Dear Filmmaker

Chronicle or, Don't Fly At Me, Bro.

2012-02-07T04:30:00.000-05:00

At this point, I'm so sick of superhero movies, I don't even want to see The Avengers. In about ten years, we've had four X-men films, three Spiderman films, three Batmans films, two Fantastic Four films, two Iron Man films, Thor, Green Lantern, Captain America, three different actors playing the Incredible Hulk... Chris Evans has even played two different superheroes. It's gotten out of control. Of course, not all these films are bad, but I'm burnt out. Let's move on to something new.

Likewise, apart from Rec, found footage films are welcome to follow the repetitive superhero formula into hell. After The Blair Witch Project, Hollywood suddenly decided to stop hiring writers and just give their actors camcorders. The results are mixed, but a gimmick is a gimmick.

And now we arrive at Chronicle, the found footage superhero movie. I use "superhero" in the loosest sense; but superpowers are involved, so we'll count it. It is entertaining, which is more than I'll say for half the movies previously mentioned, but the justification for a diagetic camera grows weaker and weaker with every scene.

The film centers around Andrew, a dorkier version of the guy in American Beauty who liked to film bags and dead birds. Luckily for the film studio, Andrew has decided to videotape his entire life, a notion supposedly born from a friendless life with an abusive father and dying mother. His cousin, Matt, drags Andrew to a party, where the two of them, along with the most popular guy in school, climb into an ominous hole and gain the power to move things with their minds. That's what ominous holes will do to you, kids.

So, now that Andrew is one of the three people in the world with the power of telekinesis, he decides to give up his goal of being the weird kid with the camera, right? Nah, bro. That camera lens is a buffer between him and the harshness of the world, man. So, he continues to carry the camera around school like a weirdo and the film continues, only now we're treated to long periods of Andrew discovering his inner cinematographer by flying the camera around different rooms. Andrew's obsession with documentary doesn't detract much from the entertainment value of the film, but if this was actually real footage, I'd venture a guess that the film would end immediately after Andrew gets superpowers. If I could lift cars with my mind, I wouldn't carry a camera around high school. "Oh, man. I've got to document the torment of my life. Wait, I've got superpowers? Fuck that. How much can I get for this camera at the pawn shop?"

The first half of the film works really well. The weak bonds the trio share are made stronger by their shared experience, and Andrew suddenly finds himself with friends. They use their powers to pull pranks on people, perform in the school talent show, and try to get laid. This is as realistic a use of teenage telekinesis you'll get short of an R rating, which would simultaneously be more realistic and potentially disturbing (Remember, these are teenage boys we're dealing with).

The film's weaknesses start to show in the third act. Pretty much out of nowhere, Andrew decides he's the "Apex Predator," which, to him, means stealing stuff and killing people has been green lit. The film tries to support his conclusion with a few weak inciting incidents, but his character makes a pretty giant leap to psycho killer way too fast. Once this transition occurs, the film runs downhill, but it's also predominantly action so most people won't notice. The most ridiculous moment comes when Andrew summons an army of Iphones to float around him in order to keep the camera diagetic, but he soon throws a couple of police cars in the air to make you forget it happened.

The found footage gimmick may be silly, but it doesn't stop Chronicle from being better than most things superhero related. It's simply a lazy constraint, allowing scenes to be cut short by a broken camera, or someone turning off the camera; and it necessitates ludicrous justifications for the characters to be in view of a camera at all times. I don't like weak justifications. Other than that, if you like this sort of thing, go see Chronicle.

7/10

Some Not Top Ten Films of 2011

2012-01-16T08:11:00.004-05:00

I promise you: All the films below are better than Real Steel.

I just thought I'd pop in and note that while I haven't posted in a while, it is due to my focused effort to see every noteworthy film of 2011 before the Oscars. I've considered articles on quite a few films this past month, but there always seems to be another film to watch. You will, however, soon be treated to my annual summary, which will encompass most, if not all, of the films I've been scrambling to get through. Thankfully, 2011 has provided a much greater supply of quality films than 2010, and I assure you the title of this year's entry will not be "This Year Sucked..." like last time. In fact, let's take a moment to highlight some films that won't quite make the top ten.

Hugo

The film gods (No, not you Quentin.) may smite me over this one, but I'm having a hard time jumping on the Hugo bandwagon. While it's certainly a good film, the story never really landed for me. There's a poor boy in a train station getting chased around by Borat, while a veraciously literate girl spouts off about hanging out with an orphan is like an adventure. Hugo should slapped her for having to much enthusiastic white girl kindness and bailed. But of course, her godfather is Georges Melies, so he pretends to like her in order to hang with one of cinema's pioneers. The film history lessons are by far the most enchanting (as the critics like to say), and by all means, Hugo is worth a viewing for these scenes alone. However, the theme of a boy searching for answers from his dead father gets lost in the shuffle, and besides; Hugo's dad died in a wimpy ol' fire. 9/11 is much more of a tearjerker.

Terri

Poor Terri. He's a fat kid. I already feel sorry for him. Unfortunately, he also wears pajamas everywhere, which is definitely a character flaw. But Principal Fitzgerald (John C. Reilly), takes Terri under his wing. Perhaps boosted by this friendship, Terri befriends a few of the other so called "monsters" at his school: a freakishly small troublemaker who habitually pulls out his hair and Heather, a formerly popular, recently shunned girl whom Terri takes an interest in. Terri is a fine portrayal of an out of place teen trying to figure out how to exist in a selfish world. It might have made my list last year but alas, the competition this year is a lot stiffer.

Another Earth

Another Earth does a fine job exploring the aftermath of a tragedy, in which a young woman attempts to make amends to the man whose life she destroyed. Both of them have been forever changed by the accident, but their friendship starts to heal the wounds. Meanwhile, another Earth has appeared in the sky; a beacon of hope for some, insurmountable worry for others. Unfortunately, this part of the story doesn't function as well as it should. Apart from one interesting television broadcast, most of the science fiction comes via voice over, which detaches itself from narrative instead of accentuating it like it should. The only good thing that comes from the sci-fi being pushed into the background, is that it's harder to realize how ludicrous the setup really is. No one's ever seen the other Earth before now because it's always been on the other side of the sun? Right.

Take Shelter

Take Shelter is actually a really good film built on acting performances, tension, cinematography, and mood. It's like Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, except it's good. I can't believe I made it this far into this entry before I blatantly insulted something. Take Shelter works in every way. Michael Shannon's performance is phenomenal, as are those by his supporting cast. It vividly conveys the unease of a man who has the lurking suspicion that his prophetic visions of disaster are a sign his mental health is deteriorating. Regardless, the urgency in his efforts to protect his family is admirable. The second act is a bit too long, and those seeking a traditional narrative should look elsewhere. But for most fans of cinema, the only debate on the quality of the film will be how effective/relevant it is to each individual viewer. It didn't make enough of an impact on me to land in my top ten, but I'm an irresponsible twenty-five-year-old. It does earn my respect, nonetheless, and is one of many great films of 2011.

I'm going to leave off there, because it's eight in the morning and I should probably go to bed. I might be back before the big list, but I hope this sated your need for poorly proofread, film insight for the time being.

The Muppets, or Nostalgia: The New American Enterprise.

2011-12-15T07:31:00.000-05:00

The Muppets currently has a 97% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes, has been recommended to me by countless friends with varying tastes in cinema, and boasts Jason Segel as lead actor and co-writer. The signs were good that The Muppets would be a good time. And I hated it.

Well, hate is a strong word. There were short bursts of entertainment sandwiched between the spastic narrative and flat jokes, but I can only explain the overwhelming mass approval of The Muppets to myself by assuming that adults have been validating its flaws; either through some sort of Muppet nostalgia, or a forgiveness due to the false assumption that kids movies don't actually have to be good.

The film opens strong, introducing us to Gary (Jason Segel) and his puppet brother, Walter, both die hard fans of The Muppets, tracking through their adolescence. The establishment of human beings and puppets as equals (their familial relation) is a charming proposition, although the Sesame Street innocence of the characters became nauseating almost immediately. The gooey naivety of Jason Segel's character goes stale quickly. He communicates almost exclusively in uber G-rated dialogue and exaggerated excitement--"Gee golly, Walter! Isn't this going to be spectacular?!" Likewise, he has been dating Amy Adams for ten years, and is completely oblivious to her desire to become engaged, or even to spend time alone with him. This pander is presumably sarcastic, but obnoxious nonetheless, and contributes nothing to a film so focused on self-awareness, that winks and nods become the film's main focus.

Upon meeting Kermit, Walter, Gary, and Mary (Amy Adams), convince him to get the Muppets back together in order to stop evil oil tycoon, Chris Cooper from leveling the Muppet studios. Kermit, of course, has become a sort of hermit, longing for the good old days, yet unable to look at the picture of Miss Piggy he has hidden behind a curtain. His apparently (yet for vague and hardly explained reasons) broken heart briefly hinted that The Muppets would contain some sort of emotional relevance like 2009's Up thrived on. Unfortunately, this theme exists only in skeletal form, the structure of Kermit and Piggy's relationship and reconciliation is there, yet never develops.

The same is true of Gary and Mary's relationship. As the film progresses, they fade more and more into the backdrop of the film, appearing mostly as smiling, lobotomized faces floating behind Kermit as he convinces each of the Muppets to "get the band back together." Only once the gang is back together do they become relevant again, as Mary remembers that the trip they're on is supposed to be in celebration of her and Gary's anniversary. She gets cranky, and one starts to wonder if this story arc is all a ploy to squeeze a few songs out of Amy Adams and Jason Segel.

As for the Muppets themselves, there doesn't seem to be any real reason why they aren't together anymore. They all join up with relative ease, even Miss Piggy shows up just a day or two late. The Muppet retrieval is more or less mundane. Each muppet shows some initial resistance, then somehow it comes out that they miss the good old days too, wouldn't ya know? Yawn. Only the retrieval of Animal earns its laughs. It seems he has anger control issues, and is attempting to work them out in group therapy.

Once the team is assembled, the newly regrouped Muppets find that the television studios no longer consider them relevant. It seems that singing puppets aren't edgy enough for today's audience. They do manage to get TV time for their telethon, and the final third of the movie becomes a Muppet show in itself. The show, of course, convinces everyone to fall in love with the Muppets all over again, and a tear falls down everyone's eye as they long for simpler times. The final third comes complete with musical numbers, celebrity cameos, and good triumphing over evil. It's a weird mix of nostalgia and commercialism that's all supposed to be okay, because the character's break the fourth wall and make fun of it.

The film's high points come largely from the few musical numbers that are both entertaining and plot relevant. Muppet versions of various hits are fine and dandy, yet the stand out acts are the opening number, which comes complete with dancing in the street and various passerby interjections, as well as the song, "Am I a Man or a Muppet?" which is, by far, the highlight of the film.

Yet, for a film that asserts "kids are better and smarter than this junk," it offers little artistry. The narrative seems to jump back and forth between plot points, without really developing any of them. The self-awareness (why don't we cut to a montage to save time?) is amusing at points, especially when the song, "Fuck You" by Cee Lo is snuck into the Muppet's show by clucking chickens. More hidden jokes for adults would have been appreciated, instead the filmmaker's rely on celebrity cameos, which are cheap attempts to appeal to a larger audience. When Chris Cooper starts rapping, it's all over. There can be no coming back from that atrocity.

And so, despite behaving as kid's movies often do, it appears that the target demographic is much older. Whether it be specifically the Muppets fans of old, I'm not sure, but The Muppets lacks that spark that makes a film memorable. A kid doesn't care if Neil Patrick Harris shows up in a movie, he cares about plot, character, and entertainment. To them, the Muppets are out of context characters making snide remarks. Maybe instead of giving them the remnants of a lost dynasty, they deserve new characters to shape their childhood. But in the age of remakes and reboots, it doesn't seem as likely as it once did.

6/10

Like Crazy: Your Annual Deteriorating Relationship.

2011-12-04T23:46:00.001-05:00

Last year, Ryan Gosling demonstrated that love and ukulele skills aren't always enough to sustain a relationship. In 2009, Colin Firth showed us the absolute heartbreak of losing a lover. We tend to get about one accurate relationship drama a year, and 2011's offering appears to be Like Crazy.

Like Crazy's accuracy on the highs and lows of young love, as well as the difficulty of long-distance relationships is hard to deny, and while the film's emotional instances serve up quite a few high points, they tend to get muddled in the simplicity of the film's composition, which serves as a detriment to the overall quality of the film.

Like Crazy begins in Los Angeles, and quickly speeds us through the courting process and deepening relationship between two college students, Jacob and Anna. They're pretty cute, these college students. They spend their time writing adorable little notes, reading aloud poetry, and of course; drawing pictures of furniture. The furniture drawing can be attributed exclusively to Jacob, who fancies himself a furniture designer, and spends the entire film drawing the same chair over and over. Spoiler alert: at the end of the film, he draws a couch.

More about the obnoxiously bland Jacob later. The turning point in the film comes when Anna has to return to England because her student visa is expiring. But of course, she can't live without Jacob for three months, so she lets her visa expire and stays in America. When she does eventually return home, and subsequently attempts to come back to America, she is shocked to discover that she is not welcome back into the country because of her expired visa. This is the first moment where the audience is inclined to hope for the couple's doom. After all, if you don't know the basics of international travel, you probably aren't fit to be in a relationship.

So, instead of being stuck in England for three months, Anna gets stuck there for about three years, and the rest of the film takes place over the course of this period, usually highlighting the snippets of time in which Anna and Jacob's relationship take significant turns: Jacob's trips to England, their lackluster attempts to make long distance work, some bickering, etc. etc. These snippets leaves us without much of a traditional plot, the film seeming to exist in moments. This, in theory, is fine, perhaps even admirable. Unfortunately, it also fails to develop the characters beyond "boring boy" and "cute girl," and contains little reasoning as to why they belong together at all.

Obviously, Anna's failure to obtain a travel visa is the film's authoritative logic leading to the couple's disintegrating relationship. But on the other hand, there are moments in which it's hard to believe that they actually want to be together. Jacob sets up a furniture business in L.A. and this becomes his sole argument as to why he can't move to England to be with Anna. Am I supposed to believe that he can't draw chairs in England? Does England not have chairs? Gorgeous English girls should always take priority over small furniture businesses.

Of course, Jacob and Anna date other people during their breaks, which is how all long-distance relationships work, whether the other person knows it or not. And Jacob has no problem breaking up with an underutilized Jennifer Lawrence not once, but twice, in order to go back to Anna. He apparently pines for Anna when we're not looking, because it's hardly articulated in the scenes we do see. However, it is Anna's alternative significant other that wins the 'most contrived situation' award when he proposes to Anna in front of her parents. People don't do that, no matter what movies tell you. The scene is infuriating.

The best moments of the film are when the actors aren't talking, because even though Jacob is funny looking, he and Anna have onscreen chemistry when their mouths are shut. It is the final scene that steals the show, and contains what will inevitably be the moment that stays with viewers the longest. Anna finally makes it to America to reunite with Jacob for good, and through a well-crafted sequence, the audience realizes that the couple have missed their moment.

See? Team Jacob never wins.

7/10 just because the highs are quite high.

Drive: Ryan Gosling's Guide to Being a Man Part 2.

2011-09-24T19:03:00.000-04:00

If it isn't already obvious to you that Ryan Gosling/Baby Goose is the greatest living human being, take a moment to observe him in his natural habitat. He's always willing to break up a street fight, before performing in his band, and he just wants to quit acting to make some babies. And he'll probably take you to Disneyland first, because Disneyland strengthens fertility. And if you don't click any of those links, just go watch Blue Valentine and attempt to logically explain what Michelle Williams could possibly dislike about him.

Gosling's most recent works only expand on his likability. Crazy, Stupid, Love was Gosling's first foray into providing manhood instructions for the masses, and I urge you to interpret Drive as an instructional video on how to take care of your gurrl. You can steal, shoot, and stomp dudes to death, but you better take care of yo' baby.

I wouldn't blame you for thinking that Drive, particularly due to the presence of Brian Cranston, Ron Perlman, and fast cars, might be a fast-paced action film in the vein of The Transporter or Fast and the Furious. In fact, if that's exactly what you want, you might not even want to see Drive, but if you can move beyond your muscled, bald man fetish, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

Drive opens with Ryan Gosling calmly driving a getaway car while listening to a basketball game on the radio. Baby Goose don't want no high speed shootouts, Baby Goose needs to know the score of the Clippers game. The opening sets the pace for the rest of the film: a slow build with occasional bursts of violence and synth pop. Large portions of the film are long takes of the characters while the soundtrack fills in for the dialogue. Thankfully, this is strangely effecting. It's the cinematic equivalent of doing stunts in Grand Theft Auto while listening to the opera radio station. It just feels so good.

The plot revolves around Gosling, who doesn't seem to care about anything but driving. Then, he meets Carey Mulligan, and starts caring about her too. But that's it. Baby Goose keeps it simple. In trying to help Carey Mulligan and her husband (that's never stopped Baby Goose before), Gosling moves to the top of Ron Perlman's hit list, and as a result has to get all violent and shit. So there's some longing looks, and some intense violence, more longing looks, and some violence. And all of it is fantastic.

Also, Ryan Gosling rarely speaks. That's probably a key factor I should mention. But as much as I like his low mumble, his silence plays to his character, the silent, mysterious, unfaltering hero he seems to be.

The resulting film feels like True Romance if it had been written and directed by Wong Kar-Wai. I don't think I've ever compared anything to Wong Kar-Wai (on this blog), and it's certainly something more directors should strive for. The use of music, the patient camera movements,and the oft-silent characters all seem a little Chungking Express, and of course the comparison to True Romance occurred because Christian Slater knows how to kill dudes for his lady too. But Christian Slater probably wouldn't spring for Disneyland.

8/10

Art House Roundup: The UK Invasion and Will Ferrell.

2011-09-12T04:18:00.002-04:00

I've been catching up on some harder to find films that came out this year, and if I don't post all of them in one entry, I probably won't post about them at all. Everything Must Go, Submarine, Attack the Block, and The Trip have all been pretty difficult to see in Michigan, but I'm a magician, so I manage. Reviews of the previously mentioned follow the break.

If you want to see Will Ferrell sit in a chair for ninety minutes, then you should probably see Everything Must Go. Beyond that, it has little to offer than the Notorious B.I.G.'s son and a few brief flickers of clarity. Obviously, this is dramatic Ferrell, and while I'll vouch for the quality of Stranger Than Fiction and to a lesser extent, Melinda and Melinda, Everything Must Go is a relative disaster. The film opens with Ferrell losing his job and coming home to find his wife has locked him out of his house, frozen his bank accounts, and dumped all of his stuff on the front lawn. His company car quickly gets taken away, and with no transportation and little money, he plops himself in a chair and starts drinking.

The goal of the film is to undoubtedly show us Ferrell growing as a person. He has to have a yard sale to legally keep all of his things on the front lawn, and the disappearance of his stuff--interspersed with human encounters--supposedly coincides with his growth as a person. The problem is, Ferrell comes off as the victim, which requires vindication rather than redemption. Who is the viewer supposed to identify with here? The completely absent wife who locks Ferrell out on the street without access to any of his finances? The wife who won't even return any of Ferrell's phone calls? No. We identify with the man who has just lost his job, his wife, and his house. A man who is in an impossible situation. The wife instantly becomes the villain, and she deserves to be strangled.

And when did it become legal for a wife to lock her current husband out of the house? Unless the house is solely in her name (which seems improbable due to Ferrell's career success), he should just be able to break a window and hop on in. I could accept the argument that he simply didn't realize this, but a police officer plainly tells him that if he attempts to break in he will be arrested. Ludicrous.

Anyways, plot frustrations aside, the whole of the movie is Will Ferrell talking to the Notorious B.I.G.'s son about life, talking to his new neighbor about life, and riding a bicycle to Laura Dern's house to talk about life. Spoiler Alert: Life is disappointing. Other than that...

When Will Ferrell sees his former boss at a restaurant, the inevitable blow up occurs to redeem a sub par movie into an okay one. Wait, it doesn't? There's no pay off to this inane setup? It's like Stranger than Fiction merged with a Sophia Coppola film, except without any of the good parts.

5/10

A short summation of Everything Must Go quickly turned into a lengthy rant, but that shan't be the case with Submarine. Familiar setup here: A too-intelligent-for-his-age adolescent loner, falls desperately in love with a girl whilst attempting to solve his parents' marital problems. This uber-intelligent, well-read teenager thing is becoming a bit of a formula, but I can't help loving it almost every time. Such is the case with Submarine. Its deadpan humor is its major charm, particularly in the portrayal of Oliver's parents. The romance between Oliver and Jordana is equally intriguing, especially since their characters actually look and feel like real kids (Once you get past Oliver's Wes Anderson-like character tendencies). Stylistically, the cinematography isn't quite settled, but its strangeness is welcome regardless of its success rate. The soundtrack, however, is spectacular, and while I don't usually consider music in my overall assessment of a film, it certainly played a role in this case.

8/10

Attention, Hollywood. The United Kingdom is winning. Not that I've been watching any of their films outside of this week, but Attack the Block is another solid entry into the 2011 foray. It's certainly not brilliant, but it's an alien invasion done right; which is more than I can say for Cowboys vs. Aliens, Battle: Los Angeles or even Super 8.

Attack the Block centers around a group of teenage street thieves, whom after mugging a young lady, are startled by an alien invasion. They handle the first alien with a few good kicks, and march to their drug dealer's house with pride. Unfortunately, more aliens start to arrive and they turn out to be much bigger (and furrier) than the adorable little punks' first foe. There's some running, some alien killing, people dying, and thankfully no one walks up to an alien and teaches him a life lesson. It's simple, but it's fun.

The kids here are actually kids, and they actually die/get injured when aliens attack them. They learn this quickly, and run away. But those damn, furry aliens keep finding them. There isn't any massive character development, but our characters grow from unknown hoodrats to lovable, unfortunate hoodlums throughout the film, and that's just the right amount of character growth for this genre. The wisecracks are there when we need them, but no one throws a hissy fit at the main character for trying to steal his woman. Nearly all of this is derogatory comparison to Super 8, in case you haven't seen that film.

Anyway, the explanation for why giant, furry, glow-in-the-dark aliens are hunting down teenagers is a bit lame, and perhaps a little too obvious due to foreshadowing, but this isn't a Shyamalan film, so that hardly matters. What we do have is a fast-paced, occasionally funny, survival tale. It's a good time from beginning to end, and perfectly executes what it set outs to accomplish.

7/10

The Trip is My Dinner With Andre with Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon. The two comedians take a trip together, essentially playing themselves. The film consists largely of the two doing impressions of celebrities, pointing out each other's flaws, and occasionally making attempts at existential commentary. If you watch the trailer, you'll experience a summation of nearly every funny scene in the film, but if you've got nothing better to do, The Trip is worth a watch. There are a few genuinely intriguing moments, such as Steve Coogan performing a eulogy for Rob Brydon as Rob listens on, or a particularly hilarious scene in which the two babble on about the phrase "Gentlemen to bed." But overall, the film seems to drag, and Steve Coogan's snobbish attitude seems to weigh down Rob's chipper exterior more often than it complements it. Some of their impressions are pretty funny, but you can probably just find them on youtube since The Trip is largely just snippets of conversation.

6/10

Our Idiot Brother, or A Bro and His Dog.

2011-08-31T04:05:00.000-04:00

I don't know about you, but when I see that Paul Rudd has a new movie coming out, I immediately make associations to films like 40 Year Old Virgin, Knocked Up, Role Models, and I Love You, Man. This certainly isn't a resume to be ashamed of, but these films--some of Rudd's most popular--will incite many viewers to expect Our Idiot Brother to fall into a genre it most certainly does not exist in.

Our Idiot Brother is not an ad-libbed buddy comedy. If you're hoping for Seth Rogen to show up and tell Paul Rudd three different reasons why he's gay, you'll be sadly disappointed. No, what we have here is more of a (500) Days of Summer, or a Little Miss Sunshine. It's a family-centered (but not family-friendly) comedy attempting to swoon white people who use the term "dramedy."

And it works. Our Idiot Brother is, by no means, anything special, but amidst a particularly dry summer offering, it dulls the hurt.

Paul Rudd plays the best possible version of everyone's least favorite person: the happy hippie. He's so trusting of people's good intentions in fact, that he sells marijuana to a uniformed police officer who claims to be having a really bad day. After he's released from jail, he discovers that his girlfriend--the worst possible version of everyone's least favorite person: the bitchy, passive-aggressive hippie--has a new boyfriend, is kicking Paul Rudd to the curb, and to make matters worse, is retaining custody of Paul Rudd's unfortunately named dog, Willie Nelson.

What's a Paul Rudd to do? Go to the city and teach his family a lesson about life, that's what!

So that's what happens. Rudd's siblings are the conventional faux-indie family: the uptight housewife with the dickish husband and wiser-than-he-should-be son; the bisexual adultress; and the career-driven writer who will do anything for success. Whoop-de-doop! I think we got a film on our hands! Despite the healthy smattering of character cliches, the casting choices make everything okay, and the film delivers just enough laughs, and just enough snuggly, feel-good fuzzies, which is a term I learned in film theory class.

Paul Rudd, Zooey Deschanel, Elizabeth Banks, Steve Coogan, Adam Scott, Rashida Jones, and the promise of giggles should be enough to sway you to see this movie, but if you still need another reason, I can promise you a cute, groan-inducing finale that rivals Joseph Gordon-Levitt meating a girl named Autumn.

I was going to correct that to "meeting," but I like the current connotation.

7/10 - It's funny. It's cute. If you miss it, you won't care.

Crazy, Stupid, Love: Ryan Gosling's Guide to Being A Man.

2011-08-01T08:09:00.000-04:00

Recycling photos may become a habit.

It's better if we all accept right now that Ryan Gosling is the pinnacle of all manhood. Not douchy manhood, more like that one dude you met once who's ripped but actually cool. Sure, he was in The Notebook, but also grew a sweet beard and built a house to spite a woman. He picks solid, often unique roles, is in a pretty decent band, and he performs under the alias "Baby Goose," which is only badass because he's Ryan Gosling.

Crazy, Stupid, Love. could have gone in a lot of directions. The trailer was cut quite well (although this could be attributed to the fact that Muse makes every movie seem enticing), surely appealing to those looking for Hitch 2, all the while hinting at something a bit more dramatic. The result is something in the middle. While Crazy, Stupid, Love. avoids a descent into the third act triteness of romantic comedies like Friends With Benefits (which was often hilarious but eventually lame), it hardly achieves dramatic relevance. However, the result is a satisfying, funny comedy similar in feel to something like The Kids Are Alright.

The film's opening centers on Steve Carell reprising his role as Steve Carell. Julianne Moore wants a divorce because she has been sleeping with Kevin Bacon, so Carell moves out and begins frequenting a bar that is obviously designed for the cast of Jersey Shore. After a few days of announcing to the whole bar that Kevin Bacon has been sleeping with his wife, Carell is approached by Baby Goose, who offers to go all Will Smith on his ass and teach him how to retake his manhood.

I'm not going to comment on the whole plot here, because I wouldn't enjoy it nearly as much as I did with Captain America, and also because its too hard to validate myself with sarcasm when discussing films I like. Needless to say, Ryan Gosling does a fantastic job as the playboy turned monotonous boyfriend. He delivers amusing mantras and comedic anecdotes in Baby Goose's trademark mumble and succeeds in taming Carell's occasionally obnoxious tendencies.

However, Carell does make some positive contributions. After the first act, he stops--for the most part--being unnecessarily awkward, and does a solid job as a man renewed. His relationship with his son, (the unfortunately named Jonah Bobo) is well-written--and the foundation for most of the film's hints at relevant commentary. The contrast between adult/teenage relationships is never fully realized, but remains an amusing subplot throughout the film.

The only major shortcomings in Crazy, Stupid, Love. are the Emma Stone scenes sans Baby Goose. She's dating what she refers to as, "a nice guy," but he really just seems like a douchy spaz. These scenes never really go anywhere, contribute little to no comedy, and seem to exist only to occupy Emma Stone's time until its time for Ryan Gosling to go all Swayze on her ass (this literally happens). This isn't too much of a big deal, as these scenes at least remind us that Emma Stone still exists in the world of the film, and the payoff once she ditches her dope is worth it.

Even the third act remains strong, which is rare in romantic comedies these days. And although there is the obligatory speech at the end about how true love conquers all, it is easily forgiven after the hilarious climax, which is really the only point where the title's use of the word "Crazy" may actually be relevant.

Even if the term "romcom" gives you chills, you might actually enjoy this one. It's superior, albeit similar to Hitch, but at least you won't have to sit next to a black baby in the theater. It's not racist if it's a true story.

8/10

Captain America and the Never Ending Montage.

2011-07-28T09:32:00.003-04:00

Captain America's breast milk is a rare and delicious commodity.

I cannot believe how awful Captain America is. Normally, I say a bunch of hateful things about a film and then nonchalantly mention that it was decent. Let me be clear: Captain America is awful. I would use all caps to emphasize this, but I'm classy, dogg.

That's not to say it isn't watchable. The first act is pretty solid, and while the rest of the film isn't horrible, it's so bland and lazy that it makes me want to watch Batman and Robin; which was a truly terrible film, but at least you didn't know exactly what horrible thing was going to happen next. The truth is, after our asthmatic, anorexic underdog becomes Captain America, the film descends into montage after montage, some of which is actual montage, the rest of which is just bland action and meaningless dialogue that blurs together due to lazy writing and poor pacing.

The first act focuses on the digitally implanted head of Chris Evans, floating around on an anemic twelve-year-old's body. Chris Evans' head really wants to join the Army, because Hitler's being a dick (he outlawed full-length mustaches or something) and Chris Evans' head really hates bullies. He can't get into the Army because of his poor physical health, so instead he fights bullies in back allies, because getting his ass kicked constantly over trivial matters doesn't make him seem pathetic at all.

Anyway, Stanley Tucci shows up and pulls off the only believable German accent in the film, and then he's all like, "Hey Chris Evans' head, how'd you like to be on Chris Evans' body?" Chris Evans' head likes this idea because he wants to kill some Nazis and so ~~he changes his name to Bearjew~~ he heads off for basic training. There he runs into Tommy Lee Jones' who is still pissed off that he agreed to do Men In Black III. In our first exciting montage, we see Evans' head and the twelve-year-old's body fail at every physical element of basic training. But Evans' head can dismantle flagpoles and dive on grenades so he's selected to be made into a super soldier.

Head and body are finally reunited, and Howard Stark shows up, because he's Iron Man's dad and the audience is supposed to think, "Whoa, Iron Man's dad. That's so cool." The experiment is a success, and Chris Evans is ripped again, but then a German spy shoots Stanley Tucci and runs off with all the experimental serum, because when you hide a super secret lab in an antique store to conduct super secret military experiments, you invite people you don't know that well to watch. Evans chases and apprehends the spy after leaping over a ten-foot fence, because he's The One, and can do anything he wants to do in The Matrix.

So, since the best actor in the film died, and they have no idea how to make more super soldiers (scientists don't write things down), they send Chris Evans to military training and he becomes an elite solder. Oh wait, they don't do that. They send him across the United States singing songs and acting in plays. This is why we're in a debt crisis. We spend all our money on super soldiers, and then let them join the entertainment industry. You think Ryan Gosling became that beautiful without a special serum? You're a fool.

And so, we get another montage. Evans sings, he dances, he sells war bonds. And thus ends the first act. It's all downhill from here.

Meanwhile, Hugo Weaving has been being too busy being evil to perfect a German accent. He steals the All-Spark (because every movie is a Transformers movie now), and assembles a team of Robocops to take over the world because Hitler is too chill for a superhero movie. When Hugo takes a couple hundred American troops hostage--among them Chris Evans' best friend--Captain America finally gives up on media whoredom and singularly parachutes in to rescue them.

Using the extensive combat skills he amassed by being punched in the face repeatedly, Captain America infiltrates Agent Smith's compound and rescues the troops. This scene mostly consists of Evans' skillfully camouflaging himself while wearing a bright blue suit and carrying a shiny red shield. But there's also some slow-motion super jumping because the Matrix is all in your mind, and then Hugo Weaving shows up. He mutters something in a cartoonish German accent and then rips off his face. Apparently, the Nazis had the technology to make realistic human suits, because underneath the Hugo Weaving mask is nothing but a bright red skull. Which is why his supervillian name is Red Skull.

Whether the carpet matches the drapes is, from this point on, the only perplexing mystery. Red Skull is super evil so he wants to take over the world for no apparent reason, Captain America nonchalantly gets his best friend killed, and there's some feeble attempt at romance between Evans and the Army base tramp. Inevitably, Captain America throws his shield at Red Skull (the audience is supposed to cheer) and then puts the All-Spark in Hugo's chest, because that's how all Transformers movies end.

But of course, Evans is on a bomb-loaded plane heading towards the USA. The army base tramp tells him to steer it toward a landing zone, but he refuses. He knows that if he safely lands the plane on a landing strip, it will explode; but if he crash lands it into ice, it totally wont explode. So he crash lands it in ice, the plane doesn't explode, and we all know he freezes because we saw them digging him out at the beginning of the film.

When they finally revive him because they're ready to make The Avengers movie, he freaks out and runs into the street because he knows Samuel L. Jackson is lurking in the shadows nearby. Sure enough, Samuel L. Jackson shows up and he's like, "Yo, dogg. It's the future, mutherfucker!" And Chris Evans mutters the most horrible closing line in cinematic history, which I will not quote here because I don't want to go back and foreshadow it in my synopsis.

Now that we have our totally gangsta synopsis out of the way, let's discuss.

I don't know how well that synopsis really illustrates that the middle portion of the film can be summarized simply with, "Some stuff happened." Nothing memorable exists in the second act, and its only vaguely highlighted in the third by the inevitable climax. It's as if the writers were given a month to write the first act, and a day to finish the rest of the script. Captain America follows the same Marvel movie-making formula of its predecessors, it just lacks any sparks. The dialogue gets so flat it might as well have been ad libbed.

This could have been forgiven had the film made any attempts to explain the origins of the Transformers-esque cube of power, or develop a character. There are all these moments placed throughout Captain America where you'll inevitably think, "I'm supposed to like that," or "That's supposed to be sad," or "I think I'm supposed to cheer here." These moments existed effectively in the other Marvel films (Tony Stark tossing aside a Captain America shield in his lab, for example). Here, these moments are contrived and unearned. When Captain America's friend dies, it doesn't matter. He was just some dude to the audience. The romance between Evans and Hayley Atwell (formerly mentioned as the Army base tramp) doesn't matter because she's hardly a character. She's simply the only one on the army base with boobs and lipstick. Red Skull is one dimensional as well: He's simply evil for evil's sake. Maybe this worked in the forties. It doesn't now.

Another problem comes from the character of Captain America in general. A superhero needs a flaw. Iron Man is a narcissist, Batman is tortured by the death of his parents, Spiderman is a pussy, and so on and so on. Once Captain America is made into Captain America, he has no flaw (because he represents AMERICA!). He is a goody two-shoes, hell bent on justice with super strength and an unwavering will. He doesn't even have to deal with a secret identity like his goody two-shoes buddy, Superman. The resulting feeling is, "Why should I care?" As an Avenger, he might fit in. On his own, he's still just patriotic propaganda.

5/10

By the way, I realized I gave in to the caps lock, so here's that Ryan Gosling photoshop as an apology.

Harry Potter and the Death of Your Childhood.

2011-07-18T08:12:00.002-04:00

A review of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 is hardly necessary at this point. If you've seen the other films in the franchise it is doubtful that you'd miss the conclusion, and it would be wholly idiotic to see the thing without first having made it through most of the others. Although, if you were considering it, you should know that (thankfully) the filmmakers made no attempt to appeal to any newcomers. Deathly Hallows: Part 2 picks up moments after part one left off, and has little time to spare for any off hand reminders of what has gone on before.

Whether or not this final installment is effective is debatable. Its first act, in which Harry, Ron and Hermione invade the vaults of Gringott's, is by far the strongest; continuing the steady buildup of events--executed so well in Deathly Hallows: Part 1--necessary before facing the evil Voldemort. But upon their return to Hogwarts, the film starts to feel like the earlier chapters: too much plot crammed into too little time.

Harry Potter is truly a unique film franchise. I'm not saying that the films in themselves are unique, but as a whole it's hard to think of anything quite similar. What other multi-film franchise has taken the same adolescent characters and portrayed them onscreen for ten years? Four different directors helmed this madness, and their roles are essential too, but viewers literally watched the actors grow from eleven-year-olds to twenty-one-year-olds (approximately). I would argue that, traditionally, a character's entire adolescence is seen only in long-running television shows, and that the Harry Potter films reflect this, and that fans identify with it.

The first few Harry Potter films are, in my memory, childish. Preteens certainly don't have much of an onscreen presence, and the idea of the children in Sorcerer's Stone (2001), or Chamber of Secrets (2002) facing the threat of death and surviving is quite honestly, laughable. The fifteen-year-old me found Sorcerer's Stone an insult to the source material, and that's before I started hating everything. I can't reflect on the quality of these narratives because I haven't seen the films in ten years, but I do not recall them in high regard. Maybe I'll watch them all again and write a stunning academic paper. Won't you all be impressed.

Whether it was the directorial change or the growth of the characters, the fourth movie (Goblet of Fire) proved to be the best in the series (at the time). The actors finally started to appear somewhat grownup, and the film took a darker turn, both in film composition and plot (Someone dies, yo). While still appealing to those desiring a fantastical introspective of the wonderful world of witchcraft, it also contributed a superbly-paced plot, and resulted in a more mature-feeling Harry Potter experience.

The sixth film, Half-blood Prince took the next thematical shift, even though it totally blew. Harry Potter finally appeared somewhat adult; Dumbledore started preparing him for the inevitable confrontation of good vs. evil, and the film series continued with the dark tones established by the fourth installment. The movie still sucked though, because it was essentially the Gossip Girl of Harry Potter films. If you live in a hole, that means that everyone was totally hooking up and the plot was an afterthought.

Which brings us to Deathly Hallows: Part 1, which was by far the best Harry Potter film. The characters are fully-formed young adults, who actually seem believably competent in their attempts to save the wizarding world from Voldemort. No longer hindered by forcing an entire school year into a two hour film, the filmmakers began an acutely executed, steady buildup towards the conclusion of the series.

Which is where we left off. Deathly Hallows: Part 2 begins as a continuation of Part 1, but quickly descends into a rushed series of conclusions that detract from its appeal. Certainly, there are moments when Harry Potter fans will feel a rush of excitement: Harry bursting in on the common room meeting, Professor Mconagall's initiation of Hogwart's defenses, Neville Longbottom being totally ripped, etc. But these grand summations are fleeting moments of glee, and it is easy to forget the relevance of many events in the fast-paced back end of Part 2, the climax of which is a fairly unimpressive duel between Harry and Voldemort. And then the film ends. And then it ends again. Oh, and then there's the flash forward, and the film finally ends.

In defense of Part 2, it is my belief that Deathly Hollows is the weakest of the seven books, since it too felt fairly anti-climactic and rushed. However, Potter fans will no doubt be accepting of the final installment of the film franchise (there were certainly enough claps in the theater), regardless of its flaws, and it is still one of the best entries in the series. Those of us who had hoped for more will no doubt be forgotten amongst the flood of critical and fanboy praise, but it really is too bad that Part 2 couldn't live up to Part 1.

I did wonder for a moment what it would have been like to be ten instead of fifteen when the first movie came out. I certainly wouldn't like the films as much as this girl, but I can understand how people feel they developed along with the characters. Although saying it out loud makes you a huge fag.

Additionally, how did so many people get into these films without reading the books? This is a serious question and someone better explain it to me. I either A) have read the source material so I watch the adaptation regardless of its quality, or B) watch the adaptation and immediately read the source material. I understand that being a wizard is totally awesome, but how good were these films without reading the books? I tend to treat film adaptations as a shortcut reminder as to what happened in the book (excuse to not read the book again), and not much else, except in the rare case where the adaptation is as good as the source material (which almost never happens and most certainly did not happen here).

I am now drunk and using too many parentheticals. Good night.

7/10

Jennifer Aniston is a Whorable Boss.

2011-07-11T05:14:00.000-04:00

This image is likely all that anyone will remember of Horrible Bosses, regardless of whether they decided they liked the film or not. Now I'm sure if you've seen it, you're all like, "Whoa, bro! There was some funny stuff in that movie, dogg!" But given a few years, this thesis will likely prove to be true. Comedy doesn't seem to have any staying power these days, and as I rack my brain for memorable Hollywood moments in the past few years, I seem to be coming up short. I had to have seen some comedies, right?

This is not to say that Horrible Bosses is bad, it's simply forgettable, which in my mind translates to "not very good," but I'm sure not everyone agrees with me. If you're looking for a few decent laughs, go see Horrible Bosses. If the post-Hangover Hollywood comedy is any indication, it's an acceptable offering to those with nothing better to do.

The premise is, of course, that three dudes have horrible bosses. Logically, they decide to kill them. The bosses (Kevin Spacey, Colin Farrell and Jennifer Aniston) are a lot of fun in their respective roles as the cartoonish fuhrers of the workplace. In fact, a large chunk of Horrible Bosses allure rests in the employer-employee relationships. Kevin Spacey ridicules and belittles Jason Bateman, Colin Farrel tells Jason Sudeikis to fire the fat people, and Jennifer Aniston relentlessly assaults Charlie Day with sexual advances. These are the funny moments of Horrible Bosses. Unfortunately, our employee-heroes are left to their own devices for much of the movie.

So Bateman, Sudeikis, and Day want to kill their bosses, so they go the the ghetto to find a black person who will do it for them. Instead, they find Jamie Foxx, who's unfunny-joke-of-a-name is beaten over our heads every time he's onscreen. Seriously, it's not funny. Jamie Foxx serves no necessary purpose to the plot, other than the fact that he's Jamie Foxx and he stares at you while drinking from a straw.

So anyway, our disgruntled employees decide to do the killings themselves, and bumble around aimlessly, doing stupid things which result in minor laughs for most of the second act. Sudeikis tries to bang chicks, Bateman deadpans, and Day squeaks out off-hand remarks while failing at everything he attempts to do. Yeah, you've seen this before. Some of it's funny, some of it's not. Very little of it moves the plot forward. Just shoot your bosses, for heaven's sake.

Anyway, whatever a normal person wouldn't do in an attempt to kill their bosses, these guys do. Which really gets tiresome. Thankfully, Kevin Spacey moves the plot along for us, our leading men commit more ludicrous acts, and eventually everyone walks out of the theater praising Horrible Bosses because they laughed twice.

Remember when comedies used the plot to facilitate the humor? Lately, all I've seen is the separation of plot and comedy (Midnight in Paris being the lone exception). Plot used to be the vehicle for good comedy, but it seems to becoming the backdrop. I don't like it.

6/10

Midnight In Paris, or a Rhinoceros.

2011-06-15T06:45:00.006-04:00

Let it be known that I just wrote for an hour and subsequently deleted all of it. Prefacing a review with ten paragraphs of commentary on the criticism of Woody Allen just didn't seem appropriate. But, if anything, it illustrates my appreciation of the man. He has no rival.

But no one wants to hear about my crush on Woody Allen. Actually, I'm sure a lot of you do (pervs). But you should also know that my love for Midnight in Paris does not stem from unconditional affection for the man. You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger was quite dreadful. Midnight in Paris is just a wonderful, light-hearted comedy.

Owen Wilson's nose is as obnoxiously bent as ever, but he's perfect as what has come to be known as Woody's 'avatar.' He delivers Woody's dialogue well--though perhaps not as well as Will Ferrell did--for one of today's best known actors, and never nears obnoxiousness as Jason Biggs and Kenneth Branagh did. Although, in their defense, they did play more neurotic roles (in Anything Else and Celebrity, respectively). There's no neurosis here, just nostalgia.

Owen's character dreams of living in 1920's Paris, while his fiancee (Rachel McAdams) just wants to live in Malibu. The only annoyance of the film stems from the dichotomy of this relationship. One comes to wonder how the two ever managed to make it to the first date, yet alone engagement. Their exchanges are wearing, although Wilson and his father-in-law-to-be do get in a few choice barbs.

In fact, the plot overall is less than you would expect from an Allen film. Wilson's is the only fully-formed character, especially since we all know that he's just Woody Allen with Owen Wilson's idiosyncrasies. He longs to live in a better time, in a better place, and of course: he wants to write a novel. Everyone else is a caricature, which works in this comedy, although Woody's recent work makes me long for Mia Farrow or Diane Keaton. Listening to Rachel McAdams attempt words with more than a few syllables can be nauseating.

As a result, the romance between Owen Wilson and Marion Cotillard never really matters. Neither does a suicide attempt by Zelda Fitzgerald. The revelation that everyone is yearning for a Golden Age (that never really existed) is executed relatively well, but if you want insight into your fear of death or the plights of mankind there are other Woody Allen films for that. Midnight in Paris exists for laughs, and it does not falter.

The splendor of Midnight in Paris sparks from the titular moments of the film, in which a drunk Wilson finds himself in the streets of Paris at midnight. A cab of Frenchmen pick him up and take him to a party. When introduced to F. Scott Fitzgerald and his wife, Wilson quickly--and perhaps too easily--realizes that he is in his definitive golden age: Paris in the 1920's. Here he meets a variety of his literary heroes, among others; Hemingway, T.S. Eliot, Pablo Picasso, Salvador Dali, Luis Bunuel, Cole Porter, and more. Hemingway is particularly amusing, and introduces Wilson to Gertrude Stein, who agrees to read his novel.

Hemingway dispenses advice to Wilson on being an effective writer and the courage of manhood, and is seconded in entertainment value only be Adrian Brody's portrayal of Salvador Dali, which results in the funniest scene in recent history. Verbal comedy is something I can't effectively convey without endless quotation, which would be largely ineffective out of context. And since I expect all of you to see this on my recommendation, I wouldn't want to steal away the joy of spontaneity.

Fantastical elements often bring a whimsical charm to Woody films, and Midnight in Paris is not the exception. Any fan of Allen should be pleased, as should newbies--so long as Wilson's presence doesn't cause Frat Pack expectations.

8/10

On a side note, I'm watching Anything Else right now, and I still say it's one of the most quotable and unappreciated of Allen's films. There are also at least five moments in dialogue that are reincarnate in Midnight in Paris. Also, Jason Biggs isn't that bad.

Super 8, or Transformers 3: Dark Side of the Childhood.

2011-06-11T08:18:00.004-04:00

~~Dear M. Night Shyamalan,~~

Dear J.J. Abrams,

We get it. You like Spielberg. So do we. Everyone does. The only reason Osama Bin Laden was caught was that, in his haste to order the Jurassic Park Blu-ray, he forgot to change the name on his Amazon account. Everyone. Likes. Spielberg.

But we didn't need you to make a Spielberg drinking game. If I did a shot every time there was a lens flare or a child staring wondrously into space throughout Super 8, I would have died of alcohol poisoning halfway through. Combine that with every other Spielberg homage, and this drinking game's inevitable popularity, you very well may wipe out the entire college population. You cannot build a work of art on shout outs. Unless you're a rapper.

And that's what you were trying to do, right? Maybe not create a "work of art" in the highest sense of the phrase, but to make a movie that years later parents will tell their kids, "This was one of my favorite movies growing up." Well, you didn't. Super 8 is fine for blowing off two hours with your friends, but it doesn't have any staying power. For that, you need personal touches; iconography; characters that matter. You can't just reuse the ones Spielberg created.

The film starts out strong. A group of friends filming a movie (cause we all did that when we were kids and life was so awesome and innocent when we were twelve and you'll never have better friends than the ones you had growing up). And the kids are, thankfully, amusing for the most part. And full of childhood optimism. So enters countless ties to Stand By Me, or The Goonies or whatever. The difference is, in the films you borrow from, the kids move the story. They are the story. In Super 8, they don't affect the plot, they react to it. They exist on a separate plane from the monster movie, until you decide they need to show up and scold the ~~Transformer~~ monster.

What I'm referring to is this: These kids witness a brutal train crash, in which they somehow all survive (which is fine), and then the crazy black dude (black people are extra scary) who caused the train to crash waves a gun at them and tells them that if they tell anyone about what they saw, that they and their parents, will die. So, what do they do? They decide that now they need to use the train crash in their movie. And the first thing they need to do is get the film (that proves they were at the train crash) developed so that they can use it in their movie. They're scared for maybe thirty seconds. I don't know about you, but when a black man holding a gun tells me to do something, I do it.

Nope. Not these kids. They go on filming their movie like nothing traumatizing happened. The fact that the Air Force is all over their town, that all the dogs ran away, or that the main character (Joe) stood amidst the train crash and literally watched a train door get thrown up into the air (by what was obviously ~~a Transformer~~ some sort of monster) doesn't phase them. It's totally more important to make a movie so that Joe can get into Elle Fanning's pants even though their dads hate each other because Elle's dad got Joe's mom to cover a shift at the steel mill for him the day Joe's mom got crushed by a steel beam. My run-ons and lack of punctuation are deliberate, don't judge me.

Seriously, though. The beginning of the movie is the funeral for Joe's mother. When Elle Fanning's alcoholic father shows up to the funeral, Joe's police officer father freaks out and throws him in a squad car. The audience is left with the impression that Elle's father is responsible. But we want to know specifically how he is responsible. Later, the big reveal is that Elle's dad got Joe's mom to cover his shift because he was drunk. That's right. He did not drop the beam on her. He didn't operate the machinery while under the influence. He just got her to cover his shift. Let's all throw a hissy-fit because the alcoholic was being responsible. Also, why was a 110-pound woman working in a steel mill?

Wait, where were we? I think every film review should have an interjection over all the ludicrous plot points. Don't even get me started on the fact that I'm almost positive that Super 8 cameras have to be constantly cranked in order to film (not dropped on the ground and abandoned). Damn it, I'm doing it again.

So, it turns out that the ~~Transformer~~ mysterious monster-that-we-still-haven't-had-a-good-look-at-and-the-kids-totally-ignore is really an alien that's been held captive by the government for about thirty years. It just wants to go home, but the government is the government and they couldn't just let it leave! It could have weapons of mass destruction. So instead of letting it rebuild its spaceship with the ~~Allspark~~ metal cubes it's looking for, they tortured it for a while. And then they put it on a train, which was obviously a brilliant idea. The kids finally find all this out on their quest to save Elle Fanning, because they know that their teachers keep all of their secret government documents hidden in a trailer outside of the school.

Anyway, like I said, Elle Fanning gets kidnapped by ~~the Transformer~~ the monster, and they decide that they should go save her. Because they're kids, and unlike the Air Force they have the cure-all power of love and innocence. So they go into the Transformer's lair because Joe knows where it is and forgot to tell anyone, and watch as Megatron eats a human being. This is also after they've witnessed the Transformer destroy a school bus and kill half-a-dozen soldiers. So, logically, they light some fireworks to distract Megatron while they save Elle Fanning. When Megatron inevitably corners them, he eats them.

Oh, wait. That's not what happens because Joe says, "C'mon bro. Just go home. I know life is rough. My mom totally died. You just have to live your life." So Megatron totally forgets the fact that he's been held captive and tortured for decades, and lets them go; promptly flying away in a spaceship he constructs with his little cubes that he retrieves because apparently he built a huge electromagnet out of some microwaves and a water tower.

Honestly, I could have overlooked the plot holes, the unexplained electromagnets, a dad overreacting to the cause of his wife's death, even the childhood ignorance over what's taking place, if the film had been coherent. But this mish-mash of imminent death and danger transcribed over a light-hearted childhood adventure just doesn't work. You can't have people being eaten and slaughtered in War of the Worlds type alien horror sequences, and end the film with a twelve-year-old enlightening a homicidal, sentient alien being. In Jurassic Park, the kids knew that if they got cornered by the T-Rex, they were dead. In Jaws, when a shark was in the water, the kids didn't chase after it with fireworks, they got the hell out of the water. On the other hand, in E.T. when the government took E.T. hostage, the kids rescued him. But people weren't getting massacred left and right. It has to be one or the other. Complete obliviousness (and protection) from the threat of violence, or unrelenting slaughter.

To further exemplify this, the superhero movies do it the same way. Most of them take the protection from violence route. In Spiderman, Iron Man, and X-Men, people don't just get horrifically massacred. Sometimes, they die, but that's a major plot point. We're willing to overlook minor plot flaws, because they're within the realm of suspendable belief for that universe. In X-Men: First Class, Havok's laser (or whatever), cuts through a stone (or metal, it's hard regardless) statue. When it hits a person, the person falls down. No one cares. If you were watching The Dark Knight, which takes the other approach, and people were getting shot and burned and constantly presented with the very real threat of being blown up, and then someone got shot with a laser and didn't die, I think you'd notice.

So how am I supposed to accept that these kids see an alien massacre an army squad, and eat a person (did I mention that the alien eats a person?), and still decide they have what it takes to rescue a fourteen-year-old-girl? That's one thing. But then they succeed. Why not keep up the realism, have the kids venture into the alien's lair, and then get slaughtered for their childish naivety. I could have appreciated that. Then you wouldn't just be recycling Spielberg's work, you'd be commenting on it!

I really liked Star Trek,

Dear Filmmaker

P.S. I like that a lifetime of neglect on the part of the fathers was made okay in the end because they finally hugged their kids. I also like that this horrible revelation was actually foreshadowed.

P.P.S. I originally addressed this letter to Shyamalan because of all the horrible not-really-revealing-anything-revelations throughout your film. I get confused sometimes.

Oh, and readers (I say readers, but I know I'm the only one), this article may have contained spoilers.

6/10

Hesher, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Walk with Grandma.

2011-05-15T21:25:00.003-04:00

Hesher is a film that does not require me to write a letter. If anything, I should be sending director Spencer Susser a thank you note. Luckily, I don't live with my mother anymore so I don't have to send anyone a thank you note ever again. Not everyone will love Hesher, and if you check out Rotten Tomatoes you'll find that some people even hated it, but that's okay. We'll set their cars on fire later.

Hesher introduces us to a family lost in grief. T.J., who is apparently in high school despite appearing to be about ten years old, has just lost his mother in a car accident. His father spends his days lying on the couch, popping pills, and growing a beard to illustrate his grief. His grandmother takes care of them both, despite being so elderly that she doesn't always seem to have a firm grasp on reality.

The titular character, played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt, drops into their lives with a literal bang; when a bout of frustration causes T.J. to break a window at a construction site, which inadvertently alerts a security guard to the location in which Hesher is squatting. "You just fucked me," he says passively to T.J. before lighting a homemade explosive and throwing it out a window.

At first, Hesher seems to be a figment of T.J.'s imagination, appearing at T.J.'s school to smoke cigarettes in the hallways, and throwing rocks at him through the window of his classroom. Thankfully, he's real (other characters interact with him), and he plants himself in the middle of T.J.'s family unit, moving into the garage despite T.J.'s protests.

What makes Hesher great, is that he never falls victim to a character arc. He is and always will be: simply Hesher. His motivations and background are never revealed, his penchant for fire-starting is never explained, and though his graphic stories of violence and sex are twisted metaphors, he doesn't claim to understand them. T.J.'s family does become a sort of anchor for Hesher's madness, but it only accentuates Hesher's wildness, never decreases it.

Like Hesher himself, the film weaves off the traditional path. It's certainly linear, and there are small points of narrative evolution, but mostly, its just Hesher; and Hesher's actions aren't always there to contribute, sometimes he just disrupts. But he is the disruption that the characters needed, and he ultimately leads the film to a decisive end.

Hesher, in my mind, draws a lot of comparisons to Visitor Q, another film in which a seemingly untouchable stranger falls in with a family of misfits, prompting them to overcome their shortcomings. Though Hesher (thankfully) lacks the grotesque nature that gives Miike's Visitor Q its cult following, the idea is the same; an unlikely hero providing the slap-in-the-face necessary to bring a family back together.

8/10

I should note that you should never watch Visitor Q unless you know what you're getting yourself into.

Your Highness, or The Longest Dick Joke Ever.

2011-04-11T19:22:00.000-04:00

We all knew Your Highness was going to be bad, but the world runs on hope (and possibly James Franco), so I disregarded almost every review of the film in my quest for shameful giggles. I got a few, but not nearly enough. After the reasonably well-written first act, Your Highness descends into little more than dick jokes and action sequences; neither of which were very funny.

While the film attempts to spoof Medieval films, it plays out like a bad episode of Eastbound and Down. Danny McBride's Thadeous is nothing more than a reprisal of EBaD's Kenny Powers with weaker one-liners. The film may have been better if it had been a one shot of James Franco laughing for ninety minutes, because Franco's idiot grin was one of the only jokes that didn't get old.

Natalie Portman shows up around the film's halfway point simply so McBride has something to hit on, and because Natalie Portman is going through her Edward DeNiro phase, which means she'd probably star in your screenplay if you asked her. The worst character, however, is Justin Theroux's Leezar who falls flat in almost every scene. A virgin wizard who steals Franco's bride in order to gain ultimate power from a ritual known as "The Fuckening," Leezar's scenes are composed of little more than the pathetic rants of a teenage boy attempting to convince his peers that he's cool. And while this characterization has led to humor in the past, Your Highness fails to use this character as anything more than an obnoxious plot device.

The film does illicit some laughs, but for every truly good joke there are several that fail. Perhaps the most deserved chuckles come from creative plot elements, but they are few and far between and are small glimmers compared to the sea of penis jokes and homo-eroticism.

5/10

Moon 2: Source Code

2011-04-11T06:56:00.005-04:00

I'm not really sure what's so funny in the picture above, but I can only assume a sandwich is involved.

I have finally emerged from my Netflix coma (however briefly) to rediscover this moving picture nonsense. I decided to check out Source Code because Hanna wasn't out yet and--let's face it--everything else probably sucks. Director Duncan Jones' last film, Moon, was solid and Source Code honors its predecessor with its quality and its plot.

This whole article is a spoiler of both films, but as we all know, spoilers don't usually matter.

Moon is about a dude (Sam Rockwell) on the moon who's all by himself except for a creepy Kevin Spacey robot, whom you can't blame me for loving. He's trying to make contact with his family, but he can't get a signal (even Verizon doesn't work on the moon). He has an accident and wakes up to Kevin Spacey gently massaging him back to life. The Kevin Spacey robot acts shifty and its obvious that Sam Rockwell died in his accident and this is a new Sam Rockwell (or possibly just a revived Sam Rockwell, but we all know its always cloning or robots in sci-fi). At least half of viewers will call this a "twist" when Duncan finally spells it out for us. Sam Rockwell dies a bunch of times, finally contacts his family but pretends to be someone else, and the Kevin Spacey robot disobeys protocol in order to save at least one Sam Rockwell. The gist of the situation: a corporation is taking advantage of Sam Rockwell's clones to save money on training their employees (because cloning is apparently cheaper).

Source Code is about a dude (Jake Gyllenhaal) in some weird container-thingy who's all by himself except for his communication with a creepily evasive Vera Farmiga, whom you can't blame me for loving. He's trying to make contact with his father, but keeps getting distracted by the fact that Vera is repeatedly sending him to a train for eight minutes before it explodes. After his first excursion, he wakes up and Vera runs a program that helps him remember her name. Vera acts shifty and it becomes obvious very quickly that Jake is dead. At least 25% of viewers will call this a "twist" when Jake finally googles his name from the train. Jake Gyllenhaal dies a bunch of times, finally contacts his father but pretends to be someone else, and Vera disobeys her orders in order to save Jake Gyllenhaal. The gist of the situation: a government program is taking advantage of Jake Gyllenhaal in order to stop terrorism.

I'm just saying.

Of course, I'm just being a dick because I really don't have anything to complain about other than the fact that a scientist who can place people in alternate realities should be able to figure out that a memory wouldn't respond to stimuli unless it was the projection of Jake Gyllenhaal's subconscious. That's right, black, bearded scientist with a cane, we saw INCEPTION!!!!!... you can't fool us with your science.

7/10

Edit: Moon and Source Code are different in style. Moon is slow and dramatic, while Source Code is a quick-moving thriller. Both are well done.

The Dry Months.

2011-03-28T19:16:00.000-04:00

Just so we're all aware, I haven't given up on this blog like I have in months past. I simply haven't seen one film in theaters since The King's Speech. After all, winter is depressing; and there is no need to leave my house just to see Red Riding Hood or Battle: Los Angeles. Don't worry though, kids. When I do leave my apartment and venture to the cinema, you will be the first to know. Although, even when something does strike my fancy, I'll probably just stay home and watch Rebecca Black videos.

The Green Hornet, or Asians Are Cooler Than You.

2011-01-25T21:14:00.004-05:00

This film is fictional; as documented by this photo, in which
Seth Rogen is faster than an Asian.

Dear Michel Gondry,

Thank you for not writing The Green Hornet, because even though the script isn't very good, you most likely would have found a way to make it worse. That's right, I saw Be Kind Rewind, and I am going to hold it against you forever.

There are still some problems with The Green Hornet, but I had low expectations anyway so they weren't deal-breakers. It is important to note that the film's entertainment value comes almost entirely from Jay Chou and Christoph Waltz, so those who don't find Engrish funny aren't going to enjoy this film at all.

Who am I kidding; everyone loves Engrish.

The Green Hornet is basically a slapstick Iron Man, it's almost as funny but not nearly as good. Seth Rogen is the rich party boy in this scenario, who inherits his father's newspaper after Dad pulls a My Girl, and dies from a bee sting. When he meets superhuman Asian Jay Chou, they team up and become superheroes, because that's the cool thing to do these days.

The first act is funny, the third act is mostly amusing action, and the middle portion of the film is atrocious. And that pisses me off.

The Green Hornet could have been a memorable superhero spoof, in the vein of Kickass, but the flatness of the plot catches up to it. Rogen is so unlikeable as the titular character its sad. His inability to acknowledge that he has no idea what he is doing is so frustrating that Cameron Diaz becomes more likable than him. And, let's face it. No one likes Cameron Diaz anymore. The middle portion of the film is just unnecessary bickering caused by Seth Rogen, until finally Jay Chou gets mad at him and stops doing his math homework. It might as well be an episode of Gossip Girl.

But of course, it's worth checking out if you want some mild fun. Christoph Waltz does wonders as usual, especially in the opening scene with a special guest cameo. Still, I can't help wondering what it would have been like with the originally cast Nicolas Cage, because after all, his hair is a bird.

The Company Men, or Ben Affleck Can't Afford His Porsche.

2011-01-19T02:29:00.000-05:00

It's a tough life when you don't make 160,000 a year anymore.

I expected fairly little out of The Company Men, as the trailer seemed to highlight Ben Affleck screaming, "I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and for God's sake, people like me." No one wants to see that. But I did anyway and was pleasantly surprised. I'm not saying that The Company Men was that great, but it is incredibly relevant, quite accurate, and one of the few films that has touched on the recent economic climate.

The Company Men stars Ben Affleck, so naturally everyone is from Boston. His company has just cut three thousand jobs, and his position is no exception. Naturally, he gets pissed off and decides to get a new job, because he's Ben Affleck and everyone should be begging to employ him. Turns out, no one cares.

Ben Affleck then goes into an epic state of denial; he starts to play a lot of golf, gets his Porsche detailed, and he meets his first black person--because that's what happens when you're unemployed. Meanwhile, his kid sells his Xbox, because that extra three hundred dollars can get Ben a new putter (which he needs to appear successful).

Basically the film is Ben realizing that no one wants to hire him, crying like a little baby, working for an awkwardly placed Kevin Costner, and then getting totally bailed by Tommy Lee Jones; which would obviously never happen in real life because all executives are selfish bastards.

This film is going to suck in twenty years, because by then we'll all be used to being poor and won't be able to remember a time in which we once all had Porsche's. But its an accurate description of what's going on now. People are losing their jobs for stupid reasons, realizing that rich people are pricks, and then either killing themselves or getting a shittier job. Unfortunately, no one takes an AK-47 to their former employers, which is really the only way anything is ever going to get done.

Basically, we're all fucked. Maybe this movie will help you realize it.

This Year Sucked. Here's My Top 10.

2011-01-15T06:29:00.010-05:00

Sorry, kids! I had a PS3 relapse and stopped visiting the internet. Fortunately, I started playing catch up and had enough time to watch pretty much every live action 2010 film I could get my hands on. Wait, did I say fortunately?
Let's face it: 2010 was awful. Even a large portion of the films that were supposed to be mildly entertaining escapism didn't really do the trick. Personally, I think this may be the worst year in cinema's history. I have yet to prove myself wrong on this point, and I welcome all of you to present a year to add to the debate.
There were, of course, still a lot good films this year, and despite the misleading opening statements, it will be the positive I will be discussing in this entry. We'll discuss the piss poor at a later date.

If you think I missed a film, you should be able to find it at the end of this entry, where I intend to list everything I saw or still intend to see. The execution of this plan, however, hinges entirely on my ability to finish this article before I run out of cigarettes.

Also, I did not see any animated films. Whatevs, dogg.

10. City Island

Yes, I know it says "2009" on IMDB, but it didn't start in US theaters until 2010. That's what counts, kids.

It's a funny and strange comedy that hints at quirkiness, but doesn't take it too far. However, if it had blown up like Juno did I might have changed my mind. Some stuff happens. Andy Garcia's son likes fat chicks. What more do you want?

9. Kickass

Obviously, I couldn't really remember anything clever to say about City Island. I was going to let you attribute that to laziness, when I realized I don't really have much to say about Kickass either. Some funny stuff happens. Nic Cage shoots a little girl. Kickass is a solid example of a silly escapism film that was actually done right this year.

8. Dogtooth

There were a couple films this year that were...different. Enter the Void and A Serbian Film were both similar to Dogtooth in subject matter/content/strangeness, but Dogtooth was actually good.

Dogtooth centers on three children who have been confined to their house and yard for the entirety of their lives. Fed misinformation from as early as they could understand it, they believe in a world entirely different from the one that exists in reality. Words have different meanings, cats are dangerous creatures, and oral sex is acceptable if it is in exchange for a sparkling headband.

All this, is of course, to protect the children from societal corruption. And this system seems to work until an outsider is brought into the home. This outsider's purpose is, logically, to have sex with the son.

Dogtooth is delightfully twisted and deranged, but in a way that supports the film's themes and commentary. Sure, there's some incest and sporadic violence, but its all in good fun. On the plus side, no one rapes a newborn baby, which is more than I can say for A Serbian Film.

7. Cyrus

In Cyrus, John C. Reilly is a lonely old dude who goes to a party, gets really drunk, and ends up charming Marisa Tomei. Marisa Tomei, being Marisa Tomei, is incredibly out of his league, except for the fact that her son is Jonah Hill. The only possible explanation for this strange genetic failure is that at one point Marisa Tomei slept with Chris Farley.

Jonah Hill, unlike his usual obnoxiously loud, probably trying to get laid self, is a passive aggressive twenty-one-year-old who lives at home and works on electronica music, all the while trying to sneak peaks of Marisa Tomei in the shower. Also, he hates John C. Reilly.

The main draw here is the secret battle going on between John C. Reilly and Jonah Hill, as they fight over who is slightly less unattractive and thus deserving of Marisa Tomei's affections. Also, John C. Reilly is really lonely and Marisa Tomei has changed his life, but if you thought that was important you'd just watch Eclipse again, wouldn't you?

6. 127 Hours

No, that does not say "6,127 Hours." Even James Franco couldn't go that long with his arm stuck under a rock. But 127 hours is nothing for Franco, he just takes some time to look at ravens, think about ex-girlfriends, and fantasize about a party he's not going to be able to make. Then, he pulls a Chuck Norris and cuts his arm off. James Franco is not trapped under a rock. The rock is trapped over James Franco.

127 Hours is a perfect example of what Buried could have been if it weren't stupid. You can't have a dude trapped in a box for 90 minutes and just show him being pissed off. He has to regret some aspect of his life. James Franco regrets his life of solitude. He never talks to his parents, he dumped his sexy foreign girlfriend, and he didn't tell anyone where he was going because he's an idiot. Yeah, he definitely regrets that last one.

There's really not much to say about 127 Hours. James Franco is trapped under a rock. It's good. See it.
Also, I have to apologize to Buried for simplifying its plot points. It's not just Ryan Reynolds in a box for 90 minutes being pissed off. It's Ryan Reynolds in a box for 90 minutes being pissed off, but he also kills a snake.

5. The Social Network

Jesse Eisenberg may be an obnoxious twat, but he has 500 million friends. And that's really all that matters. Critics keep citing The Social Network as brilliant social commentary, but let's face it. We already knew that Facebook is taking over our lives. So, commentary? Meh. Engaging film based on real life? I agree. It's not groundbreaking. It's just a good movie for general audiences in a year that didn't really have many good movies for general audiences.

Also, if anyone in this film wins an acting award I'm going to delete them on Facebook. I was going to say I'd shoot up Arizona, but I figured you bastards would think it was too soon.

4. Four Lions

Four Lions marks the point in this list where I actually start caring about the movies I'm talking about. It gets high marks for originality, humor, and because it totally has a fat, Islamic Jason Statham as a main character.

Four Lions is the story of four British Muslims who plan to become suicide bombers. Unfortunately for them, and Al Qaeda, they are idiots. Two of them get kicked out of terrorist training camp (after accidentally shooting a rocket at Osama Bin Ladin). They arrive home to find that their companions have recruited a fifth member, whose interests also include suicide bombing. Oh, and rap music.

The repeated failures and backwards logic of the group never fail to amuse, and even the sporadic death and gore (in no way depicted comically) incite laughter. The whole film builds to a fantastic finale. I recommend this to every one of you.

3. Blue Valentine

I was originally going to post a top ten list about a week ago. If I had, the number one spot would have been the Blue Valentine trailer, just because I'm hip like that. I did manage to hold off and wait until I'd actually seen the film.

I was hoping Blue Valentine would be this year's A Single Man, which to me is a film that just barely sneaked into 2009 and blew everything else out of the water. It did not have that effect, but it was quite good.

Blue Valentine cuts back and forth between two time periods. The first is, chronologically, the latter: the deterioration of the relationship between Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams. Likewise, at various points we see the couple meeting and falling in love.

The strengths of Blue Valentine lie in the realism of the fighting, the scenarios, the fact that women are evil, etc. etc. It's brutally honest, and it's not sorry.

On the other hand, it also illustrates cinema's lack of female auteurs. This film is not a fair battleground. Michelle Williams' disappointments in Ryan Gosling come off as unjust and unwarranted, as his only crime appears to be loving her (and not caring for much else). This point is only further embedded in the viewer as the thesis of the film seems to come from a line of dialogue in which Gosling describes women as "less romantic" than men; claiming that men only get married when they're in love, while women entertain the idea of the perfect man, but always end up settling.

Thus, the film seems to come from a hostile place. An attempt to depict women as impossible to please, impossible to love, and incapable of reciprocating love. Blue Valentine is not a film about two people falling out of love with each other. It's a film about a woman falling out of love with a man, and his incomprehension of this fact.

As a singular argument, none of this is a problem. In fact, more often than not, this scenario is entirely plausible. However, films as frank as Blue Valentine are so rare that it only has a handful of peers, thus it almost begs for a counterargument from a female writer/director who could, presumably, point out Ryan Gosling's flaws, because I, honestly, don't see them.

As I usually find myself asserting at the end of my reviews: It was really good, though.

2. Scott Pilgrim vs. The World

Easily the best romcom of the year, although you can't be blamed if you missed that fact (what with all the bells and whistles) Scott Pilgrim was one of the few films that actually exceeded the expectations that I had for it. It was campy, spastic fun that had everything from vegan jokes to Kieran Culkin. Vegan jokes AND Kieran Culkin? Undoubtedly, a recipe for success.

Despite its greatness, it bombed at the box office. Which, if you really think about it, makes complete sense.

First of all, half of America now hates Michael Cera. They cannot be blamed for this. He asked for it. And while the cartoonish intensity of the trailers had everyone this side of high school pumped up for some intense nerd love, I'm assuming the popular kids in high school just stayed at home dry-humping in the basement while their parents watched NCIS reruns.

So, get your act together and rent the DVD, kids. I still refuse to use the term "Blu-ray" in casual conversation.

1. Inception

I know. I'm as bad as the kids who wanted The Dark Knight to win Best Picture. Give me a break, I didn't have a lot to work with. Not that I expect (or want) Inception to win Best Picture. Just think, if Inception had been a 2009 film, it would have been like fifth. Social Network wouldn't even have made the top ten.

Say what you want to about Inception, but it was entertaining as hell. Sure it had endless plot holes, an annoying dead woman, and immense hype. But those plot holes were fun to find, that dead woman is a sexy French actress, and the entertainment value actually outweighed the hype.

What I like best about Inception is that to follow it, the passive viewer has to become an alert one. Even your mother's retarded brother was trying to figure out if it was a dream or not. It's also incredibly amusing to listen or read people's frustrating battle with the ambiguous ending.

Most people defy logic, the IMDB message boards are proof. They should all kill themselves to pursue a better dream state.

EVERYTHING ELSE

Good Stuff

Exit through the Gift Shop - Solid flick reminding us all that people are stupid.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Best Harry Potter so far.
The Vicious Kind - Adam Scott has never been so drunk and lovely.
Machete - Honestly, almost made this list.
Rabbit Hole - Nicole Kidman is sad that her son died. Solid, forgettable.
Shutter Island - Obvious from the start, but a good thriller.
The Fighter - Should have been called "The Fighter's Brother" because Mark Wahlberg is irrelevant in this film.
The Kids Are All Right - Also almost made this list.
The King's Speech - Colin Firth swears a lot. He'll probably win Best Actor because he has a speech impediment and everyone finally saw A Single Man.
The Town - Your average heist flick.
True Grit - Your average western flick with a Coen brothers ending

Decent Stuff

Flipped - Too Wonder Yearsish, but solid
Get Him to the Greek - It was hilarious in the theater, not so much the second time.
RED - Surprisingly funny. But not that funny.
Easy A - This was actually quite funny.
Never Let Me Go - Remember when characters were supposed to develop?
Piranha 3D - Actually awesome.
Repo Men - Surprisingly entertaining.
Somewhere - Lost in Translation redux except with father and daughter and Chris Pontius.
Winter's Bone - The landscape is representational of the narrative.
The Other Guys - Funny, but the plot is nonsensical and it needed more Dwayne Johnson.
Black Swan - Surrealism is only cool when its funny, otherwise its just obnoxious.
Iron Man 2 - Mickey Rourke had a cockatoo.

Not Awful

Greenberg - This was actually quite trite.
Hot Tub Time Machine - Hot Tub Disappointment Machine.
Howl - Should have just been James Franco talking.
It's Kind of a Funny Story - It's Kind of a Piece of Shit
The Ghost Writer - Predictable. Tiresome. Lame.
You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger - C'mon, Woody. Do better.
Macgruber - With such low expectations, its hard to hate it too much.
Buried - As good as it could have possibly been. This is not much of a compliment.
Casino Jack - Kevin Spacey does some stuff. I should have watched the documentary.
Valentine's Day - The averagely lame Valentine's movie.

Crap

Let Me In - Fuck Hollywood and their remakes.
The Crazies - It's always the government isn't it?
I'm Still Here - Not funny at all.
The Book Of Eli - Ridiculous.
A Serbian Film - Good for the first 45 minutes and then just decides to trade in commentary for torture/rape/murder/porn
I Love You, Phillip Morris - Occasionally funny, but mostly horrible.
Enter the Void - If Tarantino and Aronofsky filmed their wet dreams, this is what it would look like.
I Am Love - It takes about 45 minutes to figure out what the film is about, but by that time you've already stopped caring 35 minutes ago.

NEED TO SEE

Biutiful
Barney's Version
Hereafter
~~Animal Kingdom~~ Decent
~~Monsters~~ Not Awful

Suggestions?

MacGruber has a 79% on Rotten Tomatoes.

2010-05-21T03:30:00.005-04:00

I may have not written this entry had I not found this picture.

I think we have a national treasure on our hands; a term I use as defined below:

National Treasure (na·tion·al treas·ure)
- a film which, although being catastrophically flawed in concept, garners exaggerated praise from its audience for somehow not being the huge turd they expected. Based on the movie of the same name.

MacGruber is a spin-off of an SNL skit, which haven't fared well since Wayne's World, and unlike previous SNL fims, the original MacGruber skit wasn't even funny. Okay, maybe it was funny, like, once. MacGruber is essentially a retarded Macgyver. He doesn't use guns, and relies on a variety of scraps to produce explosives; or more realistically here, distractions. His only effective homemade explosive goes off prematurely, and he's apparently more reliable with a stick of celery.

The film is designed to be stupid, and boy is it stupid. The only difficulty here is timing the poop and penis jokes correctly. It's the equivalent of Will Ferrel's character in. . . well, I was going to say Step Brothers, but pretty much any Will Ferrel comedy applies--attempting to save the world from nuclear destruction. And that sounds more desirable than the film actually is. If MacGruber does one thing well, it's to highlight why SNL stars like Will Ferrel and Mike Myers have become staples in mainstream film, and why Will Forte and Kristen Wiig haven't.

Now, the fact that MacGruber has a 79% on Rotten Tomatoes doesn't really mean anything, because Rotten Tomatoes lets pretty much every idiot critic contribute to their rating system, and because the percentage won't actually be finite for at least a couple of days. But let's roll with it. Let's assume that MacGruber receives solid reviews.

I'm all for defining a film on its own merits. In fact, I tend to rely heavily on this aspect of the review process. I stole my criticism method from a really old (I think Greek) dude who said you should base a play's merits on something like this:

1. What was the play/film trying to do?
2. How well did it do it?
3. Was it worth doing?

I think that basically sums up the critical process, so I roll with it. The problem here is that Macgruber did an adequate job with its attempt to produce a stupid movie. And though this is hardly a worthwhile endeavor, we forget that fact because we got more than we expected. Because no one goes to see a movie like MacGruber and expects greatness. Everyone expected a huge pile of poopity poo that might make them giggle. And they giggled. This spells blockbuster sucess. Damn you, Hollywood and your tricks!

Of course, Val Kilmer and Ryan Philippe saved the day, because who doesn't like a good dose of Val Kilmer and Ryan Philippe. I mean Val Kilmer is fat now, he has a ponytail, and his name is Dieter Von Cunth. Likewise, Ryan Philippe is essentially an sexy, bad boy version of Justin Timberlake, so duh!

Anyway, I'm sick of MacGruber. I'm done talking about it. I'll forget it by next week. Why do I even waste my time?

6/10

P.S. It was a 5/10 until the last twenty minutes.

Iron Man 2, or Mickey Rourke's Cockatoo.

2010-05-08T04:51:00.006-04:00

Dear readers,

I'm not going to write a letter to Jon Favreau. Deal with it. This is largely due to the fact that I don't have much to say about Iron Man 2, and certainly little to complain about; but also because I'm not going to praise it either. It's Iron Man 2. What did you expect it to be? It's more or less a continuation of the original, an effective sequel, but nothing revolutionary. I'm sure you'd all love the thing if Mickey Rourke had died during filming; but he didn't, and there won't be any pity Oscars given away this year.

Let's be honest. There's always a pity Oscar. That's right, Sandra Bullock. Suck it.

Anyway, the government is pissed that Tony Stark won't give them the Iron Man suit, and Robert Downey Jr. is all like, "Oh, hell no sista' you ain't takin' away my bling, I use dat to pick up my mans," because Robert Downey Jr. has always been Mo'nique in my mind. Mickey Rourke's father dies, and he gets so angry that he reenacts the end of Star Wars: Episode III, goes to America, and destroys Tony Stark's pimped out ride. Don Cheadle bitch slaps Tony for acting a fool, and Samuel Jackson shows up to whip Tony into shape.

So, in summary, Tyler Perry's "I Can't Believe I'm a Superhero Too" is completely doable, and I anxiously await it.

7/10

Oh hey! See that number under my lackluster Iron Man 2 review? That's the score I gave it out of ten, I hope you figured it out. The spambots might have trouble, but you should get it. I'm going to start doing that now, to prove that I don't consider every movie I see to be completely terrible. Most movies have redeeming qualities. You'll notice that I'll be giving most everything a 6-8. A five will represent a movie I neither enjoyed nor disliked watching, and a ten will represent a film that I consider damn near perfect. Most films are somewhere in the middle. The movie you made last summer with your brother; that gets a three. There are only three films across history that I consider tens, and maybe twenty or so nines, so if you see one of those, you better holla' back. And no, I have no idea why I prefer ghetto talk today.

I am not going to give a movie a ten because it has zombies, or because this dude was totally badass in it. I will not give a movie a ten because there was a lot of blood and some stuff exploded. I will not give a movie a ten because dat shit had some titties. I don't do that. You people know who you are, you do it all the time.

Also, there will be no .5's. I'm not a baby, I have confidence. Deal with it. That's enough for now.

P.S. See? I told you I wasn't going to proofread anymore.

A Necessary Interjection: Whose Idea Was it to Let Me Buy a PS3?

2010-04-25T18:53:00.004-04:00

I doubt anyone has noticed, but I haven't updated in a long time. This is most likely due to the fact that I've logged eight days in game time in Call of Duty in the past month. But it is also due to a lack of films coming out that are more interesting than drinking. I do regret missing the Tooth Fairy. That would have been a good entry for all of us.

I really can't blame the quality of cinema, as we all know I prefer to write letters about bad movies. I think I just got winded after making that Top 50 of the decade list. Luckily, I'm not disappointing too many people since I only have nine followers (one of whom I believe is a spambot).

Anyway, here's a little recap to prove I really haven't seen much:

A Single Man

I really should have informed you about A Single Man, because it is the best film I've seen in the theater in at least five years. I would say it's the best film released in the past five years, but it's too close to call between A Single Man and Once. We all know I'm a man who appreciates some good heartbreak, and A Single Man personifies the term the way Punch-Drunk Love personifies new love. In other words; really well. Where has Tom Ford been all my life?

Crazy Heart

Crazy Heart is your run of the mill biopic about some dude who doesn't actually exist. As a result, it's even more uninteresting than actual biopics. Sure, Jeff Bridges won the Oscar for best actor, but let's not forget that playing a drunk musician is as easy as playing an angry black woman (take that, Precious). The fact is, nothing really happens in Crazy Heart. Of course there's some Jeff Bridges and Maggie Gyllenhaul sex, a lost boy, and Colin Farrell with some pirate hair, but all that really gives us is a rehash of the movie Hook with country music instead of humor.

Shutter Island

The entire time I was watching Shutter Island, I thought it was going to suck. I hated it because I knew it was going to end in a way that pissed me off. Then it ended. It didn't piss me off. So, while the "twist" is incredibly apparent throughout most of the movie, the execution made it worthwhile, even though it tortures you with the possibility that it might screw it all up. It's like the opposite of The Crazies remake, which just tortures you the whole time when it becomes obvious that there was never any interest in making an effort in the writing department.

Repo Men

Repo Men started off surprisingly legitimate. I expected your standard Shia Labeouf chase movie (has Shia Labeouf been in a chase movie besides Eagle Eye? I'm just going to go ahead and count Tranformers), but instead we get heavy back story before Jude Law ends up on the run. Then we start getting the really bad dialogue, and over the top violence. However, instead of being bad, it turns out to be awesomely bad, because there's nothing sexier than returning organs. Repo Men is a whole lot of ridiculous fun, even if the ending is given away in the first ten minutes of the movie.

That should be enough recaps for now. Enough to get the complainers off my back. Yes, some people apparently do read this. Fine, I'll keep writing. But I now refuse to proofread.

Daybreakers: Too Infuriating to Write About.

2010-01-10T20:38:00.005-05:00

Dear Michael and Peter Spierig,

I understand that you probably aren't wearing Edward Cullen underpants right now. You probably don't have the Twilight shower curtain either. But you didn't have to prove it either. Now, you may not have made this film as an attack against Twilight, but your fans certainly see it as such. "Yeah man, vampires are cool again. They ain't whiny fags no more." Lines like this can be seen most places Daybreakers is mentioned on the internet. The comparison does not interest me.

Anyone with half a brain can see that the Twilight films are complete trash, but Daybreakers isn't much better; and it offends me that large amounts of people will praise your film simply because it "isn't Twilight." I'm actually upset that I'm even mentioning Twilight because even though it's a pop culture phenomenon, I don't care about it anymore. It sucked. Move on, people. But everyone is drawing comparisons between the two films, and I really wanted to link to that picture of the underpants. Enough about how Twilight sucks. Let's talk about why Daybreakers sucks. I hate that that's going to be taken as a pun.

Daybreakers is most upsetting because it's an interesting concept with a largely effective first act, and a really bad second and third act. The film opens with a scary bat and a loud noise which should have immediately lowered everyone's expectations, but then redeems itself with the opening scene in which a young vampire acts on her distaste for immortality. We're then introduced to the world of the film; underground tunnels for daytime travel, cars with heavily tinted windows, and large vampire corporations selling blood siphoned from the few remaining humans. There's even a vampire army designed to hunt humans. You set the stage for social satire well.

But then where did it go?

It's all suddenly replaces by a rollercoaster battle of good and evil complete with car chases, exploding vampires, and a slow motion vampire feeding frenzy. It turns into Zombieland without the self-awareness, which results in so many groan-producing scenes it gives Sherlock Holmes a run for its money. How many cheap twists can you throw into one movie? "Oh man, that's Sam Neill's daughter! Oh man, he's human! SCREECH!!! Scary bat flies across screen. DUDE THAT WAS SO SCARY!" I hate you. And how many times can a character come out of nowhere and save the other characters from certain doom? It happened at least three times in this film.

I no longer have any interest in writing this letter. I'm just angry. I don't know how to describe how silly this whole thing is. And for people who are entertained/surprised by cheap tactics, I don't want to ruin the film for them since that's what Daybreakers is based on.

Dear readers,

I apologize for this terrible review of Daybreakers. To go further into detail about the horrible pacing, ludicrous plot holes, and one-dimensional characters will produce little more than bad grammar and misunderstood interjections. It was a ridiculous film. However, I will admit that once you accept it as ludicrous trash, it is actually entertaining in a strange way. A B-movie with an A-list budget, perhaps. I was not unhappy as I left the theater. My anger and disapproval has surfaced due to my hope that Daybreakers would be social satire instead of the standard Hollywood fare. It most certainly is the latter, and if that is your interest, I wouldn't attempt to sway you from seeing this film. Just don't expect much more than a forgettable gore-fest with unfulfilled potential.

Precious, or the Illiterate Dnt Knw Vwls.

2010-01-06T00:45:00.005-05:00

Dear Sapphire,

Now technically, you aren't the filmmaker, but since you wrote the novel Precious is based on I feel that you're responsible for its content, which is why I'm writing to you and not the director.

Precious is a character piece in which we are introduced to the titular character at a critical point in her life. She is pregnant with her second child, kicked out of public school, and her mother is still the same evil bitch she always has been. In an attempt to better herself, Precious goes to an alternative school that strives to teach her how to read and write, despite her mother's insistence that learnin' won't get you nowhere. What we get is lots of mother daughter conflict, and a supposed uplifting tale of obstacles overcome. Unfortunately, as Precious' teacher puts it, "your protagonist's circumstances are unrelenting," and just as she's finally making a new life for herself, she finds out that she is HIV+.

So the "uplifting" bit is out the window. Which isn't necessarily bad, but what is the point to all this? You've created these characters and situations, which are intriguing to watch, but is your story really saying anything?

That is my problem with Precious. The acting is there, the pain runs deep throughout, but the film has little effect other than the realization that fat people have dreams too; really annoying technicolor dreams.

Precious could be read as an illustration of poverty or child abuse. It could be an inspirational struggle for improvement, a commentary on motherhood, or a tragic example of one's failure to succeed. Hell, it could be interpreted as a racist depiction of black America insisting that only whites can save blacks from themselves.

It is most of these things, yet it's none of these things. Had the events been based on a memoir and not a work of fiction, it would have nullified that complaint. If Precious was an actual girl who had really been raped by her father, had two children by seventeen, had been hated and abused by her mother, and contracted HIV after her life began to improve, the film would be fine as is. However, Precious is a character based on multiple individuals, and the problem is that you've put too many problems in one person's life for a film to possibly cover any of them sufficiently.

Precious' relationship with her mother is by far the most interesting aspect of the film, but her character never becomes more than the caricature of a welfare vulture until the last twenty minutes of the film. The third act is by far the best, which may be why the film is garnering so much praise, but I think it would be unfair of me to overlook the far inferior beginning and middle of the film which consists mostly of annoying dream sequences, the obligatory light-skinned school teacher, and black people throwing things.

And what is with all of the voice-over? I can understand either the dream sequences or the voice-over, but the inclusion of both--often simultaneously--made me grind my teeth and pray that Precious contracted AIDS (my prayers are often answered). Show us or tell us. Don't show me while telling me, it's condescending. Wait, did Tarantino direct this?

I'm sorry, Sapphire. I know you only wrote the book and that the voiceover/dream sequences weren't your fault. And don't get me wrong, I liked the movie, I just wish it had something to say, and was more than a ho-hum character piece with the occasional camera work faux pas.

So, in closing, while Precious is more original than other black-people-saved-by-white-people films like Freedom Writers or The Blind Side, due to a more unpredictable plot and unrelenting drive to destroy the dreams of poverty-stricken fat girls everywhere, it doesn't have that heart-warming glow that makes white people want to donate to charity, which is often the only reason people watch films like this.

So while I'm glad that it doesn't illicit warm, affectionate hugging, I really wish it did have something to say.

P.S. Now everyone is going to think that all blacks sit around waiting on their welfare check. That is certainly not true. What is true is that large amounts of black people don't tip delivery drivers. Write a novel about that please.

P.P.S. It's not racist if it's true.

Top Fifty Films of the Decade.

2009-12-30T08:34:00.006-05:00

Making a list of your favorite 50 films of the decade is incredibly annoying. It takes too long, and you inevitably reach a point where a third of the list is entirely interchangeable with other films. But I did it. Mostly because I was almost done by the time I realized I should have stopped at the top 25. Keep in mind that I was thirteen when the decade started, hadn't yet kissed a girl and spent more than half of the decade focused on that goal. It took that long to realize that movies are more interesting than women, and at that point I was too far behind to see every good film this decade. As a result, a lot of good films are not on this list because I didn't see them or didn't have the time to watch them again, but also because a lot of movies that you think are good most certainly aren't. So here is my list of my favorite films of the decade, which is a balance of quality and personal bias, because the best of the decade would have been about 50% different, but not nearly as fun. There's probably about fifteen films on this list that I could have swapped out with other things I omitted, but I consider the top thirty or so to be quite accurate. I also must apologize in advance for not being as humorous as usual, I'm much more on my game when I despise something.

50. UP IN THE AIR

Right now, I rank Up in the Air much higher than fifty on this list. However, I saw the film two days ago and until I allow myself some perspective on the thing, I'm going to plop it down at fifty. Up in the Air is the story of George Clooney who flies around the United States and fires people. They get pissed. He flies away. He loves it. What he really loves about his job, is the detachment. Rather than relying on people, he is able to rely on his routine, and his routine brings him joy. The other thing that gives him joy is the woman he repeatedly meets for sexual encounters who is, as she puts it, "[George Clooney] with a vagina." I don't know about you, but that sounds hot. I had a few problems with the set-up, but Up in the Air more than makes up for them with its humor and insight into our relationships with both ourselves and each other.

49. LET THE RIGHT ONE IN

The vampire in Let the Right One In trumps Twilight by replacing shirtless vamps with pantsless ones, in a film that is undoubtedly one of the greatest films about vampires ever made, without ever really being a vampire movie. It's much more a story about two lonely kids and their devotion to each other; one who gets picked on, and one who brutally murders people. So basically it's My Girl, with a vampire instead of bees.

48. WRISTCUTTERS: A LOVE STORY

Patrick Fugit must not listen to Eminem, because when his girlfriend breaks up with him, he doesn't shove her in the trunk of his car; he commits suicide, like an amateur. Little did he know, that when one commits suicide they go to a world even more obnoxious than the one we already live in; a world inhabited entirely by suicide cases. What results is a long distance road trip with an awesome Russian dude and Shannyn Sossamon, which pretty much means suicide totally worked out for Patrick Fugit. It's funny, creative, and Tom Waits shows up; which is always strangely wonderful.

47. BIG FISH

I was going to put The Fall here, in hopes to establish my indie cred, but then I remembered that Big Fish is almost as strange and also a lot better. It's about a son and a father, the latter of which is on his deathbed, and it recounts the tall tale of his life, an elaborate exaggeration filled with supernatural people and occurrences. It's an interesting and exceptional look at a man's life, complete with a giant, a werewolf, and all sorts of the other strange things Tim Burton loves. I do enjoy it when Mr. Burton makes a movie for people other than that girl you knew in high school, who never talked to anyone and wrote short stories about dragons.

46. GRIZZLY MAN

Werner Herzog, armed with a camera, follows a weirdo around while he prances about with grizzly bears and foxes steal his hat. The film is both funny and touching, and filled with wonderful speeches by the strange little man who loves bears. Treadwell (the weirdo) was eventually killed by one of the bears he loved so much, which proves that everything you love will eventually destroy you, which is something you should think about before talking to girls.

45. ABOUT A BOY

One of my more random choices, About a Boy is a film I love. Hugh Grant is a lovable bachelor (as always) who is determined to remain "an island." He doesn't want anything to do with anybody for very long and that most certainly applies to women. He dates, but he always feels bad when he breaks up with them. Until he discovers the goldmine: single mothers. They're always worried things will get too serious, so they break up with him. He loves it until a young boy finds out that he's been pretending to have a son in order to pick up single moms. The boy blackmails Hugh into spending time with him and of course it turns cute from there. Sometimes I like cute, fuzzy things.

44. BATTLE ROYALE

Probably the best film about middle school kids killing each other ever made, Battle Royale takes place in the near future, in which the Japanese government has instituted a program to keep kids from misbehaving. Every year, the worst class of kids is put on an island, given weapons, and forced to kill each other until only one is left standing. It's sometimes wonderful satire, sometimes horribly cheesy, often and increasingly strange, but always entertaining to watch friendships dissolve over spilt blood. A word of advice: Never watch the sequel.

43. THE HAPPINESS OF THE KATAKURIS

This would never in a million years make a list of "best" films of any time period. It is uneven, nonsensical, way too long, and idiotic. But then again, it's a Japanese horror musical from Takashi Miike (Gozu, Ichi the Killer, Audition). Featuring suicide, murder, random transitions to claymation, and plenty of singing and dancing (some of which includes zombies), Happiness of the Katakuris is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen and I love it just the same.

42. THE ORPHANAGE

One of my favorite straight horror films of the decade (and ever) was The Orphanage, which will undoubtedly be made into sub par Hollywood garbage at some point in the next few years. A woman moves her family to her childhood home where she intends to run a home for handicapped children. Her son soon makes an invisible friend, and vanishes. A while after her son's disappearance, the lady finally accepts the fact that there are ghosts in the house and calls in a specialist to investigate. Frightening, gripping, and much better than any other horror film I saw this decade.

41. IN THE MOOD FOR LOVE

I love me some Wong Kar Wai, so I'll just put In the Mood for Love right here. It follows two neighbors, Tony Leung and Maggie Cheung, who discover that their spouses are stepping out on them. The two begin spending time together, reproducing the infidelity of their significant others in an attempt to understand it. Like most of Wong Kar Wai films, the highlight here is the cinematography and the moods; but two phenomenal actors doesn't hurt the film either.

40. VOLVER

I wanted to put Talk to Her on this list because I remember it being phenomenal, but I can't remember it. So instead, I present Volver, which I am certain was excellent. Volver is strange and funny and Penelope Cruz is excellent as a wife and mother who stashes a dead body in the freezer of a restaurant and goes about her business. Penelope Cruz's sister keeps seeing the ghost of her dead mother, whose ghost is often confused by townsfolk as a visiting Russian. Though I grimace every time I use the word "quirky," Volver is certainly that. Most people will you it's a "celebration of womanhood," but don't worry. It's not annoying womanhood like a mom who goes on strike.

39. SUICIDE CLUB

We all know that teen suicide is funny, and that's no exception in the twisted comedy/horror film Suicide Club. The opening sequence features thirty or so Japanese schoolgirls jumping in front of a train, so at the very least, it gets your attention. It turns out suicide is becoming a fad in Japan and before you know it, people are dying left and right. But is it simply a cultural phenomenon? Or is it a conspiracy? And what does the teen pop sensation Dessert have to do with it? Even if you watch it you probably won't figure it out, because I doubt you're Japanese and no one understands them but themselves. But at least we can appreciate them for being cute.

38. CHOKE

Choke may have moved up or off this list had I seen it since its theatrical release, but since I remember liking it immensely I threw it in at 38. It's kind of tasteless and raunchy, so it makes sense that I would like it regardless of its flaws. Based on the Chuck Palahniuk book of the same name, it's the story of a male sex-addict who sleeps with anything that moves, but can't get it up when a girl he actually likes coming along. Seems like a pretty good metaphor to me. As for whether it was pulled off well? All I remember is that it was funny. I probably should have only made a Top 30...

37. HOT FUZZ

Now don't get me wrong, I enjoyed Shaun of the Dead, but mocking zombies isn't nearly as funny as mocking Keanu Reeves. Hot Fuzz had one of the best scripts of the decade. It managed to poke fun at nearly everything there is to poke fun at in the action/cop genre (which is a lot of poking), and almost every small tidbit of the narrative got brought back and upgraded in the film's conclusive shootout. Shaun of the Dead was witty, but Hot Fuzz was brilliant.

36. MURDERBALL

In 2005, March of the Penguins showed up out of nowhere and somehow made it into mainstream theatres, most likely because everyone likes it when Morgan Freeman talks about penguins. Left in the documentary dust was Murderball, which followed the lives of quadriplegic rugby players, who were funny, inspiring, and could totally kick some penguin ass (they just have to put snow tires on their wheel chairs first.) How can you not love a movie when a guy in a wheelchair tells you, "I'd rather be able to grab my meat than a toothbrush?" Documentaries and indies were really the only good thing about 2005.

35. KISS KISS BANG BANG

This was the decade that everyone suddenly decided that they wanted to Kiss Kiss Bang Bang Robert Downey Jr. again, and with good reason. Robert Downey Jr. may play the same character in every film, but it's a good role, and this was Downey's comeback film. Robert Downey Jr. and a hilarious Val Kilmer team up to solve a murder. They inevitably get in over their heads and attempt to unravel the mystery before one of them ends up dead. A perfect example of what Sherlock Holmes could have been, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang makes excellent use of its cast and unravels an interesting and unique mystery without CGI shipwrecks and slow-motion explosions.

34. KILL BILL

No matter how many bad things I say about him, Quentin Tarantino is still a fantastic filmmaker. I don't always agree with his choices, I dislike that his films sometimes blatantly flaunt his knowledge of cinema, and it annoys me that his name is larger than the title of the film on my Chungking Express DVD; but he hasn't made a bad film yet. Kill Bill takes my pick for top Tarantino of the decade (by far). Which one? You can choose. I really don't feel I need to write a synopsis of a Tarantino movie, so instead I'll remind you how strange it is when The Bride finally kills David Carradine, because this was the decade we learned how Bill really died.

33. LOVE ACTUALLY

Groans abound from the cynical male audience (who secretly enjoyed Love Actually). Yes, it's sweet, clichéd, and certainly not as smart as it thinks it is, but as far as romantic comedies and Christmas movies go, it's at the top of its game. The cast is undeniably phenomenal and although the stories can seem a bit uneven, there's more than enough humor and cute couples to keep it fun. And yes, I placed this after Kill Bill as a formative measure of romance and violence.

32. ANYTHING ELSE

Woody Allen is still the only person who gets me, and Anything Else is easily my pick for his best of the decade. Jason Biggs plays the dysfunctional neurotic this time around and Woody Allen takes his place as Biggs' mentor, an even more dysfunctional neurotic with a gun obsession and endless advice. Christina Ricci plays Biggs' sexually frustrated girlfriend, Danny Devito is his manager, and though it's not a step forward for Allen, a sideways shuffle in his case still trumps most films in my book. There were certainly fifty films better than Anything Else, but let's not forget whose list this is.

31. SAVED!

The runner-up for teen comedy of the decade is Saved! a creative and hilarious look into a Christian High School. When Jena Malone's boyfriend tells her that he thinks he is gay, she has a vision of Jesus telling her to prove him otherwise, and logically assumes that Jesus wants her to have sex with her boyfriend. She does. He's still gay and gets sent away to gay camp. Only now, Jena Malone finds herself pregnant, doubting God, and being pursued by Pastor Skip's son, Patrick Fugit, who is totally fine and a member of the Christian skateboarding team. A better teen pregnancy film than Juno, without being a teen pregnancy film, Saved's eclectic cast of characters and smart dialogue keep the laughs coming, while maintaining more social commentary than expected.

30. Y TU MAMA TAMBIEN

A coming-of-age, road trip comedy about two Mexican boys who take an older woman on a trip to the beach, Y Tu Mama Tambien has a tendency to be taken a bit too seriously, but is certainly worth taking seriously. It got an NC-17 rating from the MPAA and I'm sure anyone who watched it for the nudity was largely disappointed that most of it was male (shame on you, fifteen-year-old self!), but the sex is mostly comical, as is the rest of the film, with the addition of some interesting food for thought. Oh, and the girl has cancer. It's not a spoiler, because it's as stupid and unnecessary as The Hangover 2.

29. SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE

2008 had two standout frame narratives; the obnoxious and unnecessary hospital scenes in Benjamin Button, and Slumdog Millionaire's use of "Who Wants to be a Millionaire," in which the main character, Jamal, answers every question on the show correctly and is then forced to explain the circumstances of his wisdom to a police inspector, who suspects that a "slumdog" like Jamal couldn't have gotten the answers without cheating. The rest of the film, told by Jamal, plays out in the slums of India. But rather than a tale of poverty and third world problems, Slumdog Millionaire is largely a love story. A really good love story, and the only Best Picture Winner on this list.

28. THE SQUID AND THE WHALE

Noah Baumbach attempted to get Wes Anderson to direct The Squid and the Whale, but Wes Anderson knew he'd end up turning it into recycled cult quirkiness and thankfully turned him down. Instead, the Baumbach-directed film is a subtle, yet harsh autobiographical snapshot of a disintegrating family as the eldest son comes to realize that Jeff Daniels is an asshole. Baumbach has a knack for presenting despicable characters in a way that makes them uncomfortable to watch yet managing to highlight their realism. He may have taken this ability a bit over the top in his uneven follow up, Margot at the Wedding, but The Squid and the Whale is a fine blend of humor, heartbreak, wit and insight; the latter two features being what made his debut, Kicking and Screaming so promising. No, not the one with Will Ferrell.

27. SOUTHLAND TALES

Richard Roeper called Southland Tales a "confusing, ridiculous, pretentious and disastrous cinematic train wreck." I disagree. Southland Tales is a confusing, ridiculous, and hilarious cinematic train wreck. Discarding the film as trash (like so many have done) merely because it is so off-the-wall discourages creativity. Some people, my college poetry professor for instance, will only accept well-polished, logical work as quality. But I prefer unrefined bursts of brilliance to properly balanced average crap, and Richard Kelly apparently does too. Southland Tales has no real main character, and since the concept of the world the film inhabits is occasionally difficult to grasp, this point exponentially increases the difficulty of following the plot. Dwayne Johnson (also known as The Tooth Fairy), is a football player turned action star suffering from amnesia, Sarah Michelle Gellar is a porn star with a talk show and the hit single, "Teen Horniness is Not a Crime, Justin Timberlake is a drugged-up war veteran with an addiction to the word of God and the habit of breaking into musical numbers...is this starting to sound like it's supposed to be serious? Southland Tales is a farcical take on post 9/11 America, in which everything is a mess: The characters, the logic, the outfits, the floating ice cream truck... I mean, c'mon, it was obviously intentional! But then again, The Box was really bad...so we can't be sure.

Anyway, if you let Southland Tales happen, rather than attempting to watch it, many of you might see what I see. If you get hung up on logic, plot development (or significance), or attempt to take the satire too seriously, you're going to get frustrated. It's essentially a non-linear, abstract Starship Troopers, with more loose ends, a musical number, a vague tie to Revelations, and Wallace Shawn.

26. AMERICAN PSYCHO

American Psycho probably wasn't my twenty-sixth favorite movie of the decade, but it really needed to be on this list. Not only is it one of the few good movies I can convince people to watch instead of a horror film, it's as unique as it is violent. Patrick Bateman (Christian Bale) is a routine and status obsessed businessman with a weakness for business cards, pop music, and murder. Obviously, a recipe for success. And although the satire is often weak, and the plot unbalanced (sometimes seemingly irrelevant), American Psycho is the film that gave us the best excuse of all time: "I have to return some videotapes."

25. IN BRUGES

The film that finally highlights Colin Farrell's potential is In Bruges, a dark comedy revolving around death. And complaining. After screwing up a job, hit men Farrell and Brendan Gleeson are sent by their employer to Bruges, a wonderful place where dreams come true. Farrell considers it just short of hell (minus the "short of") and seeing the sights and the guilt of his mistake are driving him off his rocker. But then he meets a midget and a cute drug dealer and things start to turn around. In Bruges is full of drugs, violence, jokes about things that boring people don't find funny (death, black people, fat Americans, black midgets, fat black American midgets, etc.), and is a hilarious black comedy with a twist of existential crisis. Farrell plays the lovable screw-up well, and I hope we start to see more of him in things other than S.W.A.T.

24. UP

Now I didn't see WALL-E or Ratatouille, and if you want to argue that they were better than Up be my guest. But I never expected a Pixar film to make me want to weep like a little baby (okay, I wept like a little baby), and for that Up makes the list. Traditionally, Pixar makes kids films with a few jokes aimed at adults. Here, we find an adult (not the dirty kind, the complex kind) narrative dropped (literally) into a kids movie. There are dogs that talk, a fat Asian kid, and a strange bird named Kevin, but nevertheless, the main character is still a seventy year old man pining over lost love. I hope I have that many balloons when I'm seventy. More importantly, I hope I make it to seventy.

23. SIDEWAYS

Two near opposites, Paul Giamatti and Thomas Haden Church go on a week long wine tasting in order to kick back before Thomas Haden Church's wedding. What results is a car wreck, a black eye, sex with married women, and a narrow escape from a fat naked man. Oh, and it's a drama. Sideways is The Hangover for adults; a funny, poignant look into the lives of two men trying to figure out where the hell they're going in life. Paul Giamatti stars as a failed novelist suffering from mild depression and the delusion that a man can actually be cultured. Thomas Haden Church may not be as well-rounded an actor as Giamatti, but his character used to play one on TV, and he is stellar as the soon-to-be-wed goofball looking for one last fling before the big day. Crack open a fresh box of wine (like a real man) and watch this thing.

22. SHOPGIRL

Steve Martin is kind of an annoying narrator, but anyone who saw Vicky Cristina Barcelona knows he wasn't the worst of the decade; besides, it's forgivable because Steve Martin is not just some random dude. More importantly, Claire Danes, who has always looked good, has never acted this good, does wonders in the role of the titular character who spends the plot balancing between two suitors; the poor and eccentric Jason Schwartzman, and the rich, old sophisticate played by Steve Martin. What makes Shopgirl stand out is its "hands off" approach to the story. Rather than rely on a strict plot, it is more a collection of scenes (exceptionally shot scenes) that stimulate but rarely comment. What I mean is, there is no grandiose message or dénouement. Rather, it's a matter of active viewing; finding the pieces of the film that fit you and consuming them however you like. Also, Claire Danes shaves her legs a lot.

21. CITY OF GOD

A perfect example of what happens when Sandra Bullock doesn't adopt you, City of God takes place in a Brazilian slum where drugs and gang violence rule. It involves several interlocking stories, the most prominent characters being two of its inhabitants; childhood friends who grow up in opposite directions: one a professional photographer and the other a local drug lord. There's lots of crying and dead black people, which supposedly turned people off of seeing it in theatres. If City of God had Oprah's seal of approval, that may not have happened. Just ask the producers of Precious. This is one film that may have been higher up on this list had I watched it recently. Don't give me that look; I ain't no Clockstopper, dogg. Is it too late to start casually referencing the films from this decade that I want to remember?

20. DONNIE DARKO

As overrated as it is, Donnie Darko still cracks the top 20, because after all, feces are baby mice. Richard Kelly's directorial debut is funny, strange, and maybe even a bit unnerving. Jake Gyllenhaul plays Donnie, a fine young lad with a bad habit of sleep walking and burning down the houses of perverts. There's some time travel involved, and of course some plot holes, but regardless of whether you think Richard Kelly has made a deep, meaningful film (he didn't), or whether you just like it when Seth Rogen says, "I like your boobs," Donnie Darko has great characters, funny dialogue, and is most certainly one of the best black comedies of the decade.

19. THE PRESTIGE

I assume that most people figure the Christopher Nolan films deserving to appear on a Top 50 list are Memento and The Dark Knight. I respectfully disagree. After all, my list is immune to the undeserving hype resulting from dead celebrities, and everyone knows that watching Memento a second time is a terrible experience. But The Prestige lacks the flaws of The Dark Knight and the gimmick-dependence of Memento, and what results is a far superior film. The story of two competing magicians, Christian Bale and Hugh Jackman pits the characters against themselves and each other in a battle of identity and success that takes an intriguing supernatural twist and hopes to surprise you in the end. Nolan's other films all have their own merits, but in The Prestige exists a darkness and thematic weight that his other work can hardly touch.

18. MEAN GIRLS

In a decade of lackluster teen comedies, Mean Girls easily rises to claim the genre's crown, thanks to a brilliant script by Tina Fey. The presence of Lindsay Lohan as the lead may have scared away many, but those of us who took the chance found it exceptionally worth the risk. These days, a PG-13 rating tends to translate to "crap," but Mean Girls manages to be clever and endlessly quotable without crossing the MPAA. Its offbeat humor and sarcastic celebration of high school "drama" (The teenage girl's perception of drama is similar to TNT's.), is the best of its kind since Clueless and Heathers, and easily the best of the decade.

17. FORGETTING SARAH MARSHALL

The Apatow crew have had a hand in most successful comedies this decade, but Forgetting Sarah Marshall is, at least in my mind, vastly superior to a group of films which include hits like Superbad, Knocked Up, The Forty-Year-Old Virgin, and Role Models. The difference here is in the use of characters. Rather than rely on one or two stars, Forgetting Sarah Marshall manages to develop all four of the major characters, including the female leads, something that can rarely, if ever, be attributed to any of the group's other endeavors. Russell Brand steals the show, but Jason Segal, Kristen Bell, and Mila Kunis hold their own in a hilarious celebration of getting over your ex.

16. INFERNAL AFFAIRS

The Hong Kong film that inspired The Departed, Infernal Affairs is the dissection of two moles and their attempts to catch each other. Tony Leung and Andy Lau are exceptional as the moles, managing to exude a subtle personal trauma rather than the intense overacting of the American remake. The majority of you have probably seen The Departed, but I doubt as many of you have seen this; immensely superior, in a dramatic sense, when compared to the entertaining but cartoonish Scorcese remake which consists largely of Leonardo Dicaprio yelling, Jack Nicholson acting like a clown, and Mark Wahlburg swearing for comedic effect. I liked The Departed too, but in a much different, superficial sort of way.

15. GOZU

It's been seven years since I watched Mulholland Drive, so I didn't feel right putting it on this list. As an apology, I present Takashi Miike's homage to David Lynch: Gozu. Symbolism, imagery, and general what-the-hell's run rampant in this valiant argument that Miike's skills rank far beyond his usual bouts of ultraviolence. Gozu is dark, twisted, and hilarious, and as its mystery builds towards the shocking finale, one begins wondering how Miike is going to top the lactating hotel proprietor and the cow-headed demon. Don't worry. He does.

14. AMORES PERROS

Michael Vick's favorite film of the decade is Amores Perros, a film with three loosely intersecting narratives; all of which revolve around dogs. There's plenty of dog fighting, a pooch caught under the stairs, and some assassination too. All three plotlines stem from a car accident that overlaps each narrative. The film is about love and dogs, but John Cusack and Diane Lane have no cameo.

13. ME AND YOU AND EVERYONE WE KNOW

There aren't a lot of female directors around who haven't made a film with Katherine Heigl in it, but Miranda July's indie Me and You and Everyone Know is a fantastic reminder that some women are people too (misogyny is cool because Bogart did it). July introduces us to a unique cast of characters and their quirks, including herself. Somehow a simultaneous celebration and mockery of art, the film explores the balance of artistic interpretation and intent with bouts of brilliance and hilarity; turning a goldfish into a philosophical conundrum and childhood ignorance into illicit innuendo. Oh yeah, it's about love too. The film has its fair share of sexual situations involving teenagers (MPAA, dogg.), but July artfully manages to take Todd Solondz-like content and emphasize innocence rather than the ever-so-easy embrace of perversion. Brilliant, heart-warming, and hilarious--even if you miss the subtext--Everyone We Know is still one of the most amusing indie comedies in a long time, and there isn't a hamburger phone in sight.

12. SYNECDOCHE, NEW YORK

The first of two consecutive Kaufman-scripted films on this list is his directorial debut, which most certainly should be pronounced Synecdouche only as a joke. What most likely happened in the case of this film is that Kaufman finally wrote a script that no one could figure out, so he had to direct it himself. Synecdoche is a difficult text to unpack, as Kaufman finally traded in his usual "weirdly brilliant" style , for intense surrealism. The film doesn't always make sense, it contradicts itself, and the plot is more of a lose construct than a backbone; but then again, that isn't necessarily a bad thing. Synecdoche is definitely not for the majority of film audiences, but it has enough wit, humor, and profound moments to counter the occasional urge to scream at the screen in anger.

11. ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND

Michel Gondry's most weighted argument that he is an adequate director as long as someone else writes the script (also known as "James Cameron syndrome"), is undoubtedly one of the best films of the decade. It's certainly one of writer Charlie Kaufman's more accessible films; most likely because most everyone wants to have Kate Winslet erased from their memory. Especially if they've seen her pee on herself in Holy Smoke. Elijah Wood is an annoying little hobbit as usual, but Jim Carrey finally showed us that he could do more than make funny faces and flail about. For that, we can all be grateful.

THE TOP TEN

10. STRANGER THAN FICTION

I think it's obvious by now that I award major points for originality, which is why Stranger Than Fiction cracked the Top 10. It's an entry into my "Film Ideas That Can Only Be Used Once, So I Hope They Don't Screw it Up" category (I'm sometimes very literal) and thankfully, Stranger Than Fiction pulled it off. When the English woman anonymously narrating the life of Harold Crick (Will Ferrell) mentions his imminent death, he naturally gets quite upset and attempts to avoid it. Naturally, the humor is largely due to the creative situation of Harold's predicament, but the dialogue excels as well. Stranger Than Fiction also manages to be a feel-good movie, all the while avoiding cheap sentiment and Sandra Bullock (You protect that quarterback like he's me, boy.)

9. HIGH FIDELITY

In High Fidelity John Cusack reevaluates the lost loves of his life--Top 5 countdown style--through reunions, flashbacks and complete disregard for the fourth wall. The result is one of the most entertaining romantic comedies of the decade. Forced to deal with his fifth choice of a career (owning a record store) and recently dumped by his girlfriend, Rob (Cusack) spends most of his time making Top 5 lists with his music-nerd employees, alienating customers, and making mix tapes. "Her dad died" may be one of the weirdest excuses ever for getting back with an ex, but Tim Robbins has a ponytail. What more could you need?

8. AMELIE

Jean-Pierre Jeunet is one of my favorite directors, and A Very Long Engagement may have made this list if I had watched it again since it came out five years ago. It's been almost as long since I've seen Amelie, but I actually remember Amelie, and it is indeed among my favorite films. Amelie is a quiet, charming girl who decides to ambiguously do favors for those around her. She sets up a couple at the shop where she works, pulls pranks on a bully, and sends a lawn gnome on trips around the world. Eventually, Amelie falls in love with a man she's never met, and goes about arranging their meeting. Amelie could easily have been a contrived exercise in sentiment from another director, but Jeunet molds the film into cinematic brilliance, relying heavily on narration that the film likely could not do without. Amelie is charming, funny, and romantic without a hint of cliché, something cinema has been hard-pressed for this decade.

7. PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE

Forever written in history as the moment Adam Sandler proved he could successfully exist in a movie without making a penis joke, Punch-Drunk Love showcases the transformation of a shy, insignificant man into a man driven by the power of love. Now I know that sounds like something James Cameron's audience would despise for being a little gay, but it works. And thanks to Paul Thomas Anderson's direction, it excels. Barry (Sandler), is a quiet man dominated by his seven sisters, who constantly infringe upon his personal space, occasionally driving Barry to bursts of violence. In search of psychological assistance, Barry calls a phone sex line run by Phillip Seymour Hoffman, who promptly begins extorting Barry for money. In order to escape, Barry flies to Hawaii to meet Lena (Emily Watson) whom he was set up with previously through the meddling of one of his sisters. Barry and Lena fall for each other, which gives Barry the confidence to overcome his personal problems. Oh, and there's a harmonium. And pudding. Lots of it.

The significance of Punch-Drunk Love is not in its narrative, but in its emotion. Anderson manages to capture the empowering strength of new love on film, and he does so without corrupting or tarnishing it. Punch-Drunk Love is similar to Anderson's most recent work, There Will Be Blood, in that both films emphasize pure moments of emotion and their cinematic capture. The difference being that Punch-Drunk Love is far more captivating.

6. BLOOD CAR

If Blood Car is on anyone else's list, I salute you for even seeing it. I had reservations about ranking it so high because of its weak acting, low production values, general lack of actual locations, seemingly trivial plot progression, and amateur-independent status, but those factors seem meaningless when weighed against uncontrollable laughter. And on the other hand, its amateur status plays a major part in the film's brilliance. For those of you unfamiliar with Blood Car at all, it is basically the financial equivalent of you and your friends buying a camera and deciding to make a film. And as everyone who has ever tried to make their own film knows, they almost always suck. Blood Car is a fantastic exception, because it's a film that no studio would ever touch.

Blood Car follows the story of Archie Andrews (no, not the red-headed freckled kid), a kindergarten teacher and enthusiastic vegan who, in his spare time, is attempting to make an engine that runs on wheat grass, because it's the future and gas prices have risen to over thirty dollars a gallon. After a particularly frustrating failed attempt to make his wheatgrass engine run, Archie accidentally cuts himself on a piece of broken glass and discovers that his engine does work. Unfortunately, instead of running on wheat grass, it runs on blood.

Archie then drains some of his blood and hops into his car (which apparently already had the blood-fueled engine in it) and drives to his wheatgrass supplier to show off the good news. Lorraine (Anna Chlumsky from My Girl), who sells wheatgrass in a tiny shack in the middle of nowhere, is happy to see the car working; but not nearly as happy as Denise, the girl who runs the meat stand across the vacant lot, who is more than willing to exchange sexual favors for a ride in a car.

What results is large amounts of ridiculous sexual innuendo, the killing of human beings as fuel, more sexual innuendo, ludicrous government interference, and Archie's inevitable mental collapse. Not to mention, killer tarantulas for sale in vending machines. The most fun part about Blood Car is that as soon as you think they've crossed the line of distaste, the film takes another step. And it keeps walking. And as bad as the acting is, the comic timing is right on, so all is forgiven in my book.

Blood Car certainly isn't for everyone and it certainly wouldn't make my list of the decade's best films, but if you can appreciate low-budget camp and colorful jokes that would never fly in Hollywood, Blood Car is probably the best $15,000 film you'll find.

5. ADAPTATION

Rather than rub up on Eternal Sunshine like everyone else, I choose to focus on what I feel is Kaufman's strangest work of the decade, Adaptation. I say, "of the decade," because "of all time" is too close to call with Being John Malkovich still frolicking around out there. Not only did Kaufman write himself into the script, he wrote in a fictitious twin brother, Donald, who was later nominated for an Academy Award alongside Charlie. But Adaptation does not simply ride on Kaufman's potential lunacy, it is a well-crafted film outright. What starts as a straight adaptation of an actual novel, evolves into a fictional caricature of both the book and its characters. Writer's block is no longer an acceptable excuse, as Kaufman shows us it can simply become the story. The beauty of Adaptation comes in the spastic narrative progression, which ends up doing more adapting than Kaufman himself. The diagetic, unconfident Kaufman is hired to adapt The Orchid Thief, by Susan Orlean, and gets humorously stuck in his attempts to do so. Kaufman's wild twin brother, Donald, is writing a psychological thriller (which Charlie dismisses as trivial) and asks Charlie, whom Donald considers brilliant, for help. Eventually, it is Donald who begins to help Charlie write his adaptation (which is, of course, the film itself) and Adaptation begins to take on elements of Donald's writing style. I really hope we've all seen Adaptation so this description doesn't make me sound like a nut. Wait, nuts? Nuts remind me of muffins...I could use a muffin right now.

4. OLDBOY

The second film in Park Chan-wook's revenge trilogy is undoubtedly the stand-out. Oldboy represents a major shift in tone from its predecessor, Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance, and the trilogy's third installment, Lady Vengeance; two films which make more sense together than the film in between them. But nonetheless, Oldboy is most certainly a revenge film in which a once drunk and disorderly Oh Dae Su is released from a mysterious prison (after fifteen years) fully prepared to exact revenge on the man who put him there. That is, as soon as he figures out who that man is. Oldboy at once combines elements of noir, romance, action and black comedy; seamlessly moving between themes and moods and rarely tripping up. Oh, and there's a five minute single take of Oh Dae Su fighting off dozens of men, using only a hammer. Some discard the film for being overly violent or "gross," but those are the same people who say Harry Potter works for Satan. The simple solution to all their nonsense is to have them watch Visitor Q so that they are never disgusted by anything else ever again.

3. ONCE

One of the greatest musicals of all time, Once hardly feels like one. Far from the extravagance and excesses of the genre, the film is a simple tale of love and maturation set to songs that come from the characters diagetic talents, rather than spontaneous bursting-into-song. Glen Hansard plays Guy, a street musician struggling with a broken heart who meets Girl, played by Marketa Irglova, and offers to fix her vacuum. The characters share a love for music and begin a collaboration which ends with the recording of an album. The film rides on the music, which is phenomenal (The Once Soundtrack would easily appear on a Top 50 albums list if I made one), but the narrative moving scenes are often just as beautiful in their simplicity. As much a film about pouring yourself into art as it is the art itself, Once's depiction of life through music is one that goes unmatched.

2. INFERNAL AFFAIRS 2

While I probably shouldn't have included Infernal Affairs and Infernal Affairs 2 on a list of only fifty films, lumping the Infernal Affairs films together would be like lumping the Godfather and The Godfather Part 2 together as one movie, and I don't think I could live with that responsibility. Unlike The Godfather Trilogy, the second Infernal Affairs film is superior to the first. That's right, I said it. I'm sure plenty of people disagree on both counts. You probably didn't like The Godfather Part 3 either. Fools... Taken on their own merits, Infernal Affairs is the superior film. Yet given the context of the first film, Infernal Affairs 2 takes the trilogy's morality tale to the next level. While the moles of the first film take part in the narrative of this prequel, it instead focuses on Inspector Wong and future triad leader, Sam. The Godfather influence is apparent throughout, but that doesn't make the film any less effective, and the unique narrative and setting of Hong Kong's 1997 handover to China adds a resonance to an already beautiful film.

1. CLOSER

Closer is certainly not a work that evokes the escapist quality of popular cinema. And understandably, it is not a film that garnered mass approval from its audience. But Closer's appeal rests in its resistance to the popular conventions of relationship dramas, having the guts to showcase the despicable traits of humanity, and practically leaving out the positive. The characters of Closer are flawed; they make poor choices, they're self-centered, and they purposely and inadvertently destroy their relationships because of these faults. The characters aren't likeable, but they are most certainly relatable and therein lies the appeal. If you don't see a bit of yourself in any of them, then watch the film again after you've destroyed your first relationship and it will all make sense. Closer is voyeurism at its most honest. It follows the lives of four characters, over the course of a few years, all of whom are intensely unique, yet entirely similar in that they are too selfish to maintain a relationship. Through the raw, uninhibited dialogue of Patrick Marber and the excellent transfer from play to film by director Mike Nichols, Closer showcases the heartbreak and self-destruction of humanity with the honesty and raw emotion of no other film to date.

Sherlock Holmes and the Mystery of the Recycled Piece of Cinema.

2009-12-28T05:33:00.011-05:00

Tony Stark goes back in time to flirt with Jude Law and kill zombies.

Dear Guy Ritchie,

I thought your endless string of crap was over. I thought you had redeemed yourself for the train wreck that was Revolver. That maybe you had finally made a movie that wasn't a complete piece of trash.

You failed. Not that Sherlock Holmes deserves to be thrown out entirely, but you made the most promising trailer of the year out of a film that is essentially a well-polished piece of trash that we've all seen a thousand times. Don't get me wrong; I expected some recycling. But the dialogue is cliched and tired, the plot is tedious, and I half expected Robert Downey Jr. to put on a metallic suit and fly to Iraq. We might as well just accept that Tony Stark was Sherlock Holmes in a previous life. Robert Downey Jr.'s "unique spin" on Sherlock Holmes is certainly unique to the character, but it's not a unique character; we all saw Iron Man last year and it was a hell of a lot better than Sherlock Holmes.

I could forgive the recycled character. For the first ten minutes of the film, Holmes and Watson had a verbal battle going that made everything just fine. Holmes' man-crush on Watson and his bitter distaste over losing him to a woman, of all things, got the film off to a nice start. Sherlock's well thought out fighting techniques were a charming quirk as well. Then the inciting incident shows up and anything recognizable as quality is thrown out the window and traded in for CGI explosions and insignificant plot devices.

Lord Blackwood has risen from the grave! He must have used magic because he's evil! Then Rachel McAdams shows up, in the worst performance by a usually decent actress since Star Wars Episode Two, even though her character is absolutely useless to the narrative. Her only real purpose seems to be an excuse to handcuff Robert Downey Jr. naked to a bed, in a scene that obviously exists only because it would be funny in the trailer.

So, the basic plot progression is this:

1. Someone dies.
2. Sherlock Holmes visits the site of their murder.
3. He mumbles a bunch of BS and looks around imagining what went on there.
4. He picks up something seemingly insignificant that will obviously be important later.
5. Repeat steps 1-4 three to four times.
6. Sherlock Holmes reveals to the viewer what has happened, even though we've already figured it out because the screenwriter is an idiot. Or the director. Or both. That's really the biggest mystery in the whole film: Who can I blame this on?

I blamed it on you, Mr. Ritchie, because I know who you are. But I noticed that one of the film's two credited writers, Anthony Peckham, also adapted Invictus for the screen. That, of course, was another piece of recycled garbage, so it's probably his fault too.

Seriously, Anthony Peckham. This was a terrible script. James Cameron could have written a better script for Sherlock Holmes than the one I saw onscreen. Take a moment and let that sink in: James "I'll never let go, Jack" Cameron could have written a better script than the final cut of Sherlock Holmes. The truth hurts.

But back to you, Guy. By the way, could you forward that little tidbit to Mr. Peckham? Thanks. I specify "final cut" to Mr. Peckham, because for all I know, this could have been a perfectly fine script that you destroyed after going out to dinner with Michael Bay one evening. Sherlock Holmes has some slow-motion, then some fast-motion, then a computer generated ship gets thrust prematurely into the waters of CGI London and slowly sinks. I bet that scene cost a lot, eh?

But there was a plot in there somewhere that we were talking about, right? Not that it really matters. There's some secret society that does magic and probably protects the last living relative of Christ or something like that; a bunch of old white dudes who pledge allegiance to the Dark Lord. At least Lord Blackwood didn't turn out to be an emotionally distraught, shirtless vampire. If he had called Holmes "Spider monkey" the film might have suddenly been worth it.

Oh and there's some other sinister bad guy lurking in the background. The discovery of what he's after is probably the most idiotic attempt at political commentary I've ever seen, and the film would have been better off without him and Rachel McAdams (who are inexplicably linked throughout the narrative, and equally as ineffective).

You know, I was going to ramble on about how ridiculous your "mystery" was, but people would probably disapprove of the spoilers. Then they'd see the movie and realize that I gave away nothing because every mystery in the film either gives itself away or is too insignificant to matter. But my biggest mystery related beef by far, Mr. Ritchie, was so infuriatingly obvious that I wanted to strangle whomever thought it was a good idea. Because I've read Romeo & Juliet, and the fact that you dare recycle one of the most well-known plot devices in literature, perfectly exemplifies how idiotic and trite Sherlock Holmes actually is.

But people will still like it. People like slow-motion explosions.

P.S. Want to come over later so we can look ominously into a camera and warn the world about the dangers of science? My mom will make cookies...

Avatar: Somehow Didn't Suck.

2009-12-18T06:17:00.007-05:00

Ewan McGregor dies, so his crippled twin brother (Sam Worthington) shows up.

Dear James Cameron,

Somehow, Avatar wasn't the giant turd everyone thought it was going to be. It was actually quite exceptional, even with your obligatory James Cameron dialogue.

Avatar was supposed to be worthless aside from the special effects. I was shocked to find myself actually intrigued by the inner workings of your childhood wet dream; you like giant chicks, eh? Oh, and those blue ones too; not just Sigourney Weaver. Seriously, Sigourney Weaver is huge.

Let me tell you, Cameron. I can tell you make movies for real men. There's no character development or anything gay like that. Certainly, characters change; but it's incredibly sudden and without any real lead in or logical reason. But then again, you can't program character development on a computer in your secret basement lab; so obviously, there's no place in Avatar for character development.

But I'll give you a break and be honest. Most fantasy films don't have character development anyway. And if they do, it's mostly just sexual tension between male hobbits or how Ron feels about snogging this week.

The real appeal of fantasy is the world it inhabits, and whether or not that world is interesting. And you know, James, Avatar's world meets that requirement visually (which was all that was expected of it) and thankfully, conceptually as well.

And while there are countless 3D and other visual effect showcases, they are much more of a background nuance than the driving force of the film. Well, it's not an obnoxious driving force, anyway. There's certainly a lot of action, but it's necessary action instead of gratuitous visual fellatio. James, I'm proud of you for resisting the little Michael Ba--I mean, devil on your shoulder. Now, if only you would let someone else write your dialogue! Not that the Avatar dialogue was anywhere near as much of a trainwreck...er... shipwreck as Titanic's was. Seriously, you wrote Titanic to be funny, right?

Now, James. Avatar wasn't perfect. There were certainly things that could have been better: There were scenes that seemed preposterous to a sane person; There were too many scenes of Giovanni Ribisi doing an Ari Gold impression; The plot was groanably predictable, the characters had no depth, and I totally saw Pocahontas already.

But fun escapism? Certainly.

And you totally owned with that new technology--and I could care less about your newfangled technology. Actually, I thought I cared less until I realized I could recognize Sigourney Weaver's face on her avatar. Damn you, James Cameron: Take a few years off and cure cancer.

So, all in all, you've succeeded. But be warned: If you make sequels they will undoubtedly be awful and I will be angry with you. But I can never stay angry at you for long, James. I always forgive you because you send me a flash video of CGI puppies pouting and it gets me every time. You sly bastard.

It was good to hear from you though. You disappear into that New Zealand cave for years at a time, and you never write. It's very disconcerting. Farewell, see you next decade when you make Last Action Hero a reality.

P.S. "Unobtainium?" You seriously couldn't think of a better name? All you had to do was mumble some consonants and add "anium." You think it's funny, but it's not. It's like the end of (500) Days of Summer.

A Necessary Interjection: If You Release Crap, at Least Make Original Crap.

2009-12-07T02:21:00.020-05:00

"If you don't protect that quarterback, you better start pushin' drugs, boy."

I haven't written any letters lately. I apologize. However, there has been an underwhelming amount of film that has required my attention lately. Now don't get me wrong. There have been some bad films released. Unfortunately, most of them were so obviously bad that I could in no way justify spending money just to infuriate myself. So, if you saw 2012, Precious, Old Dogs, Boondock Saints II, Twilight, or The Blind Side, it's your fault not mine; you should have known better. Let's face it, you've seen all these movies before in some form or another. I, for one, do not wish to pay money to see them again.

I'm not even going to hyperlink any of those movies either, because you already know about them, don't you?

I don't blame you too much if you liked Precious or The Blind Side. But I already know that pregnant teens with angry mothers have it rough and that the best way for a young black man to succeed is through sports and/or a rich white woman. If you need cliched inspiration in your theatrical experience, more power to you. I prefer films that validate my theory that women are evil.

I'm sorry for my terrible disinterest in the film industry this month, but after The Box it's hard to really hate anything else enough to truly complain. But like I said: I didn't see Old Dogs.

Here's some stuff I did see.

Fantastic Mr. Fox

Props to Wes Anderson for finally making a movie that wasn't a rehash of Royal Tenenbaums. Fantastic Mr. Fox isn't going to shatter your world, but it's an amusing romp through the world of Wes Anderson (it's still incredibly Wes Anderson) in a new medium. Jason Schwartzman is easily the driving comedic force of this film, and while it's certainly not anywhere near Up's standards, Fantastic Mr. Fox will certainly keep you amused for an evening.

The Road

A well-made, but largely uninspiring tale about the end of the world and its few remaining citizens. It avoids the cliches of films like 2012 and Deep Impact, but save for a few flashbacks and some brilliant moments, it lacks the overarching emotional relevance it needed to have any real impact. It's basically about Viggo Mortenson's breakup with Charlize Theron. Unfortunately, he gets custody of the kid and has to drag him around and keep him safe from cannibals, blind old men, and rapists. At one point, Viggo pauses to play the piano, reminiscing about the good old days when he and Bella flew through the trees like spider monkeys. Wait, I think I'm getting movies confused.

This is the equation used to create the Road:

[2012 - (John Cusack + CGI)] + [Old Dogs - (the absence of humor)] + [Charlize Theron in Monster(-homosexuality)] + [Zombieland - (zombies + Bill Murray)] + cannibals = The Road

The equation also equals "42," but you probably won't get that joke.

A Serious Man

This was actually one of the better films of 2009, and it could have been absolutely brilliant. It just never quite got there. It's largely founded on uncertainty (and the principle of uncertainty) and as a result, no one can ever really be certain as to what the filmmakers were attempting to do. Which is fine in my book. My interpretation of a film is largely more interesting than the filmmaker's anyway. Unfortunately in this case, the abstract nature of the film leaves the viewer relatively unsure of how far they should unpack the film's content, resulting in a film that if pointed a little further in one direction could have been absolutely brilliant.

If you haven't seen A Serious Man, you have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about. And if you have seen it, there's a good chance that you still have no idea what I'm talking about. This much is certain: A Serious Man is largely about one man's battle to find purpose and direction in a universe that is decidedly unpredictable and ludicrous. However, it also toys with the concept of reality, cause and effect, and probably more theoretical physics than I picked up on; ideas that never reach their full potential.

A comparable movie would be Synecdoche, New York; a film worthy of a hyperlink, in addition to be Charlie Kaufman's intensely thought-provoking (not to mention thought-rioting) directorial debut.

So there's a little summary to let you know I haven't disappeared. My only real goal at the moment is to finally watch The Hurt Locker so I can accurately form a list for best of the year.

The Fake Kind, or Jovovich Goes PG-13.

2009-11-07T01:58:00.006-05:00

Dear film studios,

Please stop making fictional films and advertising them as based on real events. I understand that if people think something is based on a true story--especially one involving aliens or ghosts--they are more likely to see it, but you're constructing a false reality that gullible human beings are going to accept as fact. It's not this film in particular that worries me, but I'm starting to wonder where you're going to draw the line. You have the money and the influence to completely rewrite history, and a large majority of Americans are too dumb to even consider you might be lying to them.

Now, I realize I just described the government, but c'mon! You're better than them, aren't you? You're just a couple of guys looking to make a quick buck. Wait...are you the government?

But anyway, The Fourth Kind was hyped pretty well. People thought it was real; a lot still do. A quick google search will debunk that claim. If Dr. Abigail Tyler actually exists, she needs to show up on a talk show and show us some ID.

I do like the marketing campaign, and the hype surrounding the film; but it would have been nice to have some honesty--maybe after the credits? I'm not that big of a fan of after-the-credits content, but I like to imagine Ashton Kutcher showing up after the film and letting everyone know that they got Punk'd.

Anyways, forget marketing. Forget the lying scum that is Hollywood. Forget what happened that weekend your uncle babysat you...

The Fourth Kind was entertaining. Granted, I just saw The Box so I probably would have thought I Know Who Killed Me was entertaining too; but The Fourth Kind kept me intrigued. It certainly had its problems: The sheriff character was absolutely ridiculous, the broken fourth wall was a contrived cheap shot, and the dialogue was nothing to be proud of. However, the combination of "archive" footage and dramatization intertwined nicely to create a pseudo-documentary atmosphere that kept the film at a nice pace. I think enjoyment of the film hinges on whether you approve or disapprove of this stylistic choice.

This film will likely be panned by many for the wholehearted assertion that it is based on true events, when it is in fact complete fiction. But if one were to assess the film on its own merits, I can't see any reason to drastically raise or lower it above or below any other film of its kind. Due to the timeliness of its release, it will likely be compared to Paranormal Activity which everyone (except my sister apparently) knew was fake from the get-go. The "documentary" footage of Paranormal Activity was still unsettling to many, so there's no real reason to discredit The Fourth Kind just because it's claim of a realistic portrayal is a hoax.

Anyway, I was entertained. I don't really care about this one. Say what you want, masses. The only real purposes of this film are to entertain and to stimulate the viewer's thoughts on whether aliens exist or not. It's not that stimulating. Especially without Milla Jovovich's industry standard full frontal shot.

P.S. Maybe we should question Roman Polanski on the whereabouts of Tyler's daughter.

P.P.S. Yes, I used both the "forgettable" and "worth seeing" tags. Aren't most movies both those things?

The Box, or Surprise! No time travel!

2009-11-06T03:44:00.006-05:00

Dear Richard Kelly,

I cannot believe it. You made a movie without bringing up time travel. But after seeing The Box, and wishing Cameron Diaz had been locked in one, I really wish I could go back in time two hours and kill my past self before he had to watch it. Actually, I wouldn't because I'm a pimp. And pimps don't kill themselves.

Damn, Southland Tales was good! But, Richard... The Box was most certainly not. I mean, it was funny for the first forty-five minutes or so. Every time Cameron Diaz mysteriously lost her accent, I smiled. Every time a random character stared sadistically at James Marsden for no real reason, I chuckled. But when the film brought the big guns and let James Marsden's mind wander towards philosophy, there were tears streaming down my face due to my exorbitant laughter. This comic gem really knows how to get the laughs. Oh wait, all of that was unintentional. The audience was supposed to take this film seriously. I think that may be the best joke of all.

Here is some actual dialogue from the movie: (a rough, yet accurate, quotation)

Cameron Diaz: So, someone we don't know will die?
James Marsden (gazes dreamily at the ceiling): What does it really mean? To know someone?
He stares intensely at Cameron, who obviously cannot pull off her 35 year old character.
James Marsden: Do you know me?
Cameron Diaz: (without hesitation): Better than you know yourself.
James Marsden: Do you know...Walter? (their son).
Cameron Diaz: (slowly and softly, feeling a tingling in her--I mean, the--box): Better than I know you.

But seriously, all screen directions aside, that is the actual dialogue. This is straight out of a Nicholas Sparks novel! After the couple pressed the button, they should have time-traveled forty years into the future where an elderly James Marsden reads the story of "The Box" to an elderly Cameron Diaz; in hopes that she would remember their time together... even if just for a moment...

Wipes tear from his eye. Wait, what are we talking about? Oh yeah, let's summarize The Box, Richard. Make sure I've got everything straight:

So there's this couple who, according to Cameron Diaz's accent, is sometimes Southern and sometimes not. They're in a hard spot financially, because James Marsden won't quit his dead end job at NASA and Cameron Diaz didn't win enough money in her lawsuit against the doctor who X-rayed her toes off. As a result, they only have one convertible, and they might have to--heaven forbid--take their son out of private school.

Then, Harvey Dent comes to their house with a proposition: Press this button and two things will happen. First, someone in the world, whom you don't know, will die. Second, I will give you one million dollars...tax free (take that, government!). Cameron Diaz then makes the obvious choice and presses the button. She gets a million dollars. Win.

But then, Harvey Dent starts following the couple around; seemingly because they are inquiring to others about his identity, but really because he was planning on doing so all along. Some people get nose bleeds, some other bullshit happens, and then James Marsden meets the man who last received the box. Turns out, this man has killed his wife in order to save his daughter. Wait, could this be a clue to what is going to happen at the end of the film?!?!?!?! Yes, that much punctuation was necessary. So, blah, blah, blah, it turns out that Harvey Dent was sent by God (or aliens, take your pick) to test the human race. Needless to say, we're failing miserably. James Marsden shoots Cameron Diaz (thank God) in order to save his son's sight and hearing. James Marsden goes to jail and Harvey Dent continues to be disgusted with humanity.

Now, Richard. Don't be offended, but the reason I refer to large portions of the plot as "bullshit" is that these scenes have no real bearing on the plot at all. You used the library scene because you wanted the film to be creepy, and also because if the film didn't have time travel, it at least needed portals. The kidnapping of the son is a tense moment, but also goes nowhere. Every time there is an opportunity for something interesting to happen, the characters black out and end up back at their house.

Let's not even talk about the movie for a moment. Let's talk about the box. Would you press the button? The obvious choice is "yes." First of all, in a logical world, if a dude showed up and told you that a simple box could kill someone, you'd laugh in his face. If he offered you a million dollars, you'd laugh in his face, press the button, and take his money. And if it turned out that it did actually kill someone, no all-knowing omnipotent being could really blame you for thinking it was a joke.

But let's say that you did believe that the box would kill someone. Two-face didn't tell you that you would actually cause the death. He just said that when you press the button someone would die. The world is a big place. I'm pretty sure that every time I touch anything someone in the world dies. So why shouldn't I get a million dollars for it?

And just so you know, the box in the movie didn't kill anyone either. According to the movie's logic, James Marsden would have shot Cameron Diaz even if the new couple hadn't pressed the button. What would have happened if the new couple hadn't pressed the button? I bet you don't even know, do you? Would Two-face show up and tell James Marsden to calm his ass down? It's still all bullshit, Richard.

Twilight, or The Looming Threat of the Sequel is Upon Us.

2009-10-26T04:19:00.010-04:00

I've been debating with myself for a while now whether to start writing posts about films that aren't currently in theaters, and I really wanted to post an update about the Tooth Fairy trailer but I resisted the urge. But tonight at the bar, when someone mentioned that their Twilight: New Moon tickets had arrived in the mail today, I knew it was time to start revisiting the films of years gone by. In this case, a film of only one year gone by (I'm easing into it).

So, in a desperate attempt to avoid Saw VI, I watched Twilight and it inspired me to write an epic short story on film adaptations. I'm hoping to sell the rights to Paramount.

Hold on, Spider Monkey...

A TALE OF TWO TWILIGHTS

In 2008, the book Twilight was a living entity. Unfortunately, one night in a Border's bookstore, a DVD copy of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire snuck into the "teen angst" section and bit a copy of Twilight. As a result, Twilight was transformed, like the majority of the Harry Potter films, into a vampire.

When books become vampires, they don't thirst for blood. They thirst for box office earnings. And like most vampires, they are nearly unstoppable; no matter how hard us humans try to resist handing over our money. These newly formed creatures bear the same plot elements as their living book counterparts, but they possess super powers! Humans do not have to read them in order to learn what they are about. Instead, they possess the ability to travel incredible speeds of up to twenty-four frames a second and display themselves in full color while humans sit passively in seats...unable to resist...

However, being an empty shell of something alive has its low points. And in the case of adaptations like Twilight, the major downfall is simply that an empty shell of a film isn't very entertaining. These vampiric film adaptions have no heart, no soul. They are little more than stylish, animalistic, box-office killing machines, forced to suffer with their own monotony for all eternity...

The End.

I particularly like the ambiguous ending. But, I digress.

Twilight has terrible pacing, little character development, questionable character motivations, redundant and simple dialogue, and way too many time-wasting obligatory scenes that serve only to remain faithful to the book. There is more baseball in this movie than there is character development. Of course, the baseball scene is not an example of the previously mentioned because, after all, about fifty percent of the film's character development comes from the baseball scene.

So here is my call to filmmakers: Go ahead. Adapt the next best-selling book series into a film. But when you do, take the general idea of the book and throw the rest of the source material away. What drives me insane, is that the themes, characters, and rules of the diagetic world within Twilight (among other adaptations) could actually make a good movie; but not if you try to fit the entire book into two hours. The problem with most book to film adaptations, is that the filmmakers tend to get so intent on making the book into a movie that they forget to add the content. So change it up! Make Edward gay for all I care. Or straight, I can't really tell which he is in the film. The point is, it is very unlikely that Hollywood is even capable of making a quality novel to film adaptation anymore and I'd appreciate it if you just took things in a new direction. Otherwise, we're just going to keep getting underdeveloped CGI-fests like Twilight, Harry Potter, and Lord of the Rings.

That's right. I said Lord of the Rings.

P.S. I've been waiting months for a chance to sneak the phrase "I digress" into one of these posts.

Where the Sleeping Theatre Goers Are, or Spike Jonze's New Music Video.

2009-10-21T05:06:00.005-04:00

Dear Spike Jonze,

If I wanted to watch eight children argue, I would take up babysitting. Where the Wild Things Are will forever be my ultimate reminder why I do not.

Certainly you've captured the elaborate capacity of childhood imagination and accompanied it with a phenomenal soundtrack, but that, sadly, is about all the film has going for it. Perhaps you should have made a music video instead. Any relevant or entertaining content is so thinly disbursed between random fits of brattiness and fort building/dirt throwing/pile making/[insert random childhood action here], that I would classify Wild Things (Not to be confused with the Neve Campbell film) as surrealism if the events had any driving force behind them whatsoever. But nope; It's just some kids playing. Oh, and some of them happen to be giant furry things.

At least the climactic metaphor (Max's "birth" from KW) actually made sense and gave the film some semblance of closure, but every other action Max and the nonhuman characters partake in seems like an exercise in time wasting. Thank the heavens this was just over an hour and a half; any longer and I would have taken a nap. There's more indie music/random event combos in this than there were in Juno.

What bothers me the most is that the first fifteen minutes of Wild Things are great. Kid feels neglected, throws a hissy-fit and runs away: a fine articulation of childhood frustration. When Max arrives at the island, the frustration wanders off and is replaced with a mess of childhood imagination tied together by thinly veiled tidbits of Max's actual life. The problem with this, is that all the characters on the island are Max; in that they are figments of his imagination, and therefore cannot possess any capacity for thought or emotion beyond his own. As a result, all events on the island are shaped by a grade-school auteur, and the characters can do little more than behave like whiny children.

I held out with the hope that once Max returned home the film would dazzle me at the end (with at least a fuzzy moment to make me feel good), but no such luck. Max's final scene at home is shorter than the end credits. Apparently, when a child runs away he should be rewarded with cake.

P.S. KW is a total pothead.

Couple's Retreat: Vince Vaughn's Mid-Life Crisis.

2009-10-10T00:15:00.012-04:00

Dear Vince Vaughn,

It's time someone said it: You might not have it anymore. It's okay! You had a streak for a while (Old School, Wedding Crashers, Dodgeball), but as of late, you've made mostly failures. In fact, I think you've been replaced by the Apatow kids. Seth Rogen, Jonah Hill, Jason Segal, and Paul Rudd have been picking up your slack.

So what is it, man? Are you starting to feel your age? The last two films that I consider "Vince Vaughn" films--that weren't related to Christmas--have been wishy-washy romantic comedies that couldn't decide whether to focus on the romance or the comedy. That's right, you remember The Break-Up. So what is it? Did you look back on your career and all of a sudden decide that it needed more dramatic weight? Wasn't the Psycho remake enough dramatic weight for one career?!

Now I'm not saying your attempts at combining believable drama and comedy are a bad idea. And though your execution is way off mark, I'm grateful that it isn't in another time zone like Funny People was.

In Couples Retreat, your characters are at the same time stereotypes and caricatures. Jason Bateman is so over-the-top enthusiastic and task-orientated that I wanted to slap him; Jon Favreau is your standard washed-up high school jock whose only goal appears to be partying with the twenty-somethings that for some reason find him attractive (not possible); Faizon Love is the standard overweight black friend; Kristen Bell is the puppy dog trying to please Jason Bateman; and Kristen Davis reprises her Sex and the City role.

Only you--Vince Vaughn, in case you forgot who you were during your mid-life crisis--and Malin Akerman have characters with any semblance of depth; a couple with a self-described "average" marriage and a lot of little relationship problems that you two didn't realize needed fixing. These characters are really the only two that are suited for the drama you attempted to squeeze into Couples Retreat, and that is why it feels so out of place.

Couples Retreat is, always was, and will forever be established as a comedy. Jon Favreau wouldn't be caught masturbating in any other genre. And while the film is funny, the attempts to include realistic dialogue regarding the characters' love lives weigh the humor down instead of enhancing it. You can't have a nearly naked yoga instructor comically dry-hump the female characters, and follow it with a scene of the ladies lecturing Charlotte--I'm sorry; I mean Lucy--about how inappropriate it was. They were all there getting dry humped themselves! Is one dry hump worse than another? What a lazy segue into "serious relationship talk" time!

This is how the film went:

1) Sctanley with a "c" humorously berates everyone.
2) Serious relationship talk time.
3) Faizon Love isn't wearing underwear.
4) Serious relationship talk time.
5) Vince Vaughn fends off sharks with witty banter.
6) Serious relationship talk time.
7) Jon Favreau and Charlotte try to get happy endings from their respective masseuses.
8) Serious relationship talk time.
9) All relationships are suddenly in epic turmoil!
10) Guitar Hero
11) Sexy Fun Time beach party
12) All relationship problems are resolved.

The thesis of your film is that Guitar Hero and beach parties solve all relationship problems.

There was one point in your film (I think that's all) where you combined comedy and drama perfectly. It comes when your character lectures Jon Favreau about Applebee's. Not only was it one of the funniest speeches in the film, it highlighted a greater dramatic issue (No one wants to spend their life going to Applebee's alone) without the characters trying to describe their painfully simple emotions to us in too many stupid words. You can sneak poignant thoughts into comedy without being so serious about it! Subtlety is largely underrated and underused these days.

The fact is, your tendency to juxtapose drama and comedy instead of combining the two throws the film off kilter. You can make references and thoughts about real-life relationships with your comedy, instead of forcing the audience to watch comedians attempting to emote. If you want everyone to sit down and talk about their feelings, write a drama. Don't sandwich it between a naked guy and Jean Reno. The beauty of films like Dodgeball and Old School is that they focus solely on comedy; romance is an afterthought, if even a thought at all. If you wanted to write a real romantic comedy on a tropical island, you should have had Jason Segel write your script. Do better next time.

P.S. I'm still convinced that once Kristen Bell found out that this wasn't Forgetting Sarah Marshall 2, it was too late for her to drop out.

Invention of Lying, or If You Didn't Find It Funny You Should Stop Reading This Blog.

2009-10-03T23:53:00.012-04:00

Dear Ricky Gervais,

Let me start by saying that I'm fairly upset that I don't have any angry letters to write this weekend. Well, so far; I haven't seen Whip It. I have high hopes that it's terrible. But between Zombieland and The Invention Of Lying, I have to say I'm quite pleased. Unfortunately, due to the strength of this weekend, I'm worried that people are going to miss out one of the few original comedies in a long time.

Every once in a while, someone writes a comedy that is actually unique (Pleasantville, Adaptation, Enchanted) and The Invention of Lying certainly fits into that category. Alternate universes really are a nifty trick, and it's unfortunate that they're usually wasted on the fantasy genre. Lord of the Rings would have been much more interesting if all the characters constantly told the truth. Imagine...

Frodo: Gandelf, your size and your beard are intimidating.
Gandelf: I'm sick of bending over to look at you. You're so tiny and worthless.
Sam: Why are we going to Mordor, Frodo? Wouldn't you rather be in bed; gently caressing each other?

No, never mind. That's pretty much how it went anyway.

But, I digress.

While the concept of Invention of Lying is original, it's also incredibly simple. By changing one aspect of the world, you've opened up unlimited opportunities for original comedy and social satire: The extra awkward first date; the coke-addict traffic cop; the most disgusting ice cream flavors you can think of; etc. etc. Honestly, the concept alone probably would have been enough to sustain a pretty decent comedy. But you take it a step further.

When Mark creates the concept of an afterlife (in a world without religion) to ease his dying mother's fears, the plot evolves into something far greater. The film becomes more than a simple gag, and as Mark's status as prophet continues to climb, the film's hilarity and social relevance follow suit. Initially, my reaction to this plot point (one of the main focuses of the film, actually) was to insinuate that the film was calling religion out as false. Thankfully, you flesh out the concept and manage to handle one of the touchiest topics possible with an impressive amount of respect.

The religion in the film is created to bring the people hope. It is not created out of hostility or for personal gain, but is inherently good; which reflects your intent to be more than a cheap crack at religion (if it was a cheap crack, you can tell me). Religion couldn't exist in the world of the film before Mark because it couldn't be proven. The film's universe has no capacity for abstraction, which is also highlighted by Anna's refusal to pursue a relationship with Mark. In Anna's mind, the rational reasons for marriage are to create offspring with desirable traits. Mark, being short and fat, lacks the physical features that would be genetically-inclined to create successful children. She likes him, but she has no means to weigh the value of her emotions, therefore she focuses on features linked to success.

Unfortunately, the setup of society's superficial tendency is one of the film's weaker points. Surely, Mark gets made fun of by many people, but the audience is never driven to believe that all people are treated a certain way based upon their looks. Then, suddenly towards the end, it is revealed that everyone hates fatties. Don't they have computer geeks who grow up to be millionaires in this world?

If the plot and romance had progressed more fluidly, I'd be comparing Invention of Lying to Groundhog Day right now. But you're severely outmatched in the romance department, because after all the amazing religious humor, Jennifer Garner really seemed like an afterthought. Your return to the romance narrative is actually one of the most awkward transitions in the film, maybe one of the most awkward transitions I've seen in a while. Had the romance and religion been entwined and contrasted better, Invention of Lying would be on its way to becoming a classic.

Instead it's just the funniest movie of the year, which is no small feat either. Well, actually...have there been any funny movies in 2009? There really have only been a couple, but don't let that take away from the fact that Invention of Lying is one of the funniest films I've seen in a long time.

P.S. Thank you for celebrity cameos.

Paranormal Activity, or An Epic Analogy of All Male Female Relationships.

2009-09-27T00:03:00.007-04:00

Dear reader,

Honestly, Paranormal Activity is funnier than it is frightening, which works well to relieve tension, and to keep the film interesting during the scenes that aren't meant to scare the audience. The scares it does deliver, however, are mostly genuine; you aren't going to be forced to leap from your seat because of some cheap jump cut spliced together with a loud noise. The parts meant to disturb you are due to the film's images, not its editing techniques.

But all in all, it's not really going to be that frightening unless you're one of those people who goes into the theater knowing that you're going to be terrified for the rest of the night. Those of you who dare the film to scare you will grunt and shrug: "That wasn't scary, bro. I'm from Detroit." You know who you are.

You're not going to scream and pee your pants, but Paranormal Activity is still worth your time. It's engaging and suspenseful and definitely worth sticking around for the big finish at the end.

But that's not a letter to the filmmaker! I broke my own format! Formats are meant to be broken, children. Instead I decided to write a letter to the main character, Micah. After all, he is the cinematographer for most of the thing, right? Spoilers follow the cut, but let's be honest: Spoilers rarely ever spoil anything. You all will figure out what's going to happen before it happens anyway.

Dear Micah,

When your girlfriend tells you one day that she has been haunted by something since she was a little girl, you should dump her. Odds are that she's not really haunted, and this is your first sign that she's crazy. Okay, in your case, she actually had something haunting her, but is that really a better alternative? It can't turn out well either way.

But your story offers a striking tale of warning to anyone who decides to persue a relationship: Don't. It's a simple analogy. Boy and Girl fall in love and everything is dandy. Suddenly, a problem arises. Boy wants to solve the problem by filming it and picking it apart, but Girl just wants to ignore it in hopes that it will go away. But inevitably, they start trying to fix their problem; kill their demons if you will. This, of course, makes things worse and things spin wilder and wilder out of control until Girl turns into a demon and kills Boy.

Sigh...they all end the same.

P.S. When someone tells you not to use a Ouija board, do not use a Ouija board.

Jennifer's Body: Attack of the Pretentious Giant-Thumbed Monster.

2009-09-20T21:31:00.012-04:00

Dear Diablo Cody,

You seriously have an Oscar? I mean, I had my issues with Juno (most of which can be summed up by the abridged version of the script), but it was still entertaining. Yet, when the trailer for Juno 2: Jennifer's Body was released, I knew I was in for 2 hours of torture (and not the good kind that horror movies tend to include). In the back of my mind, I thought it could be mildly amusing but obviously I gave you too much credit.

Five minutes into Jennifer's Body the person next to me leaned over and said, "I hate this movie." Something about a bunch of kids walking around saying stupid words you've designed to sound hip just doesn't fly anymore. Your teenage girl language passed in Juno because it was the entire theme of the movie and it was actually funny. In Jennifer's Body, your writing reminds me of the retarded kid on the football team; it's trying so hard to do well, but it is fundamentally incapable of generating anything but a few chuckles, which the audience immediately feels guilty for emitting.

I have this picture in my head of your writing process; let me know if I have it right: You sit at your typewriter (because you're obviously too pretentious for computers), and outline the plot for whatever quirky movie you're writing. Next, you go back through and look for opportunities to insert dialogue that is so painfully quirky and hip that it sticks out like an awkward boner (except awkward boners are usually funny). Finally, you throw in a couple of puns and the absolute worst plot tie-ins of all time and you send your script off with a note attached: "Hey, I'm Diablo Cody. I have tattoos and used to be a stripper. This script is obviously offbeat, quirky and hip because I wear leopard-print clothing." Works every time.

For a horror movie, the basic premise of Jennifer's Body isn't that bad. Girl likes indie band fronted by Adam Brody. Adam Brody sacrifices girl to Satan. Girl becomes infused with a demon and has to feed on human flesh to survive. Whatever. It's a horror movie, I don't care. But your inciting incident is a fire that starts for no apparent reason. Hey, it's a good thing all the important characters were essentially the only people to survive the fire that started without any explanation! Wait, was the band like, so "salty" that their music started the fire? Stupidest damn fire I've ever seen. What astonishes me is that you actually managed to explain most of the weird stuff that happened in the film (sometimes well, sometimes poorly), yet the event most important to the plot is the most mysterious thing in the entire movie.

You explained Jennifer's affliction well. You explained why that stupid band got famous. But the never ending hole to nowhere? You just thought that was a cool idea, right? You don't think that if scientists were trying to figure out where it led, they would maybe put, I don't know, tracking devices in there? Maybe the mystery was better than the truth (it certainly would have been to the audience), and the didn't want to discover that it led to some stupid stream by the mental hospital. Also, most people won't complain, but what's with the random lesbian moment? Wait, I can answer that. You figured the only way to get people into the theater was to put Megan Fox in some sexy little boy shorts and have her kiss a girl. Some of us are above the age of fifteen. Besides, girls are gross. Five minutes of Sexploitation just detracts from the plot. And don't even try to argue it's a throwback to some other horror movie. You are not Quentin Tarantino.

There were some good moments. Thank God for Adam Brody and J.K. Simmons. The sacrifice scene was done so well that I thought I was watching a different movie. Of course, spontaneously bursting into song always has been my thing. And it's only worth mentioning because you tried so hard, but there were occasional one liners that were genuinely funny. "Haha box cutter," I thought then resumed frowning. But most of the dialogue blew, your characters swear way too much (it's not funny, it's cheap), and most of Jennifer's Body simply annoyed the piss out of me. Especially Megan Fox. She couldn't act her way out of a box made by a mime and she has gigantic thumbs. That's right Megan Fox; you have giant thumbs and I hope you never forget it.

Anyways, Brook...I mean Diablo (good pen name. It's much quirkier and it's the shizz). Do us all a favor and go back to stripping. Wait, I just google imaged you. Just retire. And maybe hook Megan Fox up with your old contacts at the Vu.

P.S. The Low Shoulder sign at the end? Really? Worst thing I've ever seen.

Patrick Swayze: Off to Tame the Road House in the Sky.

2009-09-16T04:59:00.005-04:00

Dear Patrick Swayze,

No matter what Kanye says, to me your death is the most upsetting of the year. You may not be as big a star as Michael Jackson, and of course your battle with cancer was well publicized so I knew the end was imminent, but you've given the world more than most celebrities ever will. Let's recognize your accomplishments.

-It was you who taught Ferris Bueller's sister to dance with passion. And I always believed you warned her never to get that nose job in the first place.
-It was you and Demi Moore who somehow made pottery sexy. Wait, pottery was always sexy. But you made it sexier; all the while prepping Whoopi Goldberg to win an Oscar. We all know who that Oscar really belongs to, Swayze.
-It was you who taught Keanu Reeves that when the man you're after turns out to be your friend, the only acceptable solution is to yell and shoot into the air.
-Seriously, Whoopi Goldberg won an Oscar.
-It was you who taught me that I am simply a product of fear. And that I had so much more gusta that I could musta.
-You played the best Pecos Bill I've ever seen, and you ripped out a man's throat. In one career.

Seriously, Swayze. You've graced us with some classics. Michael Jackson may have written some songs or whatever, but who really listens to Michael Jackson? You were in Road House. Was Michael Jackson in Roadhouse? No, he was in Miss Castaway, which...No, wait a minute. I'd probably watch that. But that's not the point, Patrick! The point is: ROAD HOUSE! It's Dawson Leery's favorite movie! That's how you know it's good. David Carradine died this year as well, but most people only know him as that guy from Kill Bill anyway. I love David Carradine, but Patrick...you mean so much more. By the way, David Carradine wanted to be at your funeral, but obviously he couldn't make it. It's too bad. He was really dying to come.

I know not everyone is as big a Swayze fan as I am. And I know a lot of people find my David Carradine joke distasteful. (Chill out, people.) But in all seriousness--and I know there was a lot of fake seriousness earlier--it really was disappointing to hear that you passed. I think I always thought of you as immortal, untouchable. As if you didn't really have cancer, but cancer had Patrick Swayze. In the end it got you, and that makes me sad. But I know you're up there, smiling down on us, just daring Keanu to try and shoot you now.

P.S. Now who am I going to confuse with Kurt Russel?

Inglourious Basterds, or Tarantino's Ego 2: I Know A Lot About Nazis.

2009-08-21T22:32:00.008-04:00

Dear Quentin Tarantino,

Do you think you're audience is stupid? Wait, I suppose you're right; most of your audience is probably stupid. But plenty of us are not, and your inability to let any subtle point stay subtle in Inglourious Basterds was borderline insulting to me. You point arrows to notable Germans to alert us to their importance. You find it necessary to spontaneously insert a split-second sex scene to provide background information that could have easily been inferred. And finally (for the purpose of this letter I won't list everything), you have Samuel L. Jackson explain to us why film burns. Of course film burns. I get the feeling that you simply wanted to point out your epic, unrivaled knowledge of cinema history...which you do constantly.

You are the worst name-dropper of all time. Over and over again, you have your characters tell us about German cinema in speeches that are sometimes so long that all I saw was you fellating yourself onscreen. "Oh...my... God! Quentin you are so knowledgeable!" It's the same thing you did with grindhouse films in Deathproof: Blatant after blatant reference like you're trying to impress a professor or something. It's unnecessary and pretentious. Just stick to subtle references, those don't make me want to hit you.

Now, Inglourious Basterds isnt a bad film, no matter how much the misspelling of the title makes me want to say it is. It is entertaining and at times, fantastic. But your lack of any emotional levity is simply tiresome. Everything is a joke, and the problem is that you've given us the same jokes repeatedly four films in a row. Okay, I'm sure many people find your little idiosyncrasies hilarious, but your capacity to completely ruin scenes with cheap jokes or stupid camera work astonishes me. IF I WANTED TO WATCH A B-MOVIE I'D WATCH A B-MOVIE! Grow up and make something worthy of the budget you are given.

For example, your opening scene: Jews under the floor boards. The excellent (he really was excellent) Christoph Waltz slowly berating the dairy farmer for information he already knows. It was a great start. Then Christoph Waltz pulls out the biggest pipe I have ever seen. The theater laughs, I groan, and the scene is ruined. Why can't you take anything seriously? Why can't a girl sit nervously in a room with the man who killed her entire family without you focusing the camera on strudel? I hate strudel! Strudel ruins scenes Tarantino. Your new nickname is "Strudel."

Your characters are nothing but stock caricatures of whatever you need them to be and none of them have more depth than a glass of water. The most diverse character in the entire film is the dairy farmer in the beginning and he's in the film for ten minutes. It is pathetic, easy filmmaking.

You did save the day with the fantastic scene in the basement bar. If this scene didn't exist, I wouldn't have thought twice about giving your film a 1/10 on IMDB (the worst insult, like, ever!) Holy Hell, this scene was fantastic! You capitalized perfectly on your "knowledge" (someone probably told you) of culture and of the various accents in your film. You did manage to throw in your interpretation of "King Kong" in there, but it was semi-plot relevant so I forgive you.

A lot of other people might be pissed at you too. I think most people are expecting an action film. I hate mindless action, but that's what you're good at! You're like Michael Bay with dialogue other than grunting. Unfortunately, the Basterds appearances are so rare that I occasionally forgot why the movie was named after them. . Much of the film moves at a slower pace than I expected, and it actually drags in spots. Now Im not saying its boring (occasionally its boring), but someone needs to get some balls and tell you to stop it with the drawn out speeches and scenarios. In a perfect world, you would have made this movie: 2 hours of Brad Pitt and friends killing people; of course taunting and giving their little speeches along the way. It would have been more fun that way. Then, you give the other half of the script (Shosanna s story) to a writer/director who has the capacity to produce substance and you have two good movies! What you have here is much more of a wishy washy, I enjoyed it--but there were some terrible problems-- sort of meh, it was good, but not amazing film. I wanted more. C'mon, Tarantino. It's time for something new.

(500) Days of Summer, or I'll Never Understand Why She Left Me.

2009-08-06T17:41:00.019-04:00

Dear Scott Neustadter,

Are you over her yet?

You've managed to do what every dumped male writer has dreamed of doing: You've written the story of the crazy bitch who broke your heart... and published it! Now everyone will know how cold-hearted and evil she truly is! I can hear your deep bellowing laughs of justice now.

Unfortunately, it's quite obvious that you never took the time to fully understand Summer's real-life counterpart, because the film never develops her character beyond the empty shell-of-a-human-being she obviously had to be to dump a catch like you. You appreciated her beauty, you liked the same things she liked, but you never got to know the girl the way you thought you did. Rookie mistake, buddy. And this is the major problem with your screenplay.

The story starts off strong: guy meets girl, decides she's the love of his life even though she has no idea yet, and attempts to impress her with his karaoke skills. Every epic love story starts this way, sometimes with minor changes, but the karaoke is always essential. So begins a barrage of cute scenes in which the main characters fall deeper and deeper into the treacherous fury of love. They play house in IKEA, tell each other pseudo-important tales of their hopes and dreams, and at one point Tom even prances happily through the streets accompanied by an animated bird (Did this happen in real life too, or did you make it up?). These scenes worked well; props to you! Everyone likes funny and adorable, even bitter, self-important film enthusiasts like myself.

Then, without warning (aside from the post-modern time jumping that has already alluded to this event), Summer dumps you. I'm just going to refer to the main character as "you" from now on, since we all know who Tom really is. Maybe this is how it ended in real life --I suppose that's some kind of an excuse--but it does not work in the film.

You never show the conflict. Your relationship never deteriorates, it just suddenly ends. Even if you found no evidence of your relationship slipping away, there had to be something somewhere that made Summer think, "This just isn't working." And you needed to put that in the script. Maybe she was upset that you got in that bar fight (You macho man, you.), but that wasn't enough. She just disappears for a while leaving us to deal with your moping.

But hey, it's not all bad. Walking into the theater, I was all ready to hate 500 Days of Summer, and I like, totally didn't! I was so worried that this was going to be fantastically quirky and chock full of indie culture that after I saw the trailer, I immediately picked up my hamburger phone, dialed a friend and said, "This "Summer" movie looks like it's going to be totally hip and trendy!"

Thankfully, Summer didn't turn out to be an older, she-wolf version of Juno. The cultural references were relatively tame. Yeah, the Smith's played nonstop, but I didn't have a problem with it. The Bergman parody was even impressive until you showed the chess board, causing the seventeen-year-old film buffs behind me to point out the Seventh Seal reference to their girlfriends. I shook my head at them, but then was equally disappointed that the cliche of Death and chess boards still goes over some people's heads.

So Scott, despite my complaints, I think you turned out something that's definitely worth seeing. It may not be the greatest movie of the Summer ( points for the pun?), but it is certainly a whole lot better than the last screenplay I wrote after being dumped; which was essentially 90 pages of binge drinking and chain smoking loosely tied around a narrative of woman-hating.

This is slightly more mature than that.

P.S. I can't decide if the "Autumn" joke was funny or pathetic. I'll let it slide.

In Regards to "Funny People."

2009-08-02T17:30:00.010-04:00

Dear Judd Apatow,

If you ever attempt to write another film that is both funny and dramatic, my only request is that you don't fill it with penis jokes. Now, Ive enjoyed a good penis joke in my day. In fact, I enjoyed some of the penis jokes in Funny People. I did not, however, enjoy the fact that the entire movie felt like a never ending string of unfunny penis jokes. Its a crutch, Apatow. What were you thinking? Be creative. Write more original content! There was some here, but it was lost in a sea of cock and balls.

More importantly, take a class on narrative structure. Or have someone who knows something about it give you some pointers. You've somehow managed to take three perfectly fine script ideas and mash them together into one nonsensical film that has little to no regard for what has come before. Okay, so Adam Sandler is dying and he hires Seth Rogen to write some jokes for him. Perfectly fine setup. Its funny, I like it. Then you suddenly jump into a ridiculous montage of celebrity cameos that are amusing but completely irrelevant to the plot. The second act plays out like The Aristocrats: a collection of comics telling different jokes about the same thing, dropping the narrative almost entirely for a solid thirty minutes. Then, just as we think Adam Sandler is finally coming to his senses and becoming a better person...

YOU FUCKING CURE HIM? FUCK YOU!

You fucking cure him and you send him on a comic jaunt to his ex-wife's house, where of course her ridiculous Australian husband shows up and hilarity (a term use I use loosely and, in fact, sarcastically) ensues. The third act shows complete disregard for any dramatic standard you had set up, and comicly? It made me miss the penis jokes. What you've somehow done, is given us a portrait of a dying, lonely man finding redemption and then realizing hes too good for redemption, because hes seen Cats on Broadway.

You try to save it in the end. They always try to save it in the end. Ooh... they're friends again. Who didn't see that cop-out ending coming after the horrendous third act? Honestly, I'm surprised it wasn't all a dream!

You didn't have the balls to kill Adam Sandler and you couldn't muster up the maturity to write a script with any depth or originality. If you had, you could have made this mess of a film something worth watching.