. There is very little sense to it, and the point of the story is to challenge the ideas of determinism, and free will. I have determined that I will not see this movie again of my own free will.

Access to the inner sanctum of the agents of the universe, who are trying to manipulate our lead characters, is granted by wearing a hat while going through the right door. That's the secret password, wear a hat. One of the supporting characters, acts completely against the nature of their character, to cause events to change, for no particular reason. After it is all gone on for a long, long time, the unseen "Chairman", makes an arbitrary decision, that they should have seen coming two hours earlier. This story was a spinning hamster ball of nonsense that might be interesting to read for a few minutes as a short story, but goes nowhere as a movie.

The actors in the movie are fine, in fact Allison's main justification for enjoying the film is the love story that is going on in the movie. The leads are appealing, but every time they start to connect in an interesting or meaningful way, we go back to the metaphysical baloney that the film makers want to make the movie about. I saw "Billy Budd" on channel nine (KHJ TV), some time in the early 1970s and became a fan of Terrance Stamp. After "Superman", I would watch for him in other films and remember when he was so young. His best film was "The Limey" from a few years ago, where he gets to play a real person. I'm glad he works, and he makes most pictures better, but in this movie he is a piece of scenery, masquerading as a person. All of the "Adjustment Bureau" bureaucrats are interchangeable, so he is wasted in the movie as an actor. His face though is used very well with his solemn mouth and deep penetrating eyes, he is the epitome of determinism. He is the best thing in the movie when he shows up, but he could just have easily been a cue card or a book page with exposition written all over it.

I know I am giving the impression that I hated the movie, but I did not. I just did not care about anything that was going on in it and I was bored. I can enjoy some bad movies for what they are, if they are entertaining along the way. This movie made me want to put on a hat and walk out the door. Whatever was on the other side would be more compelling that the two hours I spent watching this.

Battle L.A.

I don't know how it is that this movie made it a week into it's run without me sitting in a theater somewhere sucking it down like a milkshake. This was exactly my cup of tea and I knew it the first time I saw the teaser trailer. This is a science-fiction action film that takes a completely different perspective from other Earth Invasion films of the past. "Independence Day" was all about the idea and the spectacle of an invasion, "War of the Worlds (2005") is a horror chase film which focuses on a big story though a small group. "Signs" is the same story without the spectacle but keeping the creep factor and asking big questions about faith. This movie is a traditional war story about a platoon of Marines, involved in fighting a space invasion. If I were a gamer, and played some of the popular first person shooter games that are now so ubiquitous, I might not have enjoyed it so much because it would seem familiar.

There are a lot of cliches in the movie, but it is important to remember that cliches get that way for a reason. Our group of Marines is lead by an untested Lieutenant, backed by a battle hardened but burnt out Staff Sargent. The platoon is ethnically mixed like an old World War Two movie, and there are brief back stories to help us identify with the warriors. The movie does have some plot elements that focus on conflicts between the Marines, but that is not what the movie is about. This film is an examination of the professionalism and dedication of our fighting men and women. There is some hoorah marine macho behavior, but is is only incidental to the job that each person is trying to do to the best of their ability. Some are more gifted than others but there was not a one that was not there to do the job, and each was well qualified. They are tired, and scared, and angry but most of all they are professionals. This movie was not a Patriotic exercise in America First, with flags waving and speeches about our heritage. It celebrates America in the best way possible, by showing real people, who have come together to do a job, and want it to be done the right way. They take responsibility and exercise it in an American way. They care about their team members, their mission and the civilians they encounter with the kind of behavior we all hope is a hallmark of our military.

There are a bundle of special effects, but they are never lingered over or meant to divert us from the story. This is not a CGI pile of junk like "G.I. Joe" a couple of years ago. This is an intense, Sam Fuller like war story, set in a Science Fiction parable. The alien threat is real, and it feels like the world is coping with disaster in the best way possible. Our marines have little knowledge of what they are up against, and they have to improvise along the way. My guess is that this is the way it is in real life warfare as well. You are well trained, but ultimately, the boots on the ground have to make the best decision they can and then live with the outcome. In our modern world, the rest of society gets to second guess them and judge their valor, this movie gives us a chance to see how that process works. I never had the honor of serving in the military, so I see this as someone who's primary exposure to this culture is vicarious. It requires huge sacrifice to serve in combat, and my appreciation for those who do is immense. I suspect they will see this movie as a tribute to their service. Last tear's "The Hurt Locker" is a more serious film with a better developed personal story, but it had many of the same qualities of professional pride that this movie did. There is tension and random mayhem and no one deserves the bad things that happen in war.

Aaron Eckhart is an actor that I have enjoyed but have never really warmed up to. Even in "The Dark Knight" I felt his performance was outside of the character. He strikes me as if he is playing at being an actor rather than playing the character. That was not true in this movie. He is really invested in the part and plays it with gusto and honesty. Even in the most cliched line in the movie, one that reminds us of the boiler plate characters we were given to start with, he sells us this person. Everyone does a fine job, but he is clearly well cast as a no nonsense leader in the right set of circumstances. Of course this is not the right set of circumstances, yet he manages to do the job anyway. Sgt Nantz is a good hero for our times.

I have often said in my comments on films, that a movie is successful to me if I am moved emotionally. This movie did that but not in the way most people would expect. Sure there are characters that don't make it and the emotions there are well created in the story. There is also a sense of dread, that people trapped in these situations would feel. My emotional reaction is to the courage and fortitude shown by everyone in the movie, but especially the military. To see how doing one's job is a part of a team process, that you take up the burden that is given to you and you simply do the best you can. That brought a tear to my eye, because I know that this goes on everyday outside of my experience. It is real and there are enemies that we must struggle with that are not from outer space, but feel like they could be. My friend John Yenny (Jr.) is about to graduate from Annapolis and join the Marines as an officer. I am proud to know a guy like him and all the other young men and women who are called to service in this way. My guess is the Yenny's will have this movie on a permanent loop on the TV for years to come. When the final scene of our marines is shown, I can't imagine how someone will avoid a lump in the throat and a tear of pride in the eye. "Retreat, HELL!"

A Stanley Kubrick Odyssey - A Tribute

I found this today and I enjoyed it quite a bit. You might well enjoy it also.

Rango

I have always liked animated movies. My earliest recollection of an animated film was 101 Dalmatians, which my parents apparently took me so see right before my brother was born. I was not quite four and I have only an image or two in my head, I know the movie more completely from seeing it years later. In high school and college my friends and I would go each year to the Tournee' of Animation, which would play at the Rialto Theater in South Pasadena. That is where I first saw "Bambi vs. Godzilla", and I have enjoyed weird animation ever since. This movie definitely falls into the weird category, but not in a way that should put anyone off. It is a very creative and extremely well designed film. It is also a satire, a western, a parody and a joy to behold. There are several sections that seem weary but the quirkiness saves it more often then it dooms it.

Ten years ago, Tom Cruise was the biggest star in the world, which is how he could get away with making fun of himself in an Austin Powers film. In the last ten years however, the crown has been transferred to a handsome, talented actor, who prior to his breakthrough commercial film, was best known as an odd-ball character with discriminating taste in movies. Johnny Depp, has since the first of the "Pirates of the Caribbean" movies, has alternated between big screen popcorn films and smaller movies with a little bit of class to them. I was not a fan of last year's "Alice in Wonderland" and his movie with Angelina Jolie last December got such bad buzz that I skipped it completely, and that is a clear indicator of something wrong, cause I'll see almost anything if it has some kind of hook to it. All is forgiven for those last two disasters because this movie is a gem, and it works in large part because Depp embodies the character Rango, even though it is a cartoon.

The movie this most reminded me of was "The Nightmare Before Christmas". These two films have almost nothing in common except an amazing and unique visual style and charming characters that are sometimes overwhelmed by the weirdness around them. In Nightmare, the biggest element that might put some one off is the music (not me, I love "This is Halloween"), it is sometimes overbearing in how much it takes over the movie. In "Rango" it is not the music but the maniacal comedy that means a frenetic pace and tone. It is interesting to note that both of these projects are the work of Depp's two biggest collaborators in the last ten years, Tim Burton and Gore Verbinski. This movie could easily be the Burton film that came out of the dark.

Nothing in this movie looks the way other movies have looked, and none of the story seems overly familiar, unless of course you have seen every Clint Eastwood spaghetti western and Chinatown. I don't think I'm giving too much away to suggest that this movie uses both the western genre and the classic L.A. Noir of Robert Towne's great screenplay, to create an unusual and interesting cartoon that adults will appreciate more than the kids will. Your kids will still like the movie because of the lovable lizard that Depp inhabits, but adults will adore it for hip references, funny homages, and irreverent use of character and scene. I laughed a lot and missed several jokes because there was so much going on in the movie. I will probably try to see it again, just to admire how clever the bits of business are throughout the tale.

Characters in the movie are often based on well known stereotypes and cliches, but they will not seem that way because of the performances and the way they have been visually rendered on the screen. The voice talent in this movie is deep as well as Depp. Ned Beatty's take on John Houston in particular is a hoot. I will not spoil the surprise, but Timothy Olyiphant, will tickle you with his version of ,...well I just don't want to say. Depp is silly and poignant at the same time. This is a performance that is more subtle that the work he did in the Alice film, and the movie is better for it. He can ham it up, but it usually goes better for us when he plays something resembling a real person (or lizard).

Like I said, there are times when the events get a little overblown, but the movie is rescued time and again by the character work that is going on here. The story does not come together as well as a Pixar film would, but the characters are memorable and the performances by the voice actors is solid. The references are pop oriented, but it is more like listening to Dennis Miller riff, then it is a Robin Williams ego stroke. The familiar can be tiresome, but the vaguely familiar can be really rewarding. This is a strong endorsement for this movie, go and see for yourself. If you don't enjoy it, get your funny bone looked at because there is something wrong with you.

Drive Angry Shot in 3D

OK my friends, this is one of those embarrassing moments like where you discover that your parents are sexually active, your fiance dropped out of high school, or you have broken wind and there is no dog around to blame. There is a place for bad movies , and that place is apparently in front of my eyes. This looked ridiculous from the trailer, it stars Nicolas Cage, who has notoriously low standards for choosing film projects, and it's main selling point is that it was shot in real 3D, not converted to 3D. If those things don't automatically turn you off, then my friends you are my kind of people. This movie is STUPID, and there are so many elements that are Cheesy it would make a blue box of macaroni self conscious. Which pretty much explains my point of view on it. It Was A Blast! Much like the equally awful Piranha 3D last summer, I went into this with high expectations of campy fun and I was not disappointed. There is mayhem, blood, car chases and Nicolas Cage in full on weird mode, what more could one ask for?

Well I'll tell you, there is actually a lot more that you get. The concept is silly, but in a way that makes you want things to go for the rest of the movie. Cage plays a vengeful soul, who has escaped from hell to rescue his grand-daughter taken by satanists with the intention of human sacrifice. I'll pause here so you can read that last sentence again..., that's right, he is literally "Grampa from Hell". We never see how he manages his escape, and there are only the vaguest of hints as to why he was in hell in the first place. The movie pretty much picks up in the middle of a car chase that ends in a 3D gunfight which includes hands being shot off of wrists (IN 3D). After that, it is a series of chases and shootouts and flashbacks that make almost no sense but who cares, it's in 3D and stuff blows up and gets chopped off.

Featured as the Accountant from Hell sent to bring Cage's character John Milton (yeah, it's that kind of obvious)is one of my favorite contemporary character actors William Fichtner. We first noticed him on the TV show "Grace Under Fire" where he played a recurring character.He plays the banker for the mob at the start of "The Dark Knight". He reminds me of a young Christopher Walken, without the idiosyncratic manner of speech. He is in my favorite episode of The West Wing, and adds intelligence to every movie he is in, even a piece of crap like this movie. The character is menacing, and has some great comedic lines. In the end, it turns out almost as if there could be a sequel featuring the two characters. Since the movie appears to have tanked with audiences, I doubt that we will see that, but in my head it is already bubbling.

There are several muscle cars featured in the movie as well. That 1969 Charger, driven by Stuntman Mike in "Deathproof", is back for another round of bad ass motoring featuring death and dismemberment. When I was 15 or 16, my friend Don Hayes and I almost died in a crash on the freeway in a 69'Charger. His mother owned the car and she let him drive it. The combination of power and teen adrenaline resulted in us driving too fast on the freeway, having a car in front of us stop short, and Don having to swerve onto the shoulder to go around and avoid hitting the other car. We fishtailed a little and hooked the bumper on the fence separating the freeway from the neighborhood around Ramona Convent. We ripped out part of the fence and bent back a part of the right rear bumper. I don't know that there is any connection but I am sure he caught hell, so maybe that is why Nick Cage drives a Charger. Late in the movie, John Milton storms a satanist orgy in a Chevelle SS, that is on fire and looks like a muscle car from hell while he is chasing down the cult that has his grandchild.

The feature set piece in the movie is a shootout at a motel that features Milton killing dozens of cultists, while never stopping having sex with a waitress he picked up in the roadhouse next door. It reminded me of that scene in the original "Dirty Harry", where Clint is eating his lunch and has to go out and stop the bank robbers while still chewing his hot dog. Neither could be bothered to stop their activity to deal with the bad guys, and the bad guys simply become fodder to show how phenomenally cool the main character is. No it doesn't make any sense, but guys get shot in the kneecap, impaled by hoes, machetes, and scythes, and it all happens in 3D. Oh yeah, the blond waitress is also naked the whole time, in 3D.

There is a well worn analogy to junk food when it comes to movies like this. After two weekends in a row, watching some of the finest and most well regarded movies of the last year, I was ready for dessert. I don't need Crème brûlée, or Tiramisu, I am perfectly happy with something cheap and full of sugar and fat from the 7-Eleven. So basically, "Drive Angry Shot in 3D" is a Hostess Snowball. Chocolate cake, covered in marshmallow, and frosted with pink coconuts. It looks fun, it goes down great while you are consuming it, but afterwords, you may hate yourself for giving into the temptation. Don't worry though, you can live with the guilt.

Here is a podcast for a site titled How Did This Get Made? It is 35 minutes but their deconstruction of the movie is a blast.

Episode 5 - 'Drive Angry'/Curtis Gwinn | Earwolf

Found This and it looks like it is in my ball park.

AMC Best Picture Showcase Wrap Up

The second day of Best Picture nominees did not fly by as quickly as the first day's movies did. In large part this was because of the somber and self important tones of the two movies that stared the day. These two films were the last two that I had not seen at all from this years list of nominees. The subject matter may have been what put me off from rushing out to see them in theaters, although Winter's Bone was a movie I think I would have gone to if it had played for more than a few days in more than a couple of theaters.

Winter's Bone was clearly a fine film. There is a good story arc and it is intricately plotted. The actors are all very good. The lead is an actress named Jennifer Lawrence, and she seems quite young. This story reminded all of us of the TV show "Justified" without the good guy gun-play. There is a sad element to the world that all these people belong to. There is basically no hope except in the will power of our heroine, she is all that is holding her family together in the midst of a family blood feud involving meth. The people she encounters all seem so real and unpleasant that it is difficult to think they are all actors. None of them seem very familiar except the guy playing the sheriff, who we recognized from several Television programs. The authenticity is one of the things that made this movie work so well. In addition to the Best Picture Nomination, the lead actress and the guy playing her dangerous uncle are both deservedly nominated.



Black Swan on the other hand is a movie that no one in our group really cared for. It seemed to be very indulgent and overwrought. Maybe if we were ballet fans it might have seemed more meaningful. As it was, the whole exercise came across as a long experimental piece that might have worked as a long Twilight Zone episode but it went on far to long with some cliche acting and visualizations. Natalie Portman is probably going to win the Oscar tonight, but many years from now, people are going to wonder why. She does do a credible job on the dancing elements, but she has only three or four facial expressions and she uses them very judiciously. I think she is pretty but her flat emotionless voice and dull expressions don't help sell the over the top premise. This is one of those films that cinema majors in elite schools will probably love, but the rest of us just think "Huh??"


Inception is also a bit over hyped. It is a great film and visually arresting, but it has a lot of the same types of problems. There is a great deal of mental gymnastics to support the premise. The concept is very creative, but the emotional baggage that Leonardo DiCaprio is supposed to be going through is not really involving. It feels like it is being fit into the puzzle, not to be the focus of the story, but to manipulate us with another mystery that will provide some emotional payoff. I thought the movie made more sense last summer when I first saw it. It was smoother and well oiled, this second time was clunky and more obvious. I did appreciate the Roles that Ellen Page and Joseph Gordon-Levitt played. They seemed more a part of the story when you are not trying to figure out how everything ends up being connected. The music is solid so along with the Special Effects, that is one place where the movie will be rewarded this evening.


The Social Network is one of those Zeitgeist films that comes along every few years. The Graduate and Fatal Attraction were examples of those films that seem to catch the tenor of the times. This movie is what people who make films seriously, would like the movie making experience to be about. It discusses the events that are changing our world in an interesting way and it tells a fascinating story. The script is written by one of the smart guys when it comes to language and changes enough of the real story to make it interesting and have an arc to follow, but retains enough of the truth to titilate us with behind the scenes gossip. It was trending as the likely winner at one point but now it will likely be an also ran.


The movie that capped off the day was my favorite of the ten films nominated, "The King's Speech". This is a wonderfully realized piece of historical drama that features three terrific performances. Colin Firth will be collecting the award for Best Actor for his role as Prince Albert, the second son, who becomes King George after his brother abdicates. He is crippled with a speech impediment that limits his ability to move through the intricacies of pre-war politics. The friendship he develops with the therapist that tries to help him is complicated by the therapists unorthodox approach to therapy and the status differences between them. It is a document of real events told in a dramatic way. The accession of George VI to the throne on the cusp of World War II is well known, but told from a dramatically different point of view here. The story works because of the times and the characters. People sometimes dislike Tea on the Lawn English movies, I understand this but they are focusing on the wrong issues, these movies are often about human nobility, dignity and courage in the face of strong adversity. This movie follows that tradition and meets our hopes about the way we as people want ourselves to be remembered.

Best Picture Showcase Week 2

At the theater early. First up is Winter's Bone, one of th two I have yet to see.

That was depressing but really good. The actors are grear. The world in that movie was scary and depressing. It is set in Missouri or Kentucky. The blood feuds and crank are frightening.

Black Swan...WTF. A lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.

Inception, this was my second time and it seemed much more confusing than the first. I may have been looking for puzzle pieces insread of simply enjoying the film making. This movie would be difficult to explain to someone sitting next to you who was not paying attenion.

The Social Network is coming up after the dinner break. We won some prizes for trivia earlier and get to try for more before the movie starts.

Predator: The Musical (The Final Schwarzenegger Musical)

I want to see it on Broadway NOW. This belongs on the stage, not Spiderman.

Michael Kahn Tribute

Tribute to Michael Kahn, A.C.E. from Carsten Kurpanek on Vimeo.

Unknown

Clearly there is a marketing effort to tie this film in with Taken from two years ago. The tag line, "Take Back Your Life" is not really very subtle. That is as close as the movie comes to being about revenge fantasy and Liam Neeson kicking butt. This movie is apparently based on a book that was a suspense thriller. There are spy elements and double crosses and a plot that seems so clear after certain revelations that you will kick yourself if you missed them. I was trying to think of similar themes and "The Bourne Identity" came to mind, but Amanda had a better link and that was Total Recall. I hope that does not give too much away since the cleverness of the situation is a big part of the appeal of this movie.

The first movie I remember seeing Liam Neeson in was Excalibur in 1981. He was one of the knights of the round table, the one that saw something wrong in Lancelot's refusal to join them at council on a regular basis. Nearly ten years later he was Dr. Peyton Westlake, a researcher that becomes the deformed and vengeful "Darkman". Since then he has been in dozens of movies and been nominated for an Academy Award. He is a proficient and appealing actor, but until "Taken" a couple of years ago, he was not a star. hat movie established him at a relatively late point in his life as an action star. Here he plays a lost soul biomedical researcher, but one that seems able to take care of himself. The good thing is that he is believable in both aspects. You need to have that kind of credibility to carry off a movie like this. Schwarzenegger and Stallone could never get us to believe the intellectual element of the characters they played, although they are both smart guys, they clearly fall in the action category. The closest I can think of another actor to be able to play tough and vulnerable was Kurt Russell. He may not be the biochemist, but is could do the everyman forced to become something more, really well. Neeson has that same ability.

There are elements of old cold war spy films in this movie. It is set in Berlin, there are dark forces at work, and a former E. German security guy turns up as a key character. There are side notes related to international business, science and middle eastern politics, so it is not hard to see parallels to all kinds of spy films. There are car chases and hairbreadth escapes and some solid fight scenes. So if you like intrigue and suspense, this is a good film choice. The plot is not as convoluted as it might have been. In fact, once the key twist is revealed, it all makes a lot more sense and fits in well with the things that we have been shown.

Diane Kruger, who was so solid in Inglorious Basterds, is here as the usual civilian caught up in events, far beyond her depth. Yet her character is tough and resourceful and manages to be a key ingredient to the story, not simply a female interest for the star. Bruno Ganz looked familiar to me, I am sure he has been in some things I have seen, but he is best known for the German movie "Downfall" in which he plays Hitler. I don't know if many people have seen that movie but I do know that millions have seen him in the role because clips from that film have been used in Youtube parodies for years. If your favorite TV show got canceled or your team lost in the championship, there is probably a scene of Hitler going off in German with English subtitles despairing over the disappointment. That is Mr, Ganz. He is very subtle here but incredibly believable.

This is a solid film that will play well in theaters for a while and will earn some good video business. It is not as perfect as "Taken" was, in large part because the emotional involvement in that movie is never present here. This film is more coldly calculated to fool us and to lead us to the resolution. It is a lot more clever but not as strong in audience reaction. I'm sure I will see it many times on the satellite channels next year and enjoy it but I don't need to keep it in my head the same way that I did with "Taken".

Spoiler Alert:

I have a great way to describe the plot of this movie, but I don't want to spoil it for you. If you want the clue, follow this link. http://hitgirllives.blogspot.com/2011/02/unknown-clue-revealed.html

Best Picture Showcase 2011

After previous years visiting the day long movie feast that is the AMC Best Picture Showcase, we have been pretty worn out. Sitting through 5 movies is not a chore, but the day sometimes semmed to drag on an there were long awkward periods when not much moved quickly. Yesterday however was different. The staff seemed to be engaged with the group in the theater, the break for lunch/dinner was just the right length of time and the movies were all relatively brisk. We did not have any three hour epics of slow moving Englishmen, or Blue Aliens. Instead most of the movies were 2 hours or less. I also think that the scheduling helped. The toughest movie to get through was not the last movie of the day but the second. It was sandwiched between two comedies that helped alleviate much of the grim scenario of the middle movie.

We were invited to participate in trivia contests during every break. The staff sometimes was a little under prepared in asking the questions but they were good natured and let the audience provide answers and comments along the way. Once again we won more than our share of the trivia prizes so from a personal perspective it was nicely satisfying. Best of all, as we were leaving after the last movie, we were all thanked for coming with a nice commemorative poster of the event. The personal contact at the end of the long day and a treat to go with it left my group refreshed rather than weary.




I thought the promo trailer was great and they played it before each movie so we were all reminded why we were there together. It was a lot less tiresome than the repetitive word jumbles and quote trivia on the slides. It make the experience feel unique for our group although I'm sure it is playing in other AMC theaters as well.


Toy Story 3

Again it was a delight. I am am sentimentalist and movies like this are designed to appeal to me. There are adults out there who may believe that an animated film is make for children. They are wrong, children may love an animated film, but anyone with imagination and heart could not fail to love a movie like this. As I said in my end of the year posting, this was not my favorite animated film of the year. That does not mean it is unworthy, it simply means that my taste was influenced by the new as well as the familiar.

127 Hours

A harrowing story told really well. There is of course a scene that,everyone who knows the real story the movie is based on,is dreading. I forgot the one element of the scene that bothered me so much the first time, and it got to me again. Amanda had to turn away while Aaron our hero makes his escape, Anne watched it through her hands and scarf. The incident that got her the most though was not gruesome but heart-wrenching, when a bottle of water was spilled, Anne reacted with a involuntary arm movement that smacked me in the arm, I may have a bruise, but it is a badge that shows how much we got involved in the man's story.

The Kids Are All Right

This was the only movie that played yesterday that I had not seen. It was very funny at times and all the actors were really solid. I think Mark Ruffalo has reached the point where it is clear that he has the goods. This felt like a small movie and one that was actually personal. Most films like this don't get released in theaters anymore, they are made for premium cable channels and shown to broad audiences, but the reaction doesn't get shared like it does in a movie theater. It was not the filmmaker's skills that draw attention to this piece, but the actor's craft and the screenwriter's creativity.


True Grit

I have a separate post on this in the December pages of the blog, and my opinion has not changed. This is a solid western, with excellent performances and some grim story telling. The tone is different than the John Wayne movie of 1969, but the story is the same and the dialogue often feels as if it was verbatim, but here it is more elaborately arcane and successful. The mild differences strengthen the movie in many cases but there are some elements that are less satisfying, including the tag ending of the movie that feels like a punch in the chops after all we have gone through.

The Fighter

I don't know if there will ever be a Mixed Martial Arts movie that will have the drama of a good boxing film. MMA may be the wave of the future, but boxing seems to carry so much more substance to it that there is not any comparison. Of course there was a good wrestling movie two years ago, so maybe it will happen. This film is a showcase for acting talent in almost every scene. If Christian Bale fails to win the supporting actor award, I will wonder why for the rest of my days. This was a fitting way to end the day and leave us wanting more.

next week we will get more with five other films. I have not seen Black swan or Winter's Bone yet, so I think i have a lot to look forward to. Plus we will get the two top contenders for the best picture award, The Social Network and The King's Speech. Look for us to update live next week between the movies.

Showcase

Toy Story 3 was great and 127 Hours was harrowing. It has been a good experience already, we won some prizes at trivia and we have True Grit next

Actually it was The Kids are Alright, I would not be surprized if thefe were an upset in the supporting actor catergory christian Bale still is the pick here but Mark Ruffalo was fantastic True Grit is next .You can read my previous comments in the December posts.

Academy Awards Showcase

For the fifth year in a row, the AMC theaters are screening all the nominees for best picture in a single showcase. The first three years we went, it was Five pictures and we thought we were pretty hardcore. Last year the Academy increased the number of nominees, and the AMC showcase went to two Saturdays in a row, five pictures each day. We are headed off to the showcase tomorrow, looking forward to five movies. There are 15 theaters around the country that are showing all 10 films in a 24 hour period. I could not talk Dolores into it, but I may have to do it on my own next year, just to say I did. I'll try to update from the theater tomorrow, I can't wait.

It is 10:15 we are in and waiting for the first of our movies, Toy Story 3. This was on my 10 favorites last year. My grandnephew Maysn had this on his ipod at Thanksgiving, that was the only time I saw the film after the 3D experience on opening day. More than a year ago we went and saw Toy Story 1&2 in a 3D format. All of them looked great. We were not given glasses when we came in so this must be a standard version of the film. Last year at the Best Picture showcase, we saw Avatar in 3D and then changed theaters to see the other nine films. They told us as we came in we will stay here all day, just like the other years. It's going to be great.

The Day the Movies Died: Movies + TV: GQ

The Day the Movies Died: Movies + TV: GQ

GO FAR: The Christopher Rush Story by Zack Arnold — Kickstarter

Let's make this happen

GO FAR: The Christopher Rush Story by Zack Arnold — Kickstarter

'The Mechanic' 2011

This was the first film I saw in the last two weeks and it was fine as far as it went. The main problem was my expectations. I enjoy Jason Statham in many movies. He is a good go to tough guy and when I first heard about the movie I thought this was a pretty good bit of casting. One of my students in the summer Interpersonal class, got a chance to see this back in July at a test screening. He was not particularly enthusiastic, but I still had very high hopes. He did not know that it was a remake and this is fundamental to my difficulty relating to some of my students. They are often bright and friendly but many have no sense of the past. It is as if the world started when they became conscious of music or TV. The other day, the name of Billy Dee Williams came up in class and I said "Lando Calrissian", someone quipped, "how did you come up with that?", as if it were an obscure referent. Even the Star wars movies are somewhat abstract to many of them. So how could any of them appreciate the great Charles Bronson, a guy they would see as their great grandfather, based on age alone. And so it was that most people seeing this movie will have no expectation because they have no knowledge of what came before. This is probably a good thing for the current movies success but a bummer for those drawn in by the original.

In the summer blog, I mentioned the Mechanic as a film I knew almost by heart. It was not on the list of summer movies I wrote about, but every time Charles Bronson is mentioned, "The Mechanic" is one of my go to images. The 2011 model is serviceable as an action film with some interesting twists, but it lacks the tension of the original. In the opening, there is a clever assassination, but we don't see it set up, there is no suspense, and although we can appreciate afterwords the originality of the approach, it doesn't set up the main character very well. All we learn is that he is ruthless and maybe a little too smart. In the original film, we see the first hit set up, we watch as the victim strolls through a set of ordinary activities as he is being stalked. We get a bird's eye view of the daily minutiae that makes up his life. The assassin, also watches, we see him planning but we do not immediately understand how he is going to carry out that kill. Then, we marvel at the clever way the observations have been followed and the murder committed. All of this is done without any dialogue, and our silent killer tells us more about his personality with thirty seconds of squeezing a ball of paraffin wax, than we get in an hour and a half with the new guy. This is another difference between film makers of today and those of the past. The screenwriter for the new version follows the story beats, but misses the nuance of the story. The action is jacked up quite a bit at the loss of suspense.

There is one good suspense scene in today's movie. Arthur Bishop, the title character, has taken on an apprentice,Steve, one that is loath to follow directions and is trying to make a mark for himself and get a little battle scarred along the way. Three weeks of set up is designed to get him close to another contract killer that is the subject of the current assignment. When the young apprentice backs away from the original plan, there is uncertainty as to how it will be resolved. A tough and brutal fight ensues and there is good reason to believe the outcome will be a disaster. Steve is played by Ben Foster in a crazy eyed manner reminiscent of the same kind of sidekick role he had in the remake of 3:10 to Yuma a couple of years ago. He had less screen time in that film, but was a more vivid character than the troubled psycho he plays in this film.

I did like the update that was done on the story in regards to the relationship between Bishop and the man who he works for and is destined to become a target. There is a greater sense of clarity concerning why he would care about the apprentice, but while it was more logical that the original it was less interesting. The consequences in the second half make a more driven plot element than the original, but the revenge theme is a well worn trope. Character is critical to making us care about the outcome when the protagonist is a bad guy, and the apprentice is a psycho. Statham's version of Arthur Bishop has some of the same quirks as in the original, but he does not sell it. The music, the car, the woman he has sex with, are all just costumes for him to put on, they do not seem like they are real. Bronson may have had a stoic face, but he sold isolation, superiority and menace without having to paint it on.

The contemporary music, and the style of shooting is solid. The movie has been put together well by people that are competent, but the script and the acting are the weak links in the film. I have been quoting an annoying line used by Jan Michael Vincent in the first version for more that thirty-five years. His character was an interesting jerk, but it was clear he was always an irritating guy from the way he delivered the lines. I cannot remember a single sentence from the movie today. There was nothing clever in the dialogue, and the acting consisted of character traits rather than true character. If the original had never existed, this movie might seem better, as it is, there is little to recommend it except for strict lovers of hard action. They screw around with the ending, so it is so much less memorable that the first film, and as a result deserves it's lesser status.

Here's a trailer for the retitled original: Enjoy

Best Sci-Fi Effects of All Time, as Voted by You | Underwire | Wired.com

Best Sci-Fi Effects of All Time, as Voted by You | Underwire | Wired.com

The Green Hornet

This movie was a little iffy when I first heard of the lead and that there was a comedy angle to it. I was pleasantly surprised that it worked as well as it did. The original Green Hornet was a pulp character from the old days of radio, so there is not going to be the same kind of geek reverence for the characters that most superheros in movies now get. The vast majority of older people that remember the Green Hornet do not recall the radio show but instead think of the TV series that was spun off of the Batman TV show in the mid-sixties. That show was mostly forgettable except for the actor that played the Hornet's sidekick, a guy named Bruce Lee.

In the new film, the Kato character is the one with most of the great moves. He is a co-equal and in many aspects superior to the titular character. Both of these guys are in over their heads, but only Kato knows it and has any idea how to get them out of it. If you want a serious superhero movie wait for one of the many that are coming this summer, the Green Hornet is an action-comedy, with a lot of the slacker humor that you would expect from Seth Rogan. The martial arts work provided by Jay Choi is solid, but it is all CG enhanced with a variety of visual effects. This is done largely to take advantage of 3-D technology that was used to present the film with. The acting and acrobatics are fine but the cool factor that came from Bruce Lee kicking butt by himself is largely missing.

Most of the story is boiler plate hero stuff, so there are no big surprises. The bad guy is not very well fleshed out but Christoph Walsh, our current winner of best supporting actor in "Inglorious Basterds ", does what he can to make him interesting and fun. If you are not a fan of Seth Rogan's brand of humor, you will not care much for this picture. On the other hand, if you have found him funny in anything, this should go down pretty well. I think he has been a little overexposed in the last few years, so by focusing on this movie and not showing up in every other comedy opening in the last twelve months, he gave us enough of a break to appreciate this work. I was very entertained and enjoyed the movie for what it was. There are several bits of humor that are great sight gags and also enough verbal bi-play to make you need to pay attention to the dialogue.

The supporting cast is good, although you can tell from the first time you meet him that one of the bad guys is indeed a bad guy. Tom Wilkerson is only in the movie for a few brief scenes, and his character is not really pleasant, but you know he is a class act. I think we spent a minute trying to confirm that James Franco was in the movie. I guess after Pineapple Express he and Seth are buddies. Cameron Diaz is third billed and does almost nothing. She is not bad, she is mostly superfluous to the plot.

It will not win any awards, and you may not remember much about it after you have seen it, but while in the theater, you will be pleased. We saw it in 3-D and the effects work pretty well. I did not think that the 3-D was essential to any of the story or humor, but it did not hurt my eyes and there were a couple of scenes that benefit from some eye-popping moments. The movie looks well made, there is no aura of cheapness about it. The color tones with the Hornet and Kato, driving around town do a good job creating a little bit of mystery and panache. At the end of the day, it is still a story about a doofus that tries to be a hero ("Kick Ass" anyone?), and the toys that he uses to accomplish this.

Peter Yates Director Rest In Peace

Any of you that read the Summer Blog will remember that Mr. Yates did three of the movies that I wrote on last summer.


http://kirkhamclass.blogspot.com/2010/07/deep-1977-movie-day-day-59.html

http://kirkhamclass.blogspot.com/2010/08/mother-jugs-speed-1976-movie-day-day-70.html

http://kirkhamclass.blogspot.com/2010/09/breaking-away-1979-movie-day-day-94.html

He also did the fantastic Bullitt and a movie I remember enjoying that received a great deal of critical acclaim, the Dresser. He has passed away and there is good reason to mourn his loss.

Here is a brief Obit from Empire:

Peter Yates 1928-2011

The Fighter

This was a fine film with a dramatic story and heartbreaking performances. The fact that it based on a true story is pretty amazing given the parallels to Rocky. We get a redemption story and a love story put together most effectively. On top of this you have a dramatic family story. The volatility of the relationships are a bit discomforting, I know families have their ups and downs, but the language, and tone in some of these scenes leaves you wondering how they manage to survive living together without killing each other.

Clearly this will be a contender for all kinds of awards, but in one category it will not be competing with any other film. Christian Bale will be the consensus winner of every award for best supporting actor by the time the Academy awards come around. His body language, face and dialect are spot on. The crack addict that he has become is the sad embodiment of every mother's fears. What was once beautiful and full of life, becomes a parody of that life and a shadow hanging over the loved ones that are reluctant to deal with it. This is the showier roll in the movie, and one might think that Bale is getting credit for the part and not the performance. His work here is the equal of Daniel Day Lewis in "My Left Foot", a technical marvel but a heart and soul as well. There is a brief clip in the credits of the real person that he plays, and you can see just exactly how he nails this part.

Everyone else is also solid. Mark Wahlberg is very good and deserves notice for a more subtle performance but one that is actually the center of the film. It is his character's life that is being changed by the decisions around him. I love my brother, but we have never had the kind of relationship that I see in many stories of this type. There is hero worship and trauma, and frustration. This knockabout family is so involved in each others life that it is a bit claustrophobic. Micky,the character played by Wahlberg, is suffocating under the thumb of a loving but domineering family. When he asserts himself, all sorts of tension that was previously there bubbles to the surface, and Wahlberg makes you feel the conflict he is faced with.

The two leading female characters are both fully formed characterizations also. Melissa Leto as Micky's Mother is fierce and terrifying. Amy Adams plays his love interest and she loses nothing in comparison in the fierce department. Adams is also a lot more of a sexual being in this movie then she has been in other films, and she sells it well. Sometimes she may be acting with her costume, but her face manages to sell the clothes also. There is a fantastic scene with Bale and Leto in the car, that simply consists of the lines from a Bee Gees song, but it will break your heart.

This was a well told story, the choices that are made by the director seem really sold. The incidental music feels spot on. I never noticed the actors struggling with the accents that are so typical of the region. Of course Wahlberg comes by his naturally, but again, Bale is amazing. It was an easier movie to enjoy then I thought it would be, because although there is darkness, there is also a substantial amount of light that gives hope to everyone in the end.

127 HOURS

I am going to try to keep the blog this year on the movies I see in theaters. This will make it easy for me to keep track of what I have seen and be able to share with anyone that asks me my opinion. We are three days into the year and it is starting off great. I am going to be trying to catch up with the movies from the last couple of months that will be up for awards. I was a bit leery about 127 Hours because there is clearly a tough scene in the movie for anyone to get through. It is not a spoiler to mention it since this is a true story and the events in it were widely reported, but as important as it is I don't want to draw attention to it at the expense of everything else in the movie. This film is about so much more than the dramatic climax of the movie. There is inspiration, humor and hope in many of the moments that lead up to that event. There is also despair, sadness and a sense of loss.

The world is full of people that live in a different culture than mine. I love the outdoors but I am not an outdoors man. Nature is amazing, but I can enjoy it from the car window or a convenient picnic table. I use to backpack when in high school but we never went off the grid like so many extreme sports people do. I think they are a little crazy, but more power to them. Aron, the adventurer in this story is a guy that will casually drive out to the middle of no where in the middle of the night, and then ride his bike out even further. He is not really irresponsible but he is impetuous. He is well equipped for what he plans on doing but the plan clearly does not go as planned. I was impressed by the drive he shows and the moxie that the hikers he encounters show. They all are a lot more energetic than I am, One of the great things about movies is they let you see worlds you would not encounter in your normal experience. The canyons they explore and the area that he bikes through are really beautiful. It was a little odd to see the disclaimer at the end that tells us that no one should be biking in this area, I suppose that this is why Aron leaves his bike at one point but it was sort of interesting.

Danny Boyle, the director of this movie has make several films that I have enjoyed and admired immensely. I have not been able to bring myself to see Trainspotting, but almost everything else he has made is something I spent some time with. This movie is such a simple story, that you wonder how it can be turned into a film at all. The title tells you that you are waiting for a climax that is a long way off. Trying to make that interesting is where the challenge for the film maker comes in. They succeed admirably, with a long introductory section prior to the accident that left our hero trapped. Then they kick it up a notch with a combination of memory, hallucination, dreams, and video clips. All of them are haunting, some of them are truly disturbing, and one of them becomes the catalyst for the desperate act that saves Aron in the end. That whole vision provides the heart of the movie. As a character, Aron is likable enough and cute in an offbeat sort of manner, but he is a blank space that each of us can project on and the when we do, we are likely to lose hope. It is when Aron projects a future that we have our hope restored. I am a sentimentalist. I am moved by songs, images, stories and words. To me a movie succeeds if it can effectively move me and this movie did.

James Franco is very effective at taking a part that is eighty percent visual in nature and making us believe it. The sections where he has dialogue are worthwhile, but it is his face and body language that makes this performance special. He is helped by great use of camera and lighting as well as visual effects that enhance the mood but do not replace our main focus on the man at the center of this story.
Actors are peculiar creatures, they practice skills that each of us use on a daily basis, but they have to do it in artificial conditions. The pretending also has to fit with the story telling instead of being histrionic in nature. Franco does what is needed exceptionally well. When the horrifying scene finally arrives, it is all the more difficult for us because we have taken this journey with our lead.

I don't know that this movie will have a high repeatability quotient to it. I want to share it with my friends and family, but there are aspects of the story that might be hard to go through multiple times. If the admiration and awe that I felt at the end of the movie is any indication, those who see this for the first time will be glad they did. I hope that when I see it again, I can be moved in the same ways. That is the true test of this kind of film for me, will I be as inspired the sixth time I see it as I was the first? I hope so.

Biggest Wastes of Time in 2010

Some of these movies were merely disappointing. I go into every film I see wanting to love it. It is tough to spend 10 or 12 bucks to see something that you wish you had skipped. The thought always pops in my head, "Wow, what could I have seen instead that would have been a better choice?" On the other hand, some movies just piss me off. They take a great idea and screw it up, or there is a good movie that is messed up by a single bad element, and some of them just star Will Ferrel.

This is one of those innocuous movies that promised more than it delivered and as a result was a disappointment. Steve Carrel and Tina Fey should have been hysterical and they were barely pleasant. Their gifts were not properly used and the movie turns into a loud chase film that could have featured anyone. Mark Wallberg was fine, but his main contribution was the display of his abs and you got that in the trailer and commercials.


This movie does feature Tom Selleck so it is not a complete waste. The idea is not bad, but Ashton Kutcher is miscast, he is not believable as a spy or a tough guy and Katherine Hiegl is about to exhaust all the goodwill I got from her on "27 Dresses", a film that was better than it should have been because of her. The cute meet couple on the run from spies genre had three entries this year, "Killers", "Knight and Day", and "The Tourist". Tom Cruise is the only one that came out of this still looking like a movie star. This film features the worst poster of the year, it looks like nothing and says nothing.

I should have known better but it was a romantic comedy for the sweethearts weekend and everyone else in the family wanted to see it. Not bad but not good and there are so many people in it that it should have been better. Of course that is usually a warning sign, a big cast in an ensemble piece and none of them is featured, it screams out "Program Filler". You won't hate yourself for seeing it unless you skipped a chance to see "Kick Ass" one more time, and then you will be depressed.


I have a big crush on Amanda Seyfreid, she is a doll and I thought the real star of last year's "Jennifer's Body". So it pains me to say that she was wasted in this. Again, I don't have high hopes for amazing experiences at a standard romantic comedy, but I do count on the stars to charm me for a couple of hours. Since I am already in her pocket, why didn't it work? Mainly it failed because the story had no surprises, it was told entirely in the trailer. I need a little suspense even if I know in the end everything is going to work out. The better movie would have featured a real story about Vanessa Redgrave and Franco Nero.


Too much CGI, Too Much Jake Gyllanhall and Too Cookie-Cutter. The setting is fine but the movie is so frantic and there are so many action shots that are just digital manipulation that I did not give a damn. Ben Kinglsey needs to get a good movie again, he has done way too many of these things just to get paid. If the looks of a movie were all that mattered, this and "Tron Legacy" would be on the top ten list, but you need more than just some great art director's vision to make a story work.


This one was maybe the biggest disappointment of the year, I had looked forward to it from the time it was announced and the first images sucked me into hoping for something really special. The 3D was one of the first times I've been irritated at the process from the get go. The edges looked muddy and the eye-popping visuals did not pop. I might like this better if I saw a 2D version, but then there is still the problem of the story. Not much of "Alice in Wonderland" except for the characters is in the movie. It becomes a retread of the Chronicles of Narnia, without the bland personality of that series. Johnny Depp barely made an impression in the role of the Hatter. This is the first movie on this list that pissed me off rather than just disappointing me.


Another 3D miss, no wait it wasn't in 3-D, so why did they make it?. I saw the first Nightmare with Dolores in 1984, we sat in the back row of the United Artists Theater in Pasadena and were creep-ed out and loved it. This I saw with Amanda, and it just sort of sat there. I like Jackie Earle Haily in the Freddy Kruger role, but the story was not really told in a fresh way and there is almost nothing I remember about the new characters. I don't object to remakes, but you need a reason to do them, and there was no reason here at all.

I almost forgot I saw this, and I did forget what it was called for ten minutes. That is a frustration because I like Wes Craven films in general and horror films are a guilty pleasure that rarely disappoint me. This movie was in 3-D for no particular reason, and the characters are motivated by exactly the same justification. Amanda and I saw it and we were the only ones in the theater, the lights came on during the last fifteen minutes and it barely distracted from the bunch of nothing that was going on up on the screen. I cannot remember a single face from any actor in the movie. This is the second Wes Craven inspired film on my list, Wes you better payoff on "Scream 4" or there will be hell to pay (but not me anymore).


Probably the stupidest movie I've seen in the last ten years. The poster image and trailers promise freaky awesome concepts and scares, and it delivers on none of that. It comes down to angels battling each other with machine guns for no particular reason. There was no suspense, no real horror and no point to it all. I wanted my money back immediately and I want the two hours back so I could go see something less crappy.


My pick for the worst movie of the year. I think Will Ferrel has been fine in the past, but I do not like Anchorman at all. This role takes whatever charm Ron Burgundy supposedly had, and drains it from Ferrel so that he is just loud, dull and boring. I heard people in the theater laughing when I saw it, and I turned around to see what they were doing that was so funny because they could not be laughing at stuff going on in the movie. Humor is a very particular taste, some people enjoy the strangest things. I think I'm one of those people, I laugh out loud at stuff others have not appreciated in the same theater with me. My response to this movie was exactly the opposite. I smiled once and never laughed at anything. This may very well be the last Will Ferrel Movie I ever subject myself to.