Brodie's Film Blog

All 103 Movies With Audio!

2009-12-31T14:45:00.000-05:00

It's been a record breaking year for me at the movies. It was my first year as a full fledged professional film critic (doin' it on the radio). Not only did I break my previous record of 4 for most films seen in theatres in a single 3 day weekend, which is now at 5, but I also broke my record for most films seen in theatres in a calender year. In 2004 I set that record at 70. This year, I destroyed it with a final tally of 103.

And now, because I work in broadcasting and have the means to do this, I present to you, 4 montages of all 103 films, in near sequential order.

The movie posters each represent the best film (with a 2009 release) of each quarter. Clicking them will take you to the audio file of the montages. Below each poster, I've provided a sequential list of the movie clips, as well as song info. Enjoy!

JAN-MAR

IMG Source

Movie Clips: Gran Torino, Bride Wars, Last Chance Harvey, Paul Blart: Mall Cop, My Bloody Valentine 3D, Slumdog Millionaire, Rachel Getting Married, Taken, Frost/Nixon, Push, He's Just Not That Into You, The International, Friday the 13th, Fired Up, Watchmen, Race To Witch Mountain, The Last House on the Left, Duplicity, I Love You Man, Monsters vs. Aliens, 12 Rounds

Song Used: Academy Award Winning 'Jai Ho' by A.R. Rachman from Slumdog Millionaire.

APR-JUNE

IMG source

Movie Clips: Adventureland, Fast & Furious, Hannah Montana: The Movie, Observe and Report, Crank 2 High Voltage, 17 Again, Obsessed, State of Play, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, The Ghosts of Girlfriends Past, Star Trek, Sunshine Cleaning, Angels & Demons, Terminator: Salvation, Night at The Museum: Battle at the Smithsonian, Up, Drag Me To Hell, Land of the Lost, The Hangover, The Proposal, The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3, Imagine That, The Year One, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, My Sister's Keeper

Song Used: 'Sabotage' by Beastie Boys (was used in Star Trek)

JUL-SEP

IMG source

Movie Clips: Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs, Public Enemies, I Love You Beth Cooper, Bruno, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, The Ugly Truth, G-Force, Funny People, The Collector, GI Joe: Rise of the Cobra, Julie & Julia, District 9, The Goods: Live Hard, Sell Hard, The Time Traveler’s Wife, Post Grad, Inglourious Basterds, H2, Gamer, All About Steve, Whiteout, The Final Destination 3D (ok, didn't make the clip, but who's gonna miss it really?), Sorority Row, Extract, Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs, Jennifer’s Body, The Informant, 9, Pandorum, Surrogates

Song Used: 'Ten Million Slaves' by Otis Taylor (used in trailer for Public Enemies)

OCT-DEC

IMG source

Movie Clips: Zombieland, Whip-it!, Couples Retreat, Where The Wild Things Are, Law Abiding Citizen, Saw VI, Cirque du Freak: The Vampire's Assistant, Paranormal Activity, A Christmas Carol, The Men Who Stare At Goats, 2012, The Twilight Saga: New Moon, Planet 51, The Blind Side, Coco avant Chanel, Ninja Assassin, Fantastic Mr. Fox, Old Dogs, Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day, Brothers, Armored, Everybody's Fine, Invictus, The Princess and the Frog, Avatar, Did You Hear About The Morgans?, Sherlock Holmes, It's Complicated

Song Used: 'Wake Up' by Arcade Fire (used in trailer for Where The Wild Things Are)

Avatar/Did You Hear About The Morgans?

2009-12-26T22:12:00.000-05:00

WOOOO! With my viewing of Avatar on Saturday afternoon, I reached 100! Then I saw Did You Hear About the Morgans? on Sunday for 101. I'm gonna mini-review Morgans, as the quality of the picture is pretty self explanatory from the trailer and by-line. But Avatar, the review will be directly proportional to the length of the film and my liking of it.

Did You Hear About The Morgans? - 0.5 stars

This film is about as predictable as they get, especially since I saw it 12 years ago as For Richer or Poorer with Tim Allen and Kirstie Alley. Ok... saw's a strong word, I heard about it. But a bickering big city couple goes to live in the country for reasons beyond their control, and find out they really love each other. The film relies heavily on moving from one gag to the other. Hugh Grant is charming, if annoying. And the always dependable Sam Elliot brings it home, but even they couldn't save this drivel.

Avatar - 4.5 stars

2009 was not only a big year for sci-fi, but it was big year for game changing sci-fi, and it was a year that turned sci-fi on it's head. Star Trek broadened sci-fi's appeal to a mainstream audience. District 9 was the little movie that could, and told one of the best stories of the year. And Avatar showed what a true craftsman could do with enough money and technology.

Whereas most sci-fi flicks explore aliens invading Earth, what if we were the invading race? That's the core them that Avatar explores. After humans have used up the resources on Earth by 2154, they head out into space in search of more. They come to Pandora, a distant Earth-like moon with abundant resources, including the very valuable and not too subtly named "unattainium," but the native race, the Na'vi, prefer to live their peaceful lives undisturbed, and won't give up their land without a fight. So in order to coerce them into leaving, the military has turned to avatars, remotely operated versions of the Na'vi, controlled through the mind by scientists and soldiers. The plan goes awry when paraplegic Jake Sulley not only grows accustomed to his new body, but gets accepted into the Na'vi tribe. Now he's torn between his former life and his orders as a Marine, and the new world he's become a part of.

That's honestly the shortest description I could come up with that still does the movie justice and gives you a good idea of what the film is about. It's such a complex, yet wonderfully engaging film.

James Cameron took his time in making this film. He started with a vision. And he patiently waited for technology to catch up to his vision. One could argue that that's an incredibly pretentious thing to say. But when you're the director who revolutionized visual effects twice (first two Terminator films), and has a history of epic story telling, I'm willing to grant you a little leeway in crafting your art.

I think he was right in waiting. Had this been made 10 years ago, we would have wound up with a mess of CGI, rivaling the Star Wars prequels in looking cartoonish and flat. But by taking the time to create a generated, yet realistic looking world paid off. And filming in 3D enhanced the experience. Cameron fully immerses the viewer in the world of Pandora through what was probably a painstaking attention to detail. He doesn't just show you this other world, this world of the Na'vi, he pulls you in, and makes you just as much a part of it as the characters he creates.

But here's the thing about his cinematic baby, he doted too much. It's one thing to top the 2.5 hour mark and push for 3 if it's a good, engaging, worthy 2 hours and 42 minutes. But, and this holds true for his last feature, the even longer Titanic, trim the fat. There were times where it seemed an excess of scenes in an effort to show off the CGI, rather than move the story along. It's not that they weren't fascinating to watch. But were they necessary? Probably not. Trim the fat, put it back in for the director's cut DVD.

As for the actual story being told, I don't think he even tried to hide the metaphors and analogies. In which case, can we really consider them to be metaphors and analogies? The big industrial, militaristic society infringes on the earth loving, spiritual society for capitalistic gains. It's not exactly a groundbreaking story. But even a bland story well told is still a well told story.

Now, as for the performances. Sam Worthington, as Jake Sulley, obviously bears the load of the story. He carries the film. And to be a relatively unknown (Stateside anyway) carrying a several hundred million dollar epic with high hopes and higher hype is no small task. But Worthington, to his credit, stepped up to the plate, swung for the fences, and hit it out of the ballpark. What I took away from his performance, is that he was given free reign to act the role as he saw fit. And you get an already disenchanted young man who becomes increasingly torn between two worlds. It was to his benefit that we didn't know who he was, because we had no expectations, no preconceptions as to what he could or should do. And when you get an actor who is allowed to act with careful guidance through the story from the creator of said story, you get a more nuanced performance.

That being said, one shouldn't count out 30 year veteran Sigourney Weaver for bringing a surprising amount of heart to not only her character, lead scientist Dr. Grace Augustine, but to the film. It makes me ponder if we've just kind of been taking Weaver for granted as an actress all these years.

I would, sticking with performances, like to point out Stephen Lang, primarily known for his stage work, but has made a name for himself as a character actor over the years. He steals the show as the hard edged Colonel Miles Quaritch. Kudos, Mr. Lang.

I do highly recommend this film. It lives up to the hype and then some. And to wrap up the review, I'll paraphrase a friend and kindred cinematic spirit, Jerett Kelly, "I've long felt I missed out, not being able to see Star Wars during it's original theatrical run. Now, after seeing Avatar, I know the feeling. Avatar is our generation's Star Wars." Also: do yourself a favour, see it in 3D.

6 Reviews in one package

2009-12-15T23:15:00.001-05:00

After going over and over and over the math, with these 6 films, my official count now stands at 99 films seen theatrically in a year. Avatar will be the 100th.

Armored - 1 star

Laurence Fishburne, Matt Dillon, Jean Reno and Columbus Short star in this tale of good guys gone bad when a team of armoured truck guards decide to plan the perfect heist, but it all goes awry when rookie guard Ty (Short) backs out last minute and throws a wrench into their plans.

Formulaic and derivative to it's core, this film brings nothing new to the table. The characters go through a motivational shift that, by movie's end, is still unexplained. I suppose you could sweep it all up with good, old fashioned greed, but I still want to know what made these seemingly good characters, who we like early on in the film, go so bad. Why did they want the money? The acting isn't bad, but it's just not very good.

Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day - 3.5 stars

This is one of those films that you either get or you don't. Writer/DirectorTroy Duffy re-teams with Billy Connolly, Sean Patrick Flanery and Norman Reedus to continue the story of the vengeance seeking MacManus clan. 8 years after their initial spree that spilled the blood of the worst criminals all over the streets of Boston, the Brothers are called out by the son of crime boss Yakavetta, to answer for their "sins."

Featuring returning favourites and a fresh cast (including Judd Nelson, Clifton Collins, Peter Fonda and Dexter's Julie Benz), fans of the original will definitely not be disappointed by the sequel. It features the kitschy, over-the-top action that repeated viewings of the original on DVD have made us accustomed to. It's light on actual plot, but wasn't the first one, too?

Brothers - 4 stars

Tobey Maguire and Jake Gyllenhaal star in the roles they were born to play, the titular brothers. When Tobey's Cpt. Sam Cahill goes missing, feared dead, in Afghanistan, Jake's ne'er-do-well Tommy Cahill steps in to comfort his grieving widow Grace (Natalie Portman). This leads to complications upon Sam's rescue and return home.

Maguire really comes into his own as an actor with this role. His intense, bombastic portrayal of a mentally and emotionally scarred vet frightens you at the same time it pulls you in. To balance that out, Gyllenhaal turns in a quiet, understated performance as the brother, that engages with something bubbling just beneath the surface. Each performance more subtle than we've seen from these two before.

Everybody's Fine - 3.5 stars

Robert De Niro stars as a recent widower trying to re-connect with his now grown kids (Kate Beckinsale, Sam Rockwell and Drew Barrymore) in this feel good movie just in time for the holiday season.

The performances were all fine. It's really one of those "Hey, call your dad" kinda movies. But in the end, it felt a little hollow for how by the numbers it was. Yes, De Niro and Rockwell did a lot with a little (even Barrymore and Beckinsale were engaging), but it really could have been anyone in those roles, and I don't know if anyone would have known the difference. Which is too bad, because I really like Rockwell's work.

Invictus - 3.5

Morgan Freeman stars as Nelson Mandela, which has to be the role of a lifetime, in this inspiration film that crosses international sports with a politically and culturally fractured nation.

And in that respect, it's very good. It shows the impact that even the most seemingly insignificant event can have on a country and it's people. And the last effects of that event. And both Freeman and his co-star Matt Damon play their roles to perfection.

But can we stop pretending that Clint Eastwood is god's gift to directing already? He keeps getting such high marks for his directing, but the last thing he did as a director that really impressed me was Mystic River. Though to be fair, I have yet to see Letters From Iwo Jima. Everything else? Meh.

The Princess and the Frog - 4 stars

Disney's first traditional hand drawn 2D animation film in five years is also their finest in 15. Set in Jazz-era New Orleans, visiting Prince Naveen has a run-in with local voodoo practitioner, which turns him into a frog. Naveen must find a Princess to kiss in order to reverse the spell, but a case of mistaken identity (they're at a costume ball) leads to waitress and aspiring restauratrice Tiana also becoming a frog following said kiss, and then go on a journey to be human again.

So, Disney isn't one for groundbreaking plot, what's new? It's beautifully drawn, some of the best animation we've seen out of the House of Mouse in ages. The voice work from Anika Noni-Rose, Bruno Campos and Keith David is fun and lighthearted, with the perfect amount of liveliness. The only real problem comes with the songs. Back in the day, the songs worked to move the story along. Unfortunately, they just seem awkwardly juxtaposed into the film for the sake of having songs.

New Moon/Fantastic Mr. Fox

2009-12-06T18:19:00.000-05:00

As a I move toward the end of the year, I'm also quickly approaching a milestone in my movie watching. My previous record for most different films seen in theatres in a single year was 70 set in 2004. I currently stand at 91, and I hope to hit 100 by the end of the year. That out of the way... the reviews.

A few mini reviews, then 2 full reviews.

The Blind Side - 3.5 stars - It's a good enough film, it entertains and pulls the heartstrings. But really, how many times are they going to retread the "inspirational true sports story"? Tim McGraw is a surprisingly decent actor.

Planet 51 - 2 stars - It's funny to the point of satirizing the alien invasion flicks of the 50s. But beyond that, it's a one joke flick that fails to keep you interested to the end. Emphatic *shrug* 'meh?'

Ninja Assassin - 1 star - It's exactly what it says it is. A ninja assassin. Add in "boring." It's like watching a video game. Scratch that.... It's like watching someone else play a crappy video game, that you have no interest in playing at all, and are only in the room because you have nothing better to do while you wait for your frozen pizza to bake. And you're super high. Actually, that might have helped this flick. But the action's fun.

Old Dogs - .5 star - I'm done with the broad, 'gotta appeal to everyone,' comedies that walk across the same old jokes time and time again. We get it, they're old. We get it, this is an important business opportunity. We get it, the kids are a total buzzkill. Why do adults always have to learn? Why can't kids ever learn a lesson? Like, sit down, shut up, and behave.

Coco avant Chanel - 3.5 stars - I like Audrey Tautou. I really do, I think she's a terrific actress and gives an engaging performance as the late designer. But the movie never really made me care about the characters. I didn't know why the story was told. Could be a cultural thing.

And now... the full reviews.

The Twilight Saga: New Moon - .5 star

The Twilight movies are pretty much critic proof. No matter what I say, the fans are going to eat it up and love it. That being said, they shouldn't. It's a terrible film, with arguably some of the worst acting. The leads couldn't carry a film if their careers depended on it, and luckily they don't have to. It's the brand that's filling the seats, not the stars. But you do get some engaging performances from the bit part adults.

New Moon is the second entry in the inexplicably popular Twilight franchise, and we pick up where the first one left off, with Bella (Kristen Stewart) dating vampire hunk Edward (Robert Pattinson, yet now the reality of her aging and him not is starting to dawn on her. To save her from being hurt, he leaves, which only hurts her more. And then her best friend is a werewolf.

I don't know. I didn't care much for seeing this going in. The fact that it plods along at a pace that even a snail would say "hurry up" only adds to my inability to effectively follow along with the plot.

I don't know where it broke down, in the screen writing process, Chris Weitz's directing, or in the editing room, but somewhere along the way, the film lost all narrative cohesiveness. The two and a half minute trailer tells a more engaging story than the two hour movie.

Looking at Melissa Rosenberg's list of credits, you'd wonder how someone who writes for 'Dexter,' one of the most compelling shows on television, could write one of the blandest, most cliche riddled and melodramatic screenplays of our time, but scroll down her IMDb page a little more and you get your answer. She also wrote the first Twilight and the equally dreadful Step Up. Stick to TV, you're clearly better there.

Now onto the acting... I got excited when I saw Dakota Fanning and Michael Sheen pop up in the trailer. I remember thinking, "Ok, this film has some street-cred now." But that was ultimately disappointing, as they appear on screen for a total of 5 minutes, with about 10 lines between the two of them. Billy Burke is charming as Charlie Swan, Bella's dad, but is severely underutilized.

And if Burke is underutilized, then the three leads, Pattinson, Stewart and Taylor Lautner are drastically OVERutilized. If I were teaching an acting class in high school or college, and I did a section on "What not to do," I'd have my students study and analyze the three leads in New Moon. I've heard the saying "couldn't act their way out of a paper bag" before, and if you were to combine the acting talents of Pattinson, Stewart and Lautner... paper bag would win, hands down.

I've long said that Stewart has but 2 acting modes, nervous and awkward. She can now add a third to her repertoire- annoying.

Twilight is in the same category as Transformers 2, G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra, Indiana Jones: Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, and the Star Wars prequels. The filmmakers aren't really caring about putting out a quality product, they just know that the brand will fill theatres. And the audiences are eating it up. It's disgusting really. It makes me glad that I don't pay for films.

Fantastic Mr. Fox - 4 stars

Wes Anderson? Good. George Clooney and Meryl Streep? Great. Taking on a beloved children's book? Wait, what? I know, that's what I said, but it was great, loved every minute of it.

Mr. Fox (Clooney) lives a carefree life of stealing poultry from local farmers. Upon news of the impending birth of his son, he makes a vow to his wife (Streep) to get out of the chicken thief business, and go legit. That satisfies him just fine for 12 fox years, then he starts to get that itch. He needs to get back in the game, much to the chagrin of his family and friends (featuring the vocal talents of Anderson regulars Owen Wilson, Jason Schwartzman, Bill Murray and Willem Dafoe) and especially the local farmers Boggis, Bunce and Bean (Michael Gambon).

Anderson takes on stop motion, an animation style we see so rarely these days, but is always so engaging. It's about finding the happy medium between live action and animation. More can be done and characters more richly drawn with the animation, yet there's something tangible, something real about it. And it pulls you in.

He keeps the look and feel of his usual work. You can always tell a Wes Anderson film when you see it, and this is no different, and thankfully he's left his signature in the realm of animation. And to his credit, he picked a story that had appeal to both kids and adults. Anderson fans could go see what they've come to expect, and younger filmgoers could not only get an entertaining story, but be introduced to the work of one of the most unique filmmakers of our era.

The only gripe is the vocal work. Sure it was, for the most part, good. Clooney brings his cocky charm to a role that almost seems tailor made for him. Streep has fun with her Mrs. Fox, and you can't help but love Schwartzman's Ash. But it all seemed just a bit lifeless. There were quite a few times where it felt like they were reading lines from a script, not acting. It just didn't sit well with me.

But overall, I found the film entertaining and definitely worth a look in theatres.

8 Mini Reviews

2009-11-15T21:08:00.001-05:00

Where The Wild Things Are - 4.5 stars. Spike Jonze fully realizes the children's book, and captures the imagination. It's a true love story with childhood.

Law Abiding Citizen - 3 stars. Good, solid performances from Jamie Foxx and Gerard Butler highlight this revenge flick, but it all falls apart with a lackluster third act.

Cirque du Freak: The Vampire's Assistant - 1 star. John C. Reilly is good, but this uninspired mess of a film is a ploy to offer counter programming for young males before the female audience gets the new Twilight film.

Saw VI - 2.5 stars. While it's the best and most solid entry since Saw 2, the Saw films are starting to wear out their welcome.

Paranormal Activity - 4.5 stars. Well worth the hype, this no-budget viral film delivers on the scares, but the ending doesn't quite sit well with me. They should have gone with one of the alternate endings.

The Men Who Stare At Goats - 4 stars. It's a smarter film than the trailers may have let on, and with Kevin Spacey and Jeff Bridges great in supporting roles, this is one film not to miss.

A Christmas Carol - 3 stars. While beautifully animated, and well acted by Jim Carrey and Gary Oldman, it ultimately doesn't bring anything to the Dickensian table. The Patrick Stewart TV-movie from 10 years ago still reigns supreme.

2012 - .5 star. The visuals are terrific, but even they can't hide the fact that there's no discernible plot, poorly developed characters, and a really stupid story. In fact... I make it the full 2.5 hours not really caring whether any of the characters make it or not. This makes The Day After Tomorrow look like Independence Day

Surrogates/Pandorum/Zombieland/Whip It/Couples Retreat

2009-10-17T17:30:00.000-04:00

Surrogates - 1.5 stars

Bruce Willis headlines this otherwise no-star cast in an entirely forgettable sci-fi film, set in a futuristic psuedo-utopian society where people have been replaced by robotic versions of themselves, all in an effort to create a safer society. And then it becomes not so safe, so robot Bruce Willis must solve the first murder in 15 years so society can become safe again.

I don't know about you, but I'm growing tired of these films about unattainable utopias being deconstructed by their own gloriousness. There's no imagination to destroying perceived perfection.

And as entertaining as Bruce Willis [always] is, even he couldn't save this mess of a film. It was clearly a "paycheck" film. He walked through his role as if he was saying "Yeah, whatever, I'm a cop who has to save the world, where's craft services?" But he is the only engaging part of the film.

Pandorum - 3 stars

Dennis Quaid and Ben Foster are two deep space astronauts who wake up to a deserted ship, and are left to figure out what went wrong on their 100+ year mission of colonizing a new-found Earth-like planet, while trying to battle crazed genetic mutations who have since overtaken their ship.

This is a truly confounding film, as I loved it and hated it at the same time. Mostly I loved one half of it, and strongly disliked the other half. The unfortunate thing of it is, is that it's not a "first half/second half" type of thing. It's the two plots that ran concurrently. This would have been a much better film had they left out the monsters running around the ship, and made it an isolation thriller. It was trying to be 'Alien,' but it failed miserably.

Plot points aside, Ben Foster is one of the most fascinating young actors working today. I will (and do) watch anything he's in, and you should to. He's one of those actors that is right on the verge of breaking out into mega-star status, he just needs to find that right part, that right project, to push him over the edge. This could have been it, but it came just short.

Zombieland - 5 stars

I know what you're thinking, "Of course Brodie's gonna give the zombie flick 5 stars." Well, a) you're right and b) it totally deserves every star.

We join our hero, Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg), post outbreak, in a world over run with zombies, and he's just doing his best to survive (so far it's clearly working). Columbus meets up with Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson) and form an odd partnership that will do them well just enough to survive. After they get hoodwinked by a pair of sisters, Wichita and Little Rock (Emma Stone and Abigail Breslin, respectively), they join them to find a zombie free paradise, which is apparently at an amusement park in L.A.

This, is quite possibly, the perfect movie. It is exquisitely crafted from beginning to end, and keeps you laughing all the way through, but never skimps on the horror action. The ensemble cast works so well together that you hope they do more films together. Preferably more Zombieland films (it was originally written as a TV show).

What makes it work is that everything works. There is never a wasted joke, or a wasted scare. Every aspect of the film was brought together to be the best it could be. And the best was damn good. Zombieland is the movie of October, though as of this writing, I have yet to see Where The Wild Things Are.

Whip It - 3 stars

Drew Barrymore makes her directorial debut with this girl power roller derby flick starring Ellen Page, Juliette Lewis and Kristin Wiig. It's got the heart, it's got the laughs, it's got the sports action, but it's ultimately forgettable.

Page stars as Bliss Cavender, a high schooler in small town Texas looking for her place in life (aren't they all), and she doesn't think it's the life of studies and beauty pageants her parents (Marcia Gay Harden and Daniel Stern) have set for her, so she looks to the all women Roller Derby in near by Austin for guidance. And that's where, under the careless tutelage of derby stars, she finds what she loves and ultimately, her place.

It's a fun, heartwarming teen flick, and definitely one of the modern good ones (there hasn't been a great one in 15 years). Wiig, Harden and Stern all turn in outstanding performances. Page continues her reign as the poster girl for the indie-youth. And Barrymore takes a backseat to the rest of the stars, yet still turns in a memorable comic relief performance.

But while it may be a good teen flick, it's still just a good one. I was entertained by it, but it didn't leave much of an impression on me. And I think that could be unfortunately attributed to rookie director Drew Barrymore. I say unfortunately because she really does show great promise as a filmmaker, and I for one am looking forward to more work from her. But the film suffered greatly from pacing problems, and that is the key to it's downfall. So, Drew, noble effort, it was entertaining, but just not quite there. Keep trying.

Couples Retreat - 1.5 stars

Jon Favreau and Vince Vaughn back together? With a script they wrote? Also featuring Jason Bateman, Kristen Bell, Pete Serafinowicz and rising star Malin Ackerman? How could this miss? With a poorly written script filled with cheap, obvious jokes and relationship cliches, rounded out by a stereotypical ending that you could pretty much see coming once the opening credits are done.

Favreau, Vaughn, Bateman and Faizon Love head to a couples skill building retreat with their respective partners played by Kristen Davis, Ackerman, Bell and Kali Hawk. They each discover something about their relationships in order to make them stronger, and walk away more in love than when they got there. And we get some laughs along the way.

It's a one joke concept, spread across two hours and four sets of characters. And while the combined talents are enough to make you think this is a surefire hit, when they aren't given much to do, other than make the most basic and obvious of jokes at their marriage's expense, it will fall flat and be mostly boring by the second act.

I'd like to see them re-do this film, with the same cast, but this time, try just a little bit harder.

Record Breaking 5 Films in One 3 Day Weekend

2009-10-03T21:22:00.000-04:00

I broke my personal record with that weekend with 5 films in one 3 day weekend. Beats the previous record of 4. I don't know when that was. Couldn't say. But I know this is a record. Rock on. Time for a blitz of film reviews.

9 - 4.5 stars

Elijah Wood, Jennifer Connelly, Martin Landau and John C. Reilly headline this animated fable of the end of the world. A literal rag-tag group of puppets attempt to salvage the last vestiges of humanity after the machines man created rose up and destroyed the world. Sounds like a great story for an animated film, right?

Well, it is. Engagingly directed by Shane Acker (based on his Oscar Nominated 2005 short film), this is one of the most beautifully and intricately animated films I have ever seen. It shows the big studios that animation is not just for kids, and stands a good chance to upset Pixar's 2 year streak on Best Animated Feature.

Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs - 3 stars

I was skeptical going into this one. I loved this book as a kid. And I didn't quite know how they would adapt it into a full narrative film. But I ended up being pleasantly surprised. The film follows Flint Lockwood in the town of Swallow Falls, where food falls from the sky like weather.

You have a well written script with plenty of funny jokes for the kids and adults, and a supremely talented voice cast including Bill Hader, James Caan, Anna Faris and Bruce Campbell. This is the animated film to take the kids to.

Extract - 3.5 stars

Mike Judge returns to the workplace comedy in this very entertaining film with Jason Bateman, Kristen Wiig, Ben Affleck and Mila Kunis. Batman stars a factory owner/manager Joel who goes through a midlife crisis with his unsatisfactory marriage and stressful work environment.

Bateman, as always, delivers. You can't go wrong with Jason Bateman. Same with Kristen Wiig. Affleck is enjoyable as the second fiddle stoner character. But what shines is the same thing that made Judge's 1999 opus Office Space work, it's the ability for the audience to relate to the characters. It's not as tight, and nowhere near as funny as Office Space, but it's still a decent enough flick.

The Informant! - 4 stars

Steven Soderbergh directs Matt Damon, Scott Bakula and Joel McHale in the true* story of corporate whistle blower Mark Whitacre, who exposed the international price fixing scheme of agri-business in the mid-90's.

On the surface, it seems like the male version of Erin Brokovich, and it is. But it's infinitely funnier due in no small part to the understated comedic brilliance of Matt Damon. Damon is routinely proving himself as one of the more versatile actors working today. And he makes the movie. So does Bakula, but I always dig Bakula.

Jennifer's Body - 2 stars

Diablo Cody, fresh of her 2008 Oscar win, pen's this high school horror flick about a teen queen played by Megan Fox who becomes possessed by a she-demon, and it's up to Amanda Seyfried to bring an end to her murderous ways.

I've previously railed against the dreck passed off for modern horror, and this is no different, and couple that with the annoying dialogue of Cody and the talentless Fox, I'm left wondering exactly why this got so much advanced press. I also wonder why Seyfried doesn't have the name recognition she so rightly deserves, as even in this film, she showcases infinitely more talent than Fox could ever hope to have.

Reviews plus Commentary

2009-09-20T13:10:00.000-04:00

I stayed away from writing full reviews for a good reason. I checked the forecast for movies following the great Inglourious Basterds, and it was a slew of crappy romantic comedies, crappy action flicks, and crappy horror flicks. If you saw the trailers, you knew they were destined to suck. September's been kind of a dumping ground that's good for bad films. The only one I had hopes for was Gamer, and as you'll read in a few, that severely underwhelmed.

Halloween II - 1.5 stars - Rob Zombie (hopefully) completes his revisionist view of the saga of Michael Meyers. Not an improvement on the original franchise, or the first of Zombie's remaking. It's style over substance, and lacks style.

The Final Destination in 3D - 0 Stars - I have to give major props to the filmmakers on this one. They found a way to go down hill from rock bottom. The first one was mediocre at best. And it got worse from there. And kept getting worse.

Gamer - 0 stars - Gerard Butler and Michael C. Hall are great actors, but even they can't rise above this drek. The nicest thing I can say about this film is that it's stupid. It's loud. No character or plot development.

All About Steve - 1 star - It has it's charming quirks, but overall it was annoying. The message is forced on you. You're beat over the head with it. Where's that spark that gave Bradley Cooper and Sandra Bullock hits earlier this summer with The Hangover and The Proposal (respectively).

Whiteout - .5 stars - This movie is horrible. The thrills are boring, the acting is terrible. It gains half a star based on the merit of Tom Skerritt.

Sorority Row - 0 stars - It's a completely unoriginal slasher flick devoid of any discernible social relevancy, other than killing off CW's primetime lineup. It's a slasher flick, but it doesn't have a glimmer of the poignancy that it's predecessor's had. It doesn't even try to. It's all about the hot chicks. And about half way through, I kinda stopped caring about the hot chicks.

And that leads me to the commentary portion of the blog. And I will warn you, the language will get a little rough.

What the hell happened to American horror? Right up through the mid-late 90's, American horror was great, and if not great, still good. That's an overall statement. There are of course shitty horror flicks throughout the ages. But there have been great ones. And they run the gamut of sub-genres. But up there, you saw, that of the 4 horror films in the past 3 weeks, the highest rated one was a sequel to a remake (a special level of unoriginality). What we're getting are cheap scares, remakes, sequels or bullshit "Based on a true story" ghost stories. Seriously. If you see "Based on a true story" attached to a horror flick, it's bullshit.

I think it's that the filmmakers aren't trying anymore. They're opting for cheap scares (person jumps around a corner/loud noise across the room/power going out, what have you). They rarely take the time to build the suspense. I find myself bored and annoyed more than I'm truly frightened. And I can't go back and watch the classics that did scare me, because I know them now. They're familiar to me.

Of the best examples of horror from the past 10 years, The Sixth Sense is the only one that was really, really good. Sure, M. Night Shayamalan has turned into a joke at this point, but in 1999, that was a very effective horror film. And it does still hold up. 2009's The Collector Was good. It wasn't great. But it was good. Effective is a good word to use for it.

While I usually hold disdain for the uninspired, cliche ridden borefests that are the remakes, this year's remake of The Last House on The Left actually stayed true to the spirit of the original, and had big brass balls to the important, if highly disturbing, rape scene. It's what set the tone for the film, and without it, couldn't be the catalyst for the ensuing carnage. It's what got the original banned in several countries for years (decades even), and they showed enormous respect for the source material by keeping it in. They kept with the spirit, so I do give it at least some credit for that.

P.S. on that... The Descent was British, as was 28 Days Later..., and we're talking American horror.

The Saw franchise recalls the the 70's/80's hey day of franchising the horror, and bundling it with a pseudo-morality tale of "Value your life." But like the great franchises (Halloween, Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street), the quality decreases exponentially with each subsequent entry. We're on the 6th this coming Halloween, by the way. They still deliver, don't get me wrong. It's just going stale. Still a guilty pleasure though.

But the downfall of American horror is traceable to one event. One day. One movie. One 1 hour and 51 minute piece. It hit the world 13 years ago, and so utterly destroyed the horror genre, that it can only be described as perfection. It's one of my all time favourite films. Created by a horror master. I'm talking, of course, of the last frighteningly exquisite film- Scream.

Wes Craven is a master. Up there with his forefathers in greatness- Hitchcock, Murnau and Romero. He and John Carpenter carried the horror torch through the 70's and 80's, and defined the genre for subsequent generations.

And I think... I think Craven had a Victor Frankenstein moment in the mid-90's. He saw what damage his creature had wrought. Or would bring. He saw the sensibilities of the general mainstream audiences shift. He knew that horror as it was wouldn't last. That it would slowly degrade into terribleness. And rather than become a casualty, he became the perpetrator

Craven felt the best thing to do was go out in a blaze of glory. Enter Scream. It is at all times knowingly ironic, the most meta of meta. I think the term meta only had the vaguest of definitions until Scream arrived. The movie came out and Webster said "That's it. That is fucking meta. Finally. Entry complete. Next word."

Scream was, first and foremost, a satire. And it's quite possibly the perfect parody. All the conventions of horror, specifically of the slasher sub-genre, where what Craven had created. He knew the ins and outs. It was his creation to destroy. But rather than make a silly, goofy, unwatchable Scary Movie, hinthintwinkwink, he played it straight. Craven went all out.

Get a few sorta popular TV stars, Neve Campbell and Courteney Cox, then of "Party of Five" and "Friends," respectively. Add in a few more young, attractive stars with Drew Barrymore, Rose McGowan, Matthew Lillard and Skeet Ulrich. Round it out with David Arquette and Jamie Kennedy for comic relief, and he was on his way.

Again, the only way to do this, was to do it proper. Drew Barrymore's been a star all her life. She was perhaps the biggest star in the film. And was heavily featured in the promotional materials. Craven did the unthinkable. Drew gets gutted 10 minutes in. What follows is an intense hour and a half of the leads discussing horror films, how the plot is playing out like a horror film, what would happen next if it was a horror film, what they would do if it was a horror film. The whole thing is ridiculously self-referential. But not only was it highlighting the cliches, but it was not only playing them out, but tweaking them ever so slightly.

It was still able to deliver on the scares, on the shocks. And you could really see the foresight Craven had for future horror. He went violent and gory, which led to the glut of "torture porn" in the 2000's.

The biggest plus was that while the movie was in on it's own joke, it never gave a wink and a nod. You never got that "See, we know it's a joke, too. Get it?" The movie played it straight. Big plus.

And that's what it did. The movie lived up to the cliches, but deconstructed them at the same time. You couldn't take a horror film seriously after Scream. It's like when a kid takes apart a vacuum cleaner to see what makes it work, and then puts it back together. Sure it works... just not quite the same as before.

And horror hasn't been the same since. There hasn't been a great one since Scream. And I'm waiting for the next great one to come along.

3 Mini-Reviews and 2 full reviews (D9 and the Basterds)

2009-08-31T21:14:00.001-04:00

After sitting with District 9 for too long, and subsequently writing a lot about it, I realized I wouldn't have room for all the reviews I needed to get done. Especially with Inglorious Basterds thrown in the mix (I could write pages on Tarantino. I have, before) So 3 mini-reviews, and the 2 full reviews.

The Time Travelers Wife: 2 stars - competent love story, well acted by the leads (Rachel McAdams and Eric Bana). But falls apart with the application of time travel. Creates too many unresolved paradoxes (paradoxi?).

The Goods: Live Hard, Sell Hard: 2.5 stars - Oh, sure, it's got it's funny moments, beyond what's in the trailer. But it takes a shotgun approach to the humour. Hope something, anything, will stick. Ed Helms shines.

Post Grad: 3 stars - Full of charm. Very topical. Carol Burnett was great, Michael Keaton steals every scene he's in. Alexis Bledel needs to shake "Gilmore Girls".

District 9

5 Stars

What do you get when you cross a compelling character study, race relation politics, and visitors from another world? The perfect sci-fi film. Neill Blomkamp's District 9.

30 years after an alien ship mysteriously appeared over Johannesburg, South Africa, the E.T.s have been quarantined to District 9, a slum area. MNU official Wikus Van De Merwe (Sharlto Copley) has been charged with informing the Prawns (slang term for the aliens) of their forced relocation to District 10, only to unfortunately come in contact with a bio-weapon in the process. So as to not give away any spoilers on the film, I'll just say that this sets off an chain of events that leads to Wikus aiding a Prawn in his attempt to get back to his home world.

I've long lamented that a problem with mainstream science fiction is that it's too much on the comedy/action, not enough on the science or deeper, more probing issues that it could be. And don't get me wrong, I love those kind, too. But the think piece sci-fi's are much more compelling. And unfortunately they're few and far between. This is one of those few times.

While several (good) films do tend to view alien visitors through rose coloured lenses, District 9 takes a much bleaker, more pragmatic view of the visitors. We, humans, round up the aliens, put them in slums, and treat them like second, nay, third class citizens. And it very rightly raises the question of, given today's society and global political spectrum... is that not what we would do? And it's disheartening to think that the answer could very well be yes.

History is littered with this sort of thing. Americans and the blacks. Americans and the Indians. Pretty much WASPs and non-WASPs in America. Apartheid in South Africa. Serbian ethnic cleansing. And of course the Holocaust, the extreme side. Turning this dark side of our history on it's head, and forcing us to look at how we act, which is out of fear, and how we would treat these visitors. And it's scathingly brilliant.

All due credit must go to star Sharlto Copley. The star of the film could have been the script, could have been the effects, could have been the action sequences. But Copley, who astonishingly is starring in his first full length feature, carries the film on his shoulders, and pulls you into his character and you get a connection the likes of which are rarely seen these days. Especially in sci-fi. His transformation from goofy bureaucrat with magnified character flaws to reluctant and sympathetic hero. He plays Wikus straight, the whole way through. There's no wink and nod that this is a sci-fi flick. And to his credit, you forget that there are aliens, due to his commitment to the story and to the character.

And of course, writer/director Neill Blomkamp. His unflinching and uncompromising daring in his desire to make his movie, and leave his stamp on the world. He disregarded the norm and and made this wonderful think piece that taps into the audience's desire to be challenged with something new and fresh, as well as their comfortable familiarity with the conventions of sci-fi/action. He fuses the two together, and walks away with the film of the year.

If you see one film in theatres this year, make it District 9, you won't be disappointed. I will be if it doesn't garner the recognition it so rightly deserves come award season.

Inglourious Basterds

4.5 Stars

It's slick. It's engrossing. It's comical. It's got gratuitous action. It's got engaging dialogue. You're drawn to characters you shouldn't like. And above all else, it's over the top. Yes, Quentin Tarantino has a new film out. And yes, it's every bit as good as one could hope for (though I am a QT fanboy, so there is that).

Tarantino takes his unique vision and style all the way back to World War II, where the Basterds, a small military unit comprised of American Jews led by Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) are embedded in Nazi occupied France, and they do what they do best: Kill Nazis. They get a shot at the big dog himself, Adolf Hitler, when he decides to attend a movie premiere (several high ranking Nazi officials will also be in attendance). Little known fact to all involved, the theatre where the premiere is being held is owned and operated by a French Jew who saw her family slaughtered at the hands of a cold-hearted SS Colonel.

They say history is written by the winners. I'd rather it be written by Tarantino. His revisionist history is way more entertaining and satisfying than what actually happened. No other group of people represent the embodiment of evil more so than the Nazi's. And pop culture pot shots at them are a guilty pleasure of most, whether they're willing to admit it or not. And seeing them get their sweet, bloody, gory, gratuitous comeuppance satisfies the deep, internal, hidden bloodlust we all have.

The Basterds are so cavalier, so nonchalant that what they do, you can't help but laugh, and get a sick glee out of watching them do what they do. Raine comments that they enjoy watching Donny (Eli Roth) beat Nazi's, and there is a pleasure, a satisfaction in watching Lt. Donowitz go to town on a Nazi with a baseball bat.

Tarantino pulls no less than three amazing performances from his actors. First off, Brad Pitt. I've been touting the merits of Pitt for years. He really is quite good. And this exemplifies not only his ability to take on a character, but his comedic timing. While he doesn't have the chameleon-like talents of some of his contemporaries, he does get into his character, and doesn't let himself take over the character. He is a man who understands the craft. And he gives one of his career defining performances.

Melanie Laurent, virtually unknown to American audiences (myself included, I won't be one of those snobs who pretends to be 100% versed in foreign cinema and holds nothing but feigned disdain for American works) gives a heartfelt yet brutal performance as the vengeance seeking Shosanna Dreyfus, a young French-Jewish girl hiding in plain sight who orchestrates a mass killing of the high ranking Nazi's and the societal elite at her theatre. She takes the character template laid down by Uma Thurman in Kill Bill, a woman with laser-like focus on revenge, amplifies it, and pulls you into her own personal struggle.

But the most intriguing character, and the truly most brilliant performance of the year, hands down belongs to German actor Christoph Waltz as SS Col. Hans Landa. Waltz never plays him as over the top evil. Instead, he's cold, calculating, and there's a hint of sarcasm to him. To the character, not the portrayal. Waltz made the right choice in playing it straight. In a film filled with outlandish characters, someone has to be the straight man. And why can't it be a Nazi. You don't like him. You're not sympathetic to him. But you are oddly drawn to him. There hasn't been such an effective villain on film since that other famous Hans. Gruber, of course, from Die Hard. Waltz took the time to understand this character, and gave the performance of the year (up there with the previously mentioned Sharlto Copley in District 9).

No one writes dialogue like Tarantino. It's almost lyrical. You're fully engaged in every scene he writes. Every sentence. Every word. He's not there to waste anyone's time. In WWII revenge flick, you'll go 20-30 minutes in between scenes of action, and that's not really a problem. I sat enraptured by it.

That said, this leads to the one gripe that I had with this film, and it is similar to my frustration with Tarantino's previous cinematic effort, Death Proof. If you remember, in cinemas, Death Proof was one half of the Grindhouse double feature, alongside his figurative brother Robert Rodriguez's Planet Terror. DP showed second, and it really killed the flow. You had all this action with PT, then BAM 30 minutes of dialogue. It messed with the pacing. But I looked over it, knowing that they were two separate films, and I could watch them in whatever order I wanted at home on DVD. But with Inglourious Basterds, he's suffering from pacing problems. He'll hit you with a burst of fun action, then slam the brakes for dialogue. Rise up to the action, and hit the brakes again. It was frustrating. Tarantino, you didn't used to have these problems. Maybe you're slipping in your old age. Who knows?

But this is definitely one of the top films of the year. Thank you August for reaffirming my faith in '09 cinema, after a pretty dismal year, thus far.

The Ugly Truth/Funny People/G.I. Joe/Julie & Julia

2009-08-09T19:32:00.000-04:00

4 Full reviews and 2 brief ones

G-Force - 2 stars - When harmless is a bad thing. Kids may find this enjoyable, and if you find yourself being forced to see it, go the extra mile and see it in 3D.

The Collector - 4 stars - Great horror film that works on two levels. The shock and disgust of violence and gore, and the psychological fear of a cold, calculating unknown, unexplained villain. Reaffirms my faith in modern American horror.

The Ugly Truth

2.5 Stars

What do you get when you combine the cliches of a run of the mill romantic comedy and the bawdy humour of a boy's night out? It's still predictable, it's still mediocre, but you get a few more unexpected laughs than normal.

Katherine Heigl stars as Abby, a romantically challenged TV show producer, forced to hire Gerard Butler's Mike, a self-proclaimed relationship expert due to declining ratings, and the two instantly clash. But when Abby falls for her new neighbour, she seeks Mike's advice for dating the guy, no matter how outlandish they become.

Fun, safe plot, huh? Well, it follows the usual trajectory, most recently seen in The Proposal just one short month ago. You can pretty much tell where it's going to go from watching the trailer. So if you're looking for a safe bet, a sure thing, this is the film to check out.

Heigl is making it really hard for audiences to like her. Off screen she decries the characters offered to women, yet routinely plays to the stereotype on screen. Butler really is the saving grace. Beneath his rugged good looks and action star physique lies a sharp wit and impeccable comedic timing. Think Scottish Brad Pitt.

But despite the funny jokes that will have you roaring with laughter and squirming at the over raunchiness for what you would expect to be a tame romantic comedy, the blending of the two may leave a weird after taste in your mouth. It works to a point, but you're not really sure what kind of movie you just watched. I must refer you to Kevin Smith, the master of meshing frank dialogue with a relationship centric plot.

This one's worth a rent, not a theatrical visit.

Funny People

4.5 Stars

Sure Judd Apatow has his name on just about everything these days. And sure, Seth Rogan is everywhere and it's been easy to take shots at him for being overexposed. And sure, Adam Sandler has seen better days. But that all changes with Funny People.

Sandler plays George Simmons, a fictional version of himself, an actor/comedian who learns he has a rare form of lukemia, and decides to take Ira Wright (Seth Rogan) under his wing, and the two together re-evaluate George's life.

The thing about Judd Apatow is that he has this ability to create characters he really cares about, and subsequently you really care about, and also make them really funny.

Adam Sandler finally finds that balance he's been searching for in recent years between his comedic goofy persona and his serious work. You get a man who is faced with his own mortality, and is still able to crack jokes about it. And that is what still appeals to the everyman in the audience.

The only real gripe I have about this movie is that it is overly long and does drag at points. It feels like two films about the same thing. The first part is about a man dealing with his potential death, the second part is him reconciling with a former love. It could have been two movies had they done a little more with each. But each story was shortened and put into one film, causing it to drag a bit.

It's still one of the best films of the year, and not one to be missed.

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra

.5 Stars

I said I'd give this film 5 stars if there was a PSA at the end. That was a joke. And there wasn't. Good news is that there's still a 5 star review for it. But as you can see, there's a decimal point and nothing else in front of the 5. And that half a star is being generous.

After a failed mission to protect a highly volatile new warhead, Duke and Ripcord meet up with the covert-ops squad G.I. Joe (Global Integrated Joint Operating Entity) to recover the warhead, and stop a megalomaniacal arms manufacturer from causing chaos in the world.

I guess I should start with a positive thing or two about the film. Brendan Fraser's brief cameo as who I can only assume is Beach-Head (possibly Sgt. Slaughter, but why not cast Sgt. Slaughter?) was a lot of fun, cause he's in, he's out, and it was kinda cool. I enjoyed Sienna Miller's portrayal of the Baroness... to a point, possibly more on that later. Dennis Quaid was great as General Hawk. And then there was... umm....well... there was, wait no.... ok, I got nothing else.

Otherwise, holy crap what a tragedy! What an insult. At least the first Transformers film had respect for the source material. It seems director Stephen Sommers and his team of 6 writers (Sommers being one of them) got a character list and said "We'll do whatever we want." The comedy was ill timed, the characters were all over the place, and it just wasn't G.I. Joe.

Since I am advising that you don't even bother wasting your time with this, I am going to get into some spoilers. If you feel that you must endure this travesty of a film, then skip on down to the Julie & Julia review. What the hell was with The Baroness and Cobra Commander being brother and sister? What was with The Baroness and Duke having a romantic past? They couldn't have possibly done a worse job with the Baroness (again, Miller's portrayal was fine, and the problems I have with the character are purely the fault of the writers). They were setting up the film for potential sequels. But The Baroness is historically such a phenomenal villain, and they destroyed all that. How can she go back to being a villain after her realization that she wasn't under her own control?

The action and special effects weren't pulse pounding. They weren't edge of your seat. They were slouch in your seat out of boredom, laughably bad. I was bored by the climactic chase sequence through the streets of Paris. You know what it reminded me of? Team America: World Police. In fact, this whole film was a psuedo-serious Team America that wasn't in on the joke.

If you liked the show, if you liked the animated film, if you liked the action figures, don't see this film. It will ruin your childhood. Even though Shia LaBeouf isn't in it.

Julie & Julia

3.5 Stars

I recognize Meryl Streep as a great actress. She is. She's phenomenal. I never got all "OMG! BEST ACTRESS EVER! I HEART MERYL STREEP!" But, yeah, I dig her work. And this, Julie & Julia, is some of her best, funniest work, and it doesn't hurt that she has the great Amy Adams as her foil, and the equally great Stanley Tucci supporting her.

Julie & Julia is the tale of two true stories. Julia Child's (Streep) as she masters the art of French cooking and attempts to make it accessable to American cooks, and Julie Powell's (Adams) as she cooks her way through Child's book in a year and blogs about it.

This is two great movies. Combined for one, it's kind of a mess. It tries to correlate the parallels between Powell and Child, and what they discover on their respective journeys, jumping back and forth between the two stories. But it spends too much time on each. Just as you're getting into the story, writer/director Nora Ephron violently pulls you away and thrusts you into the other one. And back and forth like that for two hours. I'm digging each story equally, but I'm also pissed off that I can't fully follow them.

But the ADD like flip flopping aside, it is such a funny script. Streep is hilarious and Adams holds her own against the insurmountable force that is Streep. It never feels like they're reaching for a joke. The comedy comes naturally, from these two women and their experiences and their characters. And it's that humour that holds your attention through the film. And because of that humour, you're with the characters when they do hit the serious points. You're with them the whole way through. It's great.

This is a film that everybody can enjoy. Fellas, skip the G.I. Joe this weekend, take your lady to Julie & Julia, you'll thank me for it later.

John Hughes: 1950-2009

2009-08-06T21:26:00.003-04:00

As you may have heard, the world of cinema lost a great man today. A man who guided us through high school. He taught us that we were all the brain, the athlete, the basketcase, the princess and the criminal. He taught us that life moves fast, and that if we don't stop and look around, we could miss it. That we'll have a great vacation if it kills us. That being home alone would actually be kinda cool. For all the great movies. For all the great laughs. For all the great times. John Hughes I salute, you. Shermer, Illinois just got a little less sunny.

I put together a tribute to him, it's going on the air tomorrow. Click here for the tribute. Stay tuned to the end.

5 Mini Reviews to play catch up

2009-07-23T20:16:00.004-04:00

Still struggling with the computer problems that plague me and put me out of commission for weeks on end. But I'm kosher for now. Here's 5 reviews to play catch up.

Public Enemies - Starring Johnny Depp, Christian Bale, Billy Crudup and Marion Cotillard. Dir. Michael Mann. If there's one thing Michael Mann knows how to do, it's how to put together a phenomenal cast and craft an amazing crime drama. And with Public Enemies, Mann ventures into period piece to evoke some dynamic performances from Depp and Bale. It may not be their best work, but when you're two of the finest actors working, even when you're not at your best, you're still a cut above the rest. 4 stars

Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs - Starring the voices of Denis Leary, John Leguizamo, Ray Romano and Queen Latifah. Sure it's a cute movie. And has enough chuckles to sustain you through the picture. And of course the kids are gonna like it. Adults aren't going to be completely bored by it. But, I'm still not entirely sure why the film was necessary. On the pure economic level, yeah, sure, I get it. Make more money with the proven formula. But, storywise... didn't we say all we had to say with the first one? 3 stars (it got bonus points for at least keeping my interest)

I Love You Beth Cooper - Starring Hayden Panettiere, Paul Rust and Alan Ruck. So it isn't the generation defining teen movie that Superbad was a few years ago, Dazed and Confused was before that, and so on and so forth. It's more like the She's All That's or the Pretty in Pink's. It's the second string of teen flicks. Still good, still passable, but ultimately forgettable. Plus, it's got Alan Ruck. 3 stars

Bruno - Starring Sacha Baron Cohen. Everything that made Borat great three years ago is everything that Bruno is not. It lacks the punch, the wit, and the surprise. It trades all that in for shock and disgust. Granted Bruno was always the weaker of Cohen's three characters (the third being Ali G). It has a few scenes of interest (auditioning babies for a photo shoot, shows what lengths parents are willing to go to get their baby famous, regardless of how over the top the photo may be), but those are way too few, and even further between. 1.5 stars

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - Starring Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Michael Gambon and Alan Rickman. Harry Potter 6 really catches the wonderous magic, and the dark places I'm told the book goes, and still makes it accessible to people who haven't read the books, like me. It doesn't feel like a two and a half hour movie. But the ending left a little something to be desired. The film fell into the Lord of the Rings trap, where the ending became a set up for the next movie. But still definitely worth a viewing in the theatre. 3.5 stars

----------------
Now playing: The Clash - Bankrobber
via FoxyTunes

3 Reviews

2009-07-07T21:55:00.000-04:00

With everything that happened over the past week, reviews for The Proposal and Year One slipped through the cracks. I blame Michael Jackson.

Also... I wrote these like a week ago, except for My Sister's Keeper, I didn't have that one done yet. And I don't feel like writing a full review... So 3 stars to the movie. Trite and contrived, but a well acted weeper.

The Proposal

3 Stars

I'm not one for the standard fair of romantic comedies. And as far as romantic comedies go, they don't get much more standard than when they star Sandra Bullock. But add in the smart mouth of Ryan Reynolds, and you get a pretty enjoyable flick.

Sandra Bullock (Speed, Crash) stars as overbearing NYC book editor Margaret Tate who finds out she's being deported back to Canada for failing to file her visa application on time. Enter Ryan Reynolds (Waiting..., X-Men Origins: Wolverine) as Andrew Paxton her much put-upon assistant. If they get married, she gets to stay in America and keep her job. She bribes him with a promotion to get him to along with it, but in order to fool the INS agent assigned to their case, she must spend the weekend with him and his family in Alaska. It follows a pretty cliched trajectory from start to finish. But adding in Betty White provides some good laughs.

Sandra Bullock gives a passable performance as Tate, but what's more intriguing is that she's playing her roles to herself. Rather than being an older actress trying to recapture her youthful glory days, she's adapting her roles to play to her current strengths. And while there is nothing spectacular about her role or performance, her adaptability to the situation is admirable. But I would like to see her do more non-rom/com flicks. I think that era of her career has passed.

But the saving grace of the film is clearly Ryan Reynolds. Rather than playing the male lead as a nervous, submissive underling to the overbearing female lead, he kept up the pace and fired back at her just as much as she fired at him. He got in his own fair share of quips and barbs, and made sure the bribe wasn't completely one sided. And he's just one of those actors I can'tfigure out. He can do action, horror, comedy, romantic comedy and drama, all very well, and all with a knowing smirk on his face.

But when all is said and done, the performances couldn't outshine the drab, cliche ridden plot. I don't think it really constitutes a spoiler if I say that they end up falling in love in the end. If you go into the film not expecting that, then clearly you've never seen a Sandra Bullock film before. I'm not saying I would have preferred an Shyamalan inspired twist ending. But... I saw it coming a mile away. Take a cue from The Break-Up, sometimes... people don't fall in love.

Year One

1 star

Harold Ramis. Jack Black. Michael Cera. Hank Azaria. Paul Rudd. David Cross. Christopher Mintz-Plaase. Oliver Platt. Vinnie Jones. Bill Hader Oliver Platt. HOW the hell could you fail with a line-up like that? By making a disjointed mess of a film, that's how.

Black (Tropic Thunder, Tenacious D) and Cera (Arrested Development, Superbad) star as Zed and Oh, two hunter/gatherers who are banished from their tribe and must make a life for their own in new villages. After meeting up with Cain and Abel, their former village is pillaged by Romans, and the loves of their lives are sold into slavery. They begin an epic quest to free them from their lives of servitude.

As this is a comedy flick, I tried to overlook the anachronistic mixing of "cave people" and the Roman Empire. Still trying. Still failing. The film is an attempt to harken back to the days of Monty Python's The Life Of Brian or Mel Brooks' History of the World: Part I, but it fails miserably. It's like watching a bunch of comedy sketches strung loosely together by a flimsy overall plot arc.

As a fan of Cross' days on "Mr. Show" and Black's on "Tenacious D", I do in fact find certain scenes funny. But a few funny scenes does not make a funny movie. Or, clearly, a coherent one.

Everybody involved just seemed to phone this one in. No one really tried. Like, someone said "We've got these set pieces, and this script, and these costumes. You guys busy?" And everybody else just responded with "Well... I am bored enough." This was a paycheck film. I can't think of any other reason for this movie existing.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

2 stars

You never really go into a Michael Bay flick expecting plot. Hot chicks, big explosions... that's about it. And when the movie is space robots fighting other space robots, you shouldn't expect much, regardless of who directs. But still, there was something lacking.

The movie picks up a year after the first one, Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf) is off to college on the east coast, for some reason leaving eye candy girlfriend Mikaela Barnes (Megan Fox)back in LA. Unfortunately for Sam, after coming into contact with a broken piece of the All Spark (source of power for the Transformers), an ancient script detailing the origins of the metallic species gets implanted in his head. Now the Decepticons, led by the recently resurrected Megatron, want Sam so they can reclaim their former glory and take over Earth.

Here's the thing, Mr. Bay, can I call you Michael? Here's the thing, Michael... kick ass action scenes can only take you so far. I gave Bad Boys, The Rock, Armageddon, The Island and Transformers a pass because the action was good, and there was just enough plot to not completely suck. And in case you or anyone else out there is wondering, I do realize I left Pearl Harbor off the list. That film was basically Titanic Goes Hawaiian. And to quote Kevin Smith, "Really? Must we go tropical?"

But Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen? It was an alternating cycle of stuff blowing up, Megan Fox wearing something tight, and Megan Fox wearing something tight while running away from stuff blowing up. And I don't mind that. I'm a 23 year old guy. That stuff is fine. But not for two and a half hours. I like White Castle sliders, but even I think the box of 30 is too much. Put some in the fridge. Heat them up for later.

I felt bored by the film. It was tragic. I didn't walk away wanting two and a half hours back, but I did wonder why they were charging full price for essentially half a film. They left the plot on the cutting room floor. I took solace in the fact I didn't pay.

----------------
Now playing: Tito & Tarantula - Strange Face of Love
via FoxyTunes

BIG NEWS FROM THE ACADEMY!

2009-06-24T18:27:00.003-04:00

BRODIE FANNS!

Big news from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences: Starting next year at the 82nd Academy Awards Ceremony, they will now have 10 nominees for Best Picture, instead of five. Click the link for the full press release.

This means that while they'll still nominate films that really have no reason being on the list (*ahem* The Reader), films that should be there (The Dark Knight, WALL-E) also now have a shot.

- Brodie Mann

Top 100 Revisited

2009-06-23T20:29:00.002-04:00

Brodie Fanns!

It's been about a year and a half since I did my top 100 of all time list. And I felt it time to revisit it for a few additions and revisions.

Now... in the midst of compiling the list, I neglected Closer, and slipped it into the 30's, pushing everything back one spot, bumping The Longest Day out of the top 100 (much to the chagrin of my dear old dad).

Since then, I've felt compelled to move a film up (it was criminally low, despite it's strong showing in the Top 20), and make three additions.

So... the first addition was Zodiac to #79, between North by Northwest now at #80, and Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, at #77, and bumping Kill Bill: The Whole Bloody Affair out of the top 100.

Since the remaining changes affect only the top 20, I'll post that list. Changes in red

1 - The Godfather
2 - Pulp Fiction
3 - It's A Wonderful Life
4 - Sin City
5 - Donnie Darko
6 - Dazed and Confused
7 - The Godfather II
8 - Nosferatu
9 - Rear Window
10- Jaws
11- Shawshank Redemption
12- Beauty and the Beast
13- The Dark Knight
14- Casablanca
15- Clerks
16- Requiem for a Dream
17- American History X
18- WALL-E
19- Citizen Kane
20- Ocean's 11 (2001)

Now, the first change is I moved Dazed and Confused to #6, bumping The Shawshank Redemption out of the top 10. I did some reflection, and considering all that the film really does mean to me, I had to bump it up.

The second changes came with the addition of last year's The Dark Knight and WALL-E. The Dark Knight, no matter how you look at it, is one of the most finely crafted films of all time. With some of the finest performances put to film. But since this is a list of my FAVOURITE films, it didn't pull higher rank, because I also added personal connection to films. And WALL-E, just a beautiful film. I stare in awe at what they can do.

They bumped Die Hard and Fight Club out of the Top 20, Young Frankenstein and The Big Lebowski out of the Top 50, and Chinatown and Halloween out of the top 100, placing The Dirty Dozen at #100.

I would like you to keep in mind, that while this has altered, these are all 5 star films in my book. Hell, you'd probably have to go all the way to the bottom 100's (nearing 200) before we hit 4.5 star films. Based on the sheer amount of films I have seen in my life. So far I have seen 42 different films in theatres this year alone (actually it's closer to 50, when I add the award season '08 releases I had to wait till Jan/Feb to see). So yeah... there's that.

You can flip to my archives in Dec. 07/Jan. 08 to see the full list as originally posted. For those reading this on FaceBook, go to www.brodiemanfilm.blogpsot.com.

Peace out, honkies!

Top Films of 2009

2009-06-22T10:40:00.000-04:00

So I figure that now that we're at the half-way point of the year, I'd do a catch up, the Top 20 films of 2009 so far. In doing so, I came to a realization. 2009 has been a down year for movies. Maybe we're finally dealing with the ramifications of the 2007/08 WGA Strike. Or maybe it's just taking a while to get going. The second half of the year looks good though, with (all links go to trailers) Zombieland, Public Enemies, Inglorious Basterds, Funny People, District 9, Where The Wild Things Are, Avatar (no trailer available) and Sherlock Holmes.

All titles are links to clips/trailers

1)Star Trek
2)Watchmen
3)Up
4)Taken
5)The Hangover
6)Drag Me To Hell
7)Terminator Salvation
8)I Love You Man
9)State of Play
10)Night At The Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian
11)X-Men Origins: Wolverine
12)The Last House on the Left
13)Duplicity
14)Monsters vs. Aliens
15)Sunshine Cleaning
16)Push
17)The International
18)Race To Witch Mountain
19)The Proposal
20)He's Just Not That Into You

Imagine That/The Taking of Pelham 123

2009-06-14T15:19:00.003-04:00

Imagine That

.5 Star

What happened to you Eddie? You used to be hilarious. There's proof all over the internet of this. But even Beverly Hills Cop III was better than this. I'd like to call it a family friendly comedy, but I wouldn't subject my family to this. I just wouldn't. There's not even a fun message in the film. It's just bad.

Eddie Murphy stars as Evan Danielson, a high powered stock broker in Denver, who is constantly butting heads with his equally high powered colleague, Whitefeather (Thomas Haden Church). In fact he's so focused on his job, that he's neglecting his daughter, Olivia (Yara Shahidi). But once her imaginary friends start predicting booms and falls in the stock market, he learns to connect with his daughter, and let his inner child out.

Yes, that is the plot synopsis I am going with. Eddie Murphy needs to step away from movies for a bit. Stick with Shrek, you're doing good with the voice over work. But go the Bill Murray route, take a few years off, return with some edgy, indie comedies. Or do what Chevy Chase and Dan Aykroyd are doing, stepping out of the starring roles, and showing up in delightful cameos. But stop with the family friendly crap. It's not working.

Murphy aside... the film was still pretty terrible. We're never really keyed into why the imaginary princesses in Olivia's fantasy world know so much about the NYSE. And how they're able to predict mergers, acquisitions and what not. Maybe we're not supposed to know, but if we're not, that's a really terrible plot device. The message they're trying to convey is to spend time with your kids. That much is clear. You could gather that from the trailer. But they waste and hour and a half trying spell it out for you in the must ridiculous and not-hilarious way possible.

This film does however get a point for the antics of Thomas Haden Church (Sideways, "Wings"). He steals every scene he's in, and actually makes something comical out of the drivel he's been given.

But I leave you with this, a reminder of when Eddie Murphy was funny:

The Taking of Pelham 123

2.5 stars

While there's nothing particularly terrible about this new action/thriller from Tony Scott, Denzel Washington and John Travolta, there really isn't anything particularly great about it either. It just kind of coasts by on the charisma of the two leads, and let's them have an interesting conversation for a little over an hour.

New York City Transit dispatcher Walter Garber (Denzel Washington) is settling in for a normal day. Until the Pelham 123 line is stopped and seperated, followed by an announcement from the hijacker known only as Ryder (John Travolta) that NYC has just one hour to get him $10 million or he starts killing hostages. It's a race against the clock for Garber to save the lives of everyone on that train.

John Travolta has done some of his best work as a villain (Broken Arrow, Face/Off, Pulp Fiction). And this is no different. There's something about seeing this usual nice guy be bad. And he notches up a great performance opposite the always likeable Washington (Man on Fire, Inside Man).

Unfortunately, that's when this movie actually gets good, when these two are talking over the radio communications. It starts off kind of slow and disjointed, but once we get into the rythym of the Travolta/Washington conversations is where the movie starts to heat up. You get this wonderful exchange that pulls you in. They start exposing each others weaknesses, playing on certain personal faults. It culminates in a thrilling showdown in the third act.

But, the movie can't coast on their charm alone, and no matter how good their exchange is, the mediocrity of the rest of the movie does not go unnoticed.

Go see it for Washington/Travolta, but if that doesn't motivate you to get to the theatre, then definitely check it out in a few months on the rental shelves.

Six Reviews in Twelve-ish Paragraphs

2009-06-07T15:55:00.004-04:00

I've got mini reviews for Terminator: Salvation, Night At The Museum II: Battle of the Smithsonian, Up, Drag Me to Hell, Land of the Lost, and The Hangover. So let's jump right in, shall we?

Terminator: Salvation

3.5 Stars

It's a franchise that has a longstanding place in the cannon of sci-fi/action. And McG decides to explore the future-history of Judgement day, focusing more on the action, less on the sci-fi. What made the first two so groundbreaking is that they dealt heavily with the consequences of technological evolutions, as well as the intricacies of time travel. Here we get a war movie, only instead of Allied troops vs. Nazis, it's the Resistance vs. Robots. But I will give them this, the action was top notch and pulse pounding. And there is a great visual referance to The Great Escape, to more or less drive home the "war-action" point.

Christian Bale turns in a great performance, which are starting to become the standard for him. You also get interesting turns from Bryce Dallas Howard (Spider-Man 3, The Village) and Anton Yelchin (Alpha Dog, Star Trek). I would have actually liked to see more of Anton as Kyle Reese in the movie. But the true powerhouse of the film was Sam Worthington (finally beign introduced to American audiences) as unaware Terminator Marcus Wright. Arguably the best scene in the film goes to him, when he finds out he's not human. See the film for the action, and Worthington's performance, but Terminator purists will be disappointed.

Night at the Museum II: Battle of the Smithsonian

3.5 Stars

If you enjoyed the first one, you'll definitely enjoy the second one. A bunch of very funny actors collaborate (and that's the key word, they all collaborate) to bring historic characters to life in a very hilarious manner. Amy Adams shines by holding her own in a verible boys club of comedic actors, that includes Ben Stiller, Owen Wilson, Steve Coogan, Robin Williams, Christopher Guest, Ricky Gervais, Bill Hader and Hank Azaria.

Unfortunately with all that does go on in the film, it is a bit scattered, and there's a chaotic element to it that drags it down. But the film pulls out of the muddled mess to bring it home with a great third act. Definitely one to check out.

Up

5 stars

Pixar continues their hot streak. They're now 10 for 10 (gonna go 11 for 11 next year with Toy Story 3). Where other animation houses (Dreamworks, Sony, even Pixar's parent Disney) are more interested in being goofy, and making sure they can do product tie-ins, Pixar is ambitious. They want to tell a wonderful, emotional story, and present some of the most beautiful pieces of animation out there. And they do it. I will admit to getting a little misty eyed during Up. And no, not at the end. Within the first 10 minutes.

Ed Asner is pitch perfect as the curmodgeony Carl Frederickson. He's lived in the same house for fifty years, and wants to honour his recently deceased wife by going on an adventure to South America, and takes the house along with him. It's my second favourite Pixar film (behind Wall-E) and third favourite animated film (behind Beauty and the Beast and Wall-E).

Drag Me To Hell

4 stars

One thing director Sam Raimi knows is horror. He can scare the crap out of you, and make you laugh in the same scene. And with Drag Me To Hell, he returns to his Evil Dead/Army of Darkness roots. Not a scare is wasted in this tale of revenge and gypsy curses. It's helped by the great performance of Alison Lohman in the principle role.

It does get admittedly cheesey at parts, but it's hard to really call that a fault, since that's Raimi's style. And luckily for the audience, we're given a completely satisfying ending. This is light-years beyond the normal drivel that passes for horror these days.

Land of the Lost

2.5 stars

It's hard to figure out what they wanted to do with this film. Keep true to the spirit of the original show, or make a Will Ferrell movie (that also features the hilarious Danny McBride, currently batting a thousand). Unfortunately, they said 'Screw it!' and did both. And it just doesn't work. It's much more risque than I had expected. Not that I'm a prude or anything, far from it, I just expected a nice family film.

But, in taking it as what it is, it still offers up some good laughs, and keeps in the cheesey spirit of the show. Danny McBride is, as stated earlier, hilarious. His interactions with Cha-Ka provide for some of the best scenes. And Anna Friel provides a good balance to the macho humour of the two leads.

The Hangover

4 stars

In the grand tradition of Bachelor Party and Very Bad Things, we get a guys night out that goes horribly hay-wire, with hilarious consequences. What's great is that we never see the night of debauchery. We're left to piece together the night along with groomsmen, who are trying to locate the now missing groom. It's full of raunch and ridiculous shenanigans, but anybody who's taken part in a bachelor party (be it in Vegas or not) can relate to something these four do.

Bradley Cooper is funny, and, with his performance, reminds us to ask the question, "Why isn't he a bigger star?" Comedian Zach Galafianakis finally gets the credit he is due with a starring role in this dark comedy. Definitley the comedy of the year, and for the first time in four years, it doesn't feature Seth Rogan.

The Hannah Montana/Fight Club Theory

2009-05-17T20:14:00.002-04:00

This post includes in depth discussions of the plots for both Fight Club and Hannah Montana. Spoiler Alert would be an understatement. If you haven't seen them yet, and subsequently don't want them ruined for you, I recommend you don't read this. Otherwise... enjoy.

Now, Fight Club is one of my all time, top 20 favourite movies. It was #20. It's a film about a great many things, tackling a great many topics. White rage. Male aggression. Yuppie backlash. But ultimately, it's about Multiple Personality Disorder. At least, for the purpose of this post, that's what it's about.

Edward Norton's character, which had no name, but we'll refer to as Jack from here on out, was an unhappy, bored, single, young urban professional. He wasn't all that impressive. Jack suffered from insomnia, which led him to seek comfort in the misfortune of others by attending support groups for various diseases.

In his mind, he creates the perfect vision of the man he wishes he could be, in Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt). Tyler even goes so far as to say to Jack - "All the ways you wish you could be, that's me. I look like you wanna look, I f**k like you wanna f**k, I am smart, capable, and most importantly, I am free in all the ways that you are not."

Jack didn't like his life, so he created another one.

Hannah Montana does not exist. She is not a real person. She is a fabrication of Miley Stewart's (Miley Cyrus) mind so she can effectively have a career as a pop star (Hannah) and have a normal life as a normal teenage girl (Miley).

Miley is a normal, teenage girl from small town Tennessee. She's nervous about the normal teenage girl things. Going to the dance. Learning to drive. Puberty. Being popular. The new Justin Timberlake album. Her friends. Does the cute football player like her? Normal teenage girl stuff.

Hannah is one of the biggest popstars in the world. Thousands upon thousands of people adore her. Stores and boutiques are falling over themselves to have her shop at their store. Celebrities want to hang out with her. She's confident.

All the ways Miley wishes she could be, that's Hannah. She looks like she wants to look, she acts like she wants to act. She is smart, capable, and most importantly, Hanna is free in all the ways that Miley is not.

When Tyler and Jack are together, only one is addressed by a third party. Only one interacts with said third party.

When Miley is Hannah, she is addressed as Hannah. When she is Miley, she is addressed as Miley.

The primary difference is that the people in Miley's life are enablers. For Jack, no one knew about his delusions. They figured there was something going on, but they didn't know. For Miley, they not only know, but they play along.

Miley is a lonely little girl with delusions of grandeur. Jack was a lonely man with delusions of grandeur.

Hannah is Tyler. Miley is Jack.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine/Star Trek/Angels & Demons

2009-05-17T13:10:00.003-04:00

So about 3 weeks ago, my computer decided to take a crap and stop working. I had to completely reformat to get it up and running again. So here are 3 full reviews, plus a few mini-reviews.

Sunshine Cleaning - 3 stars - A solid dark comedy, but doesn't live up to it's stylistic predecessor, Little Miss Sunshine.
Obsessed - 0 Stars - There is nothing to like about this film... not even Idris Elba.
17 Again- 2.5 Stars - It was fun to watch Zac Efron be Matthew Perry for an hour and a half.
Ghosts of Girlfriends Past - 1.5 Stars - It's the same as every other Matthew McConaughey movie, only this time it's Dickens-ian. So it still sucks.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine

3 Stars

He's a comic book character who is third only to Batman and Superman in popularity, yet has one of the most storied and intriguing backgrounds. Yet the film falls into the same traps that the source comics fell, too... good story, but poor storytelling. To fully and properly tell his story, you'd have to do at least two films, with this one being the second.

James Howlett/Logan/Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) is a child of privilege in the early 19th century Canada. After witnessing the murder of the man he believed to be his father, and subsequently revenge killing his real father, he and his now half brother Victor Creed/Sabertooth (Liev Schrieber) embark on a Gump-ian journey through time. Participating in every major war through Vietnam, before being executed and then brought into the Weapon X program. Wolverine then turns on his superiors, going rogue to regain and hold onto his humanity.

Jackman (X-Men, The Prestige) returns to the role that made him famous. But it's also a role that he made. The issue with many comic book characters is that they work entirely outside of the real world. Jackman brought that character into the real world for us in the previous X-Men films. This film would not have worked without Jackman. It is his character, and he of course does a fantastic job.

Schrieber (The Manchurian Candidate, Scream 2) is, in turn, a perfect foil in Victor to Jackman's Logan. The humanity in Logan doesn't exist in Victor. Victor is pure animal instinct, and Schrieber encapsulates that perfectly.

It all falls apart with the decent, yet ultimately forgettable turns from the supporting cast. Don't get me wrong, they were good. And did add to the story. But the story was all Logan/Victor/Stryker (Danny Houston). You could have swapped out Bolt, The Blob, Deadpool and Gambit for just about anyone else in the Marvel cannon, and no one would have noticed. The movie would have been very similar. But they had to set up Deadpool for Ryan Reynolds ( Waiting..., Blade: Trinity) who did a good job. And they did have to include Gambit, finally. But really, it was all incidental.

Gavin Hood, you're a competent enough director. I liked Tsotsi. But you either didn't understand the material... Or you just didn't care enough. This seemed like a throw away project for you. The fight scenes and special effects were cool, but that was how it was with Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace. And we all know how that turned out.

All I'm saying is that this movie was good, and it should have been better. After Iron Man, The Dark Knight and Watchmen, you really have to step up your game when handling comic book franchises.

Star Trek

5 Stars

J.J. Abrams made it very clear that this was "not your father's Star Trek," and it isn't. While maintaining the spirit of one of the longest running franchises in Sci-Fi fantasy, it gives it a face-lift, and brings it into the modern era.

We follow Kirk (Chris Pine), Spock (Zachary Quinto), McCoy (Karl Urban) and Uhura (Zoe Saldana) in their early days at Starfleet Academy, and their early clashes. But when Romulan Commander Nero (Eric Bana) threatens planet Vulcan, Starfleet snaps into action to ward off this enemy that haunts Kirk's past and, through time warps, Spock's future. This young, unruly band must come together when Cpt. Pike (Bruce Greenwood) of the U.S.S. Enterprise is taken captive by Nero. Not only are we treated to some first class action, but also to the great political subtext we've come to know and love in the Star Trek franchise.

The Star Trek brand, and indeed the original cast of characters, are such cultural icons that it at first seems sacreligious to even attempt a recreation. But where several flim makers have ultimately failed, J.J. Abrams in recognizing the origins of the franchise, taking things in his own direction, but all the while never insulting the original, has succeeded. You sometimes get adaptations of beloved TV shows, and they clearly had no idea what the original was about, and it comes off as insulting to the spirit of the original. But Abrams knows his roots. He himself is a geek, and stepped carefully to create a great film that fit into the original story, but was clearly it's own entity.

Try and follow this if you will, and you'll see what Abrams was up against- To stay true the original blueprint of the series, Abrams had to refer to the 1966 version of the future, even though 2009 version of the future is now vastly different (especially considering all the technological advancements made since, you know, like man on the moon), than the 1966 version. So in order to present the current future, he had to use the past future, and update it to the present. All the while creating his own versions of classic characters.

Much could be said about the interaction of the two Spocks (Quinto/Leonard Nimoy), and don't worry, I'll get to that. But first, I want to talk Chris Pine (Bottle Shock, Smokin' Aces), the relative unknown who had to step into William Shatner's shoes. Say what you will about Shatner, Kirk wouldn't have been nearly as great without Shatner back in the 60's. So Pine had the daunting task of playing this icon, without reducing it to a charicature. Pine did the best thing he could do: forget the original. He created a whole new Kirk. And his Kirk is the cocky, reckless, rebelious, reluctant hero he should be. And he beds the green chick. Hat's off to you, Pine. Admirably performed.

Quinto ("Heroes'" Sylar) makes his feature film debut, also tackling an iconic character. But Pine had it easy compared to Quinto. Quinto has to be in the movie with the original Spock, Leonard Nimoy. Quinto had to follow the rigidity of the character, but was able to take a few more liberties with the character, given the Vulcan's relatively young age. And you'll geek out when young and old Spocks share a scene.

Everybody else in the cast was perfect as the young counterparts to the originals. And the only one who I really had any reservations about, John Cho (Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle) as Sulu, far surpassed what I could have hoped for the character.

I like the new direction Abrams is taking the franchise. He's mixing bombastic action and special effects with the global policitically aware writing of the franchise. If this is just the start of it, I can't wait to see where they take it. Count me in.

Angels & Demons

2.5 Stars

Well... it's better than The Da Vinci Code, but Angels & Demons suffers from a lot of the same pitfalls its predecessor did. Too much story trying to fit into too little time. An over the top religious conspiracy. A theme loftier than the movie generally warrants. Having been written by Dan Brown.

Harvard Symbologist (if that were a real thing, I'd care if it was spelled right) Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) is called to the Vatican after the death of the Pope and the kidnapping of the four primary Cardinal nominees to become the new Pope. One of CERN's top scientists, Vittoria Vetra, is also called in on the case as the group behind the kidnappings, claiming to be the long secret society "Iluminati," had stolen a canister of anti-matter to use to blow up the Vatican if their demands are not met. It's a race against the clock to save the Cardinals, stop the bomb and solve the mystery before midnight.

Unfortunately it's not as pulse pounding as it wants to be. The end result is as human and fallible as anything, without the mythos and mystery that accompanied The Da Vinci Code. On the flipside, director Ron Howard created a tighter film, less convoluted film than the first. I've viewed the Langdon character as somewhat of a descendent of Indiana Jones (the similarities are there), and I'm more than happy to let him live in the realm where these conspiracies are true. They should have kept some of that in, instead of building it up, then tossing it aside with a "the bad guy lied" explanation. As long as the Vatican doesn't turn into a UFO at the end, I'm happy.

The presentation of science vs. religion is a) handled poorly and b) a little too big for the film. This is a popcorn flick. Don't go existential on me if you're not going to follow through with it. They kind of half assed their way through it.

Hanks abely plays Langdon, but honestly, and this goes back to the first film, too, I don't think he's really right for the role. I'm thinking more Jeff Goldblum or David Duchovney. My friend Jenny even mentioned Bill Pullman. But Hanks just doesn't click right with me on this role. He's not bad. It's just a bit off.

If you really must go see it, and really want to, then yeah, I guess I can recommend it. But this one is worth a rent. Maybe a viewing on ON-Demand.

Oh and one more thing... They say that if you lock up 500 monkeys in a room for 500 years with typewriters, they'll eventually write Shakespeare. If you lock up about four, over a weekend, with grocery bag apiece full of cheesy bean and rice burritos from the Taco Bell value menu... they'll crap out Dan Brown's next book. I just wanted to point out that Dan Brown is a terrible writer.

Hannah Montana/Observe and Report plus others

2009-04-19T10:52:00.002-04:00

First a recap of some I didn't write full reviews of...

Fast & Furious- 2.5 stars - Not terrible... but really... what's the point?
Monsters vs. Aliens - 3.5 stars - Entertaining little film, definitely worth a look see in 3D
I Love You Man - 4 stars - Not as fall down hilarious as similar flicks, but has a million miles of heart
Adventureland- 3 stars- Didn't know what genre it wanted to be... coming of age teen drama, or goofy comedy
Duplicity- 3.5 stars- Good old fashioned romp, but ultimately got too smart for its own good.
Race To Witch Mountain - 3 stars - Enjoyable family flick that gets by on the natural charisma of Dwayne Johnson
12 Rounds - 1 star - As Joel put it, Die Hard: With a Vengeance, without the witty banter.
Last House on the Left - 3.5 stars - Brutally intense, keeps the spirit of the original.

AND Now... the meat of it...

Hannah Montana: The Movie

3 Stars

Some of you may be saying "You're a hard drinkin, hard fightin', smokin', drinkin', tattooed son of a bitch. 3 Stars? Have you gone soft?" I went in expecting the worst. I even took my friend's fiancee along, so I wouldn't seem like "Creepy old guy at the Hannah Montana." But you know what? I wound up enjoying myself with this cute little kids flick, as generally mindless as it maybe.

Miley Cyrus plays Miley Stewart, who leads a double life as pop sensation Hannah Montana. Only a close knit crew of people know of the double life, and Miley must make the difficult choice of keeping Hannah in her life, or reserving herself to a normal life as Miley. Her father/manager Robbie Ray (Billy Ray Cyrus) ships her off to her hometown in Tennessee following celebrity shoe battle with Tyra Banks to get a dose of the real world, and there she learns to love life as not Hannah. Even finds time for a love life as Miley with farm hand Travis. After it comes out that Miley is "good friends" with Hannah, she's forced into the awkward situation of being with friends and family at the Hannah Montana benefit concert, put on to save her hometown from being bought up by greedy land developers.

This movie combines all the best elements of an 80's sitcom, throws in the "Superman Complex", and rounds it all out with, good, wholesome family fun, that last part I can't, in good conscience, fully decry.

Remember in "Family Ties" when Alex would get a date with one girl for 7pm, and another for 9pm, and then the girl at 9 had to reschedule for 7, so rather than call one off, he tries to manage both dates at the same time? Oh, and at the same restaurant? He'd have to pretend to smoke for one of them, so he could get 9 to sit in the smoking section. Yeah... it was marginally funny then. And got decreasingly funny when Kirk Cameron did it on "Growing Pains," then Joey Lawrence on "Blossom," then it got passed around "Family Matters," "Step by Step," "Boy Meets World," and countless other 80's and 90's sitcoms. Yeah, that's pretty much Hannah Montana. And the "Superman Complex?" - No one seems to realize that Superman looks exactly like Clark Kent without glasses. Likewise... no one seems to realize that Hannah Montana is a blonde Miley Stewart.

The thing about Miley Cyrus, is that I'm rooting for her... she's got some great potential that has yet to be fully realized. I don't think she's a brightly burning star that will fizzle in a year when the Hannah Montana black hole collapses. That's not a slam against Hannah Montana, I just felt like running with the astronomy reference. And she does show a phenomenal screen presence that I would like to see continue on throughout for career. I hope she isn't hampered by the long arm of the Disney Channel. Think a female Shia Lebouf. Let's just hope she doesn't go on to ruin the 80's.

The thing of it is... It's not made for people like me. You know, the over 14 crowd. And it's not made for critics. It's made for kids. We all had movies that we loved as kids, and looking back, we wonder why? Mighty Ducks? Anyone? That was our kids movie, and sticks with us to this day. I now realize it as a mediocre at best flick, but it holds a special place in my heart. And it will for kids these days (that makes me sound like a fogey). I can't fault these kids for that. I'm gonna let them have their movie.

Look for fun cameos from Rascal Flatts and the very lovely and talented Taylor Swift. Barry Bostwick pops up in a funny little role. But in all seriousness... what would have made this film... is Billy Ray Cyrus singing his signature song, "Achy Breaky Heart." You picked up a guitar. You were in front of a mic. You couldn't do the "Achy Breaky?" Throw us older folks a little something.

P.S. For those of you who don't know, I'm not as old as I make myself sound. I'm 23. But I am older than the target audience for this flick.

Observe and Report

2 stars

Alright this is more like it. Seth Rogan in a dark action comedy? I should be all about this. Oh wait... IT SUCKED! This was an exercise in defining WTF?!?! that was all over the place, and too scattered for it's own good.

Ronnie (Rogan) is a bi-polar mall security guard with dillusions of grandeur. He takes himself way too serious, and that is his own downfall. He's on the hunt for a serial flasher terrorizing his mall parking lot, and targeting the pretty make-up counter girl Brandi (Anna Faris). He feels some competition from the actual police, especially Det. Harrison (Ray Liotta), so he steps up his game to bring the pervert to justice. Oh, and there's a rash of robberies at the mall. Oh, and he's trying to be a real cop. Oh, and there's an underdeveloped possible love story between Ronnie and Brandi.

It's significantly darker in tone than the other Mall cop flick to come out this year, Paul Blart. But that doesn't change the fact that it's the second mall cop flick to come out this year (within 2 months of each other). Really Hollywood? Two? Are you coming out with a Go-Bots flick this year, too?

Hollywood's desperation for original storylines aside, like I said, it's a scatter shot flick that never even tries to find it's proper footing. One minute we're on the pervert. The next minute we're on Ronnie's badge and gun ambitions. The third we're on the mall store robberies. What is the movie about? Everything, which ultimately leads to nothing. And not in the cool nihilistic way. But in the "What the hell did I just watch?" kinda way.

There was a minor controversy surrounding the implicit date rape scene in the film. I don't exactly see how it could be strictly considered date rape. Sure Brandi is drunk. But we go from him sneaking a kiss on the front walk, to them doin' the horizontal tango. We miss the in between. We don't know went on between the two... And when he does stop to consider that she has fallen asleep, she replies "Why'd you stop, mother******?" So.... we don't really know what went down. But it is an offputting scene in general.

Rogan (Pineapple Express, Knocked Up) is a tremendous comedic talent and I dig what he does. And I give him props for extending his comedic range into darker territories. But this film was just wrong on so many levels, that I ask the question I do so rarely actually ask... Why the hell was this film even made? But he at least gets props for trying.

Luckily you can never count out the comedic talents of the beautiful Anna Faris (House Bunny, Waiting...). Usually despite how I feel about the film, I'll almost always enjoy her performance.

Despite a strong performance from Faris, and the interesting turn from Rogan, I can't recommend this film. Not even to rent. Skip it. You're not missing a damn thing.

Watchmen

2009-03-18T21:43:00.001-04:00

This one is coming in a little later than usual. I knew that out of any movie I had ever reviewed, I would probably have to do the most explaining myself on this one, due to the fan base. I wanted to take my time with it... Reviewing this film, I run into very similar obstacles I did when reviewing Sex and the City last year. No really... I did... With Sex and the City, I had to separate my male brain from my film critic brain. With Watchmen, I have to separate my fanboy brain from my film critic brain. So, with that said, here goes nothing...

OH Before I get to it...

Fired Up! - 2.5 stars - not as bad as I expected, but still not that good.
Revolutionary Road - 3.5 stars - Great performances, but otherwise quite drab.
The Wrestler - 4.5 stars - A great bio-flick, even if it's fake.

Watchmen

5 Stars

What do you do when charged with the task of filming what is considered not only the greatest graphic novel of all time, but one of the greatest novels of the 20th century? What has been dubbed the unfilmable? Where your every cinematic and artistic choice will be scrutinized by fanboys and critics alike? If you're Zak Snyder, you make the best damn movie you can, and hope for the best.

Set in an alternate 1985, where Nixon is still president, American/Russian tensions are at an all time high, and costumed vigilantes are the norm, Watchmen is an epic morality tale. After the Watchmen, the second generation of costumed vigilantes are declared illegal by a government ban, few refuse to give up the good fight. When someone kills one of their own, the remaining few must figure out if it was random, or part of a deeper conspiracy to wipe out ex-heroes.

Since I would be spending a significant amount of time delving into the film, I decided to keep the summary brief and concise. The story is much bigger, and better than that summery leads you to believe, but all I can say is, read the book.

The performances matched the scope of the film. In that they were epic. Any lack of character development that exists, the blame falls on the editor. To fans they were beloved. But to the un-initiated, they were problematic. No matter who the usual comic hero is, Spider-Man, Superman, Batman, there's an expectation of perfection as the hero. The alter-ego may be full of character flaws. But the hero is perfect. Again, to the fans, we know the Watchmen. We know their flaws. We know their moral ambiguity. For Jackie Earle Haley to create both the unlikable Walter Kovacs and questionable Rorschach to both satisfy the fans in their expectations and appeal to the un-initiated, despite him being a dislikable character. It's not just true for Haley's Rorschach. It's true for Patrick Wilson's nebbish Dan Dreiberg/dauntless Nite Owl II. Malin Ackermin's Laurie Jupiter tends to over-anylize things, but her Silk Spectre II is fearless. All of the actors involved made the characters relatable, likeable and personable, but never let you forget that there were lines that were going to be crossed.

Aside from Haley (Little Children, Bad News Bears), the stand-out performances belong to both Jeffrey Dean Morgan ("Grey's Anatomy") and Billy Crudup (Almost Famous) playing Edward Blake/The Comedian and Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan, respectfully. Going scene to scene for Morgan, you'd get Blake's twisted, depraved side, and then in the next you'd get his vulnerability. In one scene, you got both. At the same time. As for Crudup's Manhattan, he was a man so detached from our world, he eventually just leaves, only to later realize the value in humanity.

This film never could have lived up to any fan's expectations, unless that fan's expectations were low. While that statement may inherently contradict the 5 star rating I gave it, it's exactly why I took so long to write this review. With any film based on something with a huge cult fanbase, and such a prestigous pedigree that Watchmen has, fan's (aka "fanboys") expectations are going to be extremely high, and extremely strict. We (I say we, as a fan of the novel) look at it through the prism of the source material. It's true for X-Men. It's true for Star Trek. It's true for Watchmen. We hold the cinematic adaptation to a higher standard than other films. An impossibly high standard.

The first thing I learned in film class (even though it is, technically, blatently obvious) is that books and films are two vastly different mediums. Things can be done in books that can never be done on film. Each individual reader has their own interpretation of the written word and the artistically rendered panel. It's true for "Frankenstein." It's true for "Grapes of Wrath." It's true for "Watchmen." The cinematic version is one man's interpretation... the director's, in this case, Zack Snyder. And when it comes to properties that have such a rabid following, he not only has to please the fanboys, but also appeal to a general movie going audience. He also had to make changes, because somethings in the book either a) won't translate to film or b) would make the film 4 hours long.

Snyder (Dawn of the Dead, 300) made the film as he saw it, to the best of his ability. But he knew full well going in that people weren't going to like it. That was the chance he took. I admire him a great deal for taking that risk. He had the balls to step up to the plate. He had the balls to make the best film he could.

The film never suffers from pacing problems. It appears to be a scatter shot focus, but there's so much story to tell, and so little time to tell it, even if it does run almost 3 hours long. He effectively uses the opening title sequence as exposition, setting up the back story of masked vigilantes, and how we got to where we are now, in terms of the actual film. Specific back stories are explored more indepth throughout the film, but the credit sequence is where we are brought up to speed.

There were a few faults I did end up seeing, but this could cycle back to the "fanboy's personal interpretation." I felt the focus was on the wrong two characters. Too much Silk/Owl, not enough Rorschach. I still feel that, since the thrust of the story is Rorschach investigating Comedian's murder. But the Silk/Owl segments are integral, too. I initially had reservations about the changing of Rorschach's back story, as pertaining to what finally pushed him over the edge. The book's explanation was pitch perfect, and gave a moral ambiguity to the character. The film removed that. As was pointed out by friend/co-worker Jeff, had they gone with the book's version, people would have easily drawn a connection to Saw, and that would have left a bad taste in many viewers' mouths.

The major fault with the film, is also a fault of this review so far. Little was actually done with Adrien Veidt/Ozymandias, played by Matthew Goode (Match Point). It's important to the story. Both book and film version. But little is done with him. For a layperson, that would be quite frustrating and confusing. For a fanboy, it's just frustrating.

When reviewing a film, you have to place it both in context of it's time, and in context of the history of film. This film is visually stunning, well put together, a faithful adaptation and wonderfully acted. In the history of film, does that not earn it recognition amongst the finest? It does. In context, when judged against it's contemporaries, is it a step above? Does it raise the bar? Does it change the game? Yes.

I give it 5 stars because Zack Snyder and crew set out to make the best movie they could given the odds they were up against. And they overcame those odds. Any nit-picking aimed at the film is just that... nit-picking by a fan is angry that the tiniest detail that THEY wanted wasn't in the film. Nit-picking by a fanboy who expected 1 Million%, not fully understanding that percents only go up to 100.

Also, make all the jokes you want, but the glowing blue Dr. Manhattan nudity... I didn't have a problem with it. I didn't notice after awhile.

The end.

Live Oscar Blog-o-Thon!

2009-02-22T23:51:00.000-05:00

Throughout the night.... I'll be updating the winners as they are announced. The winners will be in green. If my prediction is wrong, then my pick will be in red, and the actual winner in green.

Best Picture
- Slumdog Millionaire

Best Director
- Danny Boyle for Slumdog Millionaire

Best Lead Actor
- Sean Penn for Milk
-Mickey Rourke for The Wrestler

Best Lead Actress
- Kate Winslet for The Reader

Best Supporting Actor
- Heath Ledger for The Dark Knight

Best Supporting Actress
- Penelope Cruz for Vicky Christina Barcelona

Best Adapted Screenplay
- Simon Beaufoy for Slumdog Millionaire

Best Original Screenplay
- Dustin Lance Black for Milk
- Andrew Stanton, Jim Reardon and Pete Doctor for WALL-E

Best Foreign Film
- Okuribito - Japan
- The Class - France

Best Animated Feature
- WALL-E

Best Art Direction
- The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
- The Dark Knight

Best Cinematography
- Slumdog Millionaire
- The Dark Knight

Best Sound Mixing
- Slumdog Millionaire
- WALL-E

Best Sound Editing
- The Dark Knight
- WALL-E

Best Original Score
- A.R. Rahman for Slumdog Millionaire

Best Original Song
- "Jai Ho"- A.R. Rahman and Sampooran Singh Gulzar for Slumdog Millionaire
- "O Saya" - A.R. Rahman and Maya Arulpragasam (M.I.A.) for Slumdog Millionaire

Best Costume Design
- The Duchess
- The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Best Documentary Feature
- Man on Wire

Best Documentary Short Subject
- Smile Pinki
- The Witness - From the Balcony of Room 306

Best Film Editing
- Slumdog Millionaire
- The Dark Knight

Best Make Up
- The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Best Animated Short
- La maison en petits cubes
- Presto

Best Live Action Short
- Toyland (Spielzeugland)

Best Visual Effects
- The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Oscar Predictions

2009-02-20T12:00:00.000-05:00

With the Oscars fast approaching, I'm going to take this time to lock in my predictions.

Last year I was 50% (it was my best score in 5 years). These are nothing more than educated guesses. Also, for what it's worth, I went only 25% with last year's sports championships (my only correct pre-playoff pick was NBA, and I went all the way with Celtics taking the Lakers).

I listed out the nominees for the major categories, my pick in green.

Best Picture
- The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
- Frost/Nixon
- Milk
- The Reader
- Slumdog Millionaire

Best Director
- David Fincher for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
- Ron Howard for Frost/Nixon
- Gus Van Sant for Milk
- Stephen Daldry for The Reader
- Danny Boyle for Slumdog Millionaire.

Best Lead Actor
- Richard Jenkins for The Visitor
- Frank Langella for Frost/Nixon
- Sean Penn for Milk
- Brad Pitt for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
- Mickey Rourke for The Wrestler

Best Lead Actress
- Anne Hathaway for Rachel Getting Married
- Angelina Jolie for Changeling
- Melissa Leo for Frozen River
- Meryl Streep for Doubt
- Kate Winslet for The Reader

Best Supporting Actor
- Josh Brolin for Milk
- Robert Downey Jr. for Tropic Thunder
- Phillip Seymour Hoffman for Doubt
- Heath Ledger for The Dark Knight
- Michael Shannon for Revolutionary Road

Best Supporting Actress
- Amy Adams for Doubt
- Penelope Cruz for Vicky Christina Barcelona
- Viola Davis for Doubt
- Taraji P. Henson for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
- Marisa Tomei for The Wrestler

Best Adapted Screenplay
- Eric Roth and Robin Swicord for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
- John Patrick Shanley for Doubt
- Peter Morgan for Frost/Nixon
- David Hare for The Reader
- Simon Beaufoy for Slumdog Millionaire

Best Original Screenplay
- Courtney Hunt for Frozen River
- Mike Leigh for Happy-Go-Lucky
- Martin McDonagh for In Bruges
- Dustin Lance Black for Milk
- Andrew Stanton, Jim Reardon and Pete Doctor for WALL-E

Best Foreign Film
- The Baader Meinhoff Complex - Germany
- The Class - France
- Departures - Japan
- Revanche - Austria
- Waltz With Bashir - Israel

Best Animated Feature
- Bolt
- Kung Fu Panda
- WALL-E

Best Art Direction
- The Dark Knight

Best Cinematography
- The Dark Knight

Best Sound Mixing
- WALL-E

Best Sound Editing
- WALL-E

Best Original Score
- A.R. Rahman for Slumdog Millionaire

Best Original Song
- "O Saya" - A.R. Rahman and Maya Arulpragasam (M.I.A.) for Slumdog Millionaire

Best Costume Design
- The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Best Documentary Feature
- Man on Wire

Best Documentary Short Subject
- The Witness - From the Balcony of Room 306

Best Film Editing
- The Dark Knight

Best Make Up
- The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Best Animated Short
- Presto

Best Live Action Short
- Toyland (Spielzeugland)

Best Visual Effects
- The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Tune in on Sunday for a Live Blog-o-thon as I update you with the winners as they are announced! Fun for all.

Friday The 13th/The International

2009-02-19T19:21:00.002-05:00

Friday The 13th

2.5 Stars

I don't think you can call Friday The 13th a "remake" considering a) it cribs more from the original part II than it does the original part I; and b) the franchise has been going pretty consistently for 30 years, it's more of a retelling.

Luckily the song remains the same for Jason and crew in Friday The 13th, which will make the synopsis easy. Group of naive, yet good looking kids stumble upon the remains of Camp Crystal Lake, closed down since Mrs. Voorhees went on a bloody rampage, killing the counselours she felt were responsible for her son's drowning. Only he didn't die, and he's now a grown, very deranged man. Hilarity ensues. And by hilarity, I mean an insane amount of brutal slayings.

I usually take the third paragraph to delve into the acting of the various leads, point out a delightful supporting role. But really, what the hell do you expect from a mediocre remake of a late 70's slasher flick? The chicks were naked, the dudes were douchebags, and massive amounts of alcohol and pot were consumed. I could give you a cast list, but good luck recognizing any of them, unless you're familiar with the WB/CW crowd.

This film was not made, nor should anyone carry the notion that it was, for great performances. When the original came out, it was a 2 hour PSA on the dangers of drug use, drinking and pre-marital sex. Smoke pot? That's a slaying by a crazy guy in a hockey mask. Drink? Disfigured pedophile will invade your dreams and kill you. Pre-marital sex? Escaped mental patient in Shatner mask will stalk and kill you. It had a social commentary that our out of control, hedonistic life styles would eventually, and quite literally, kill us.

This film... leaves that all out. In this new age of horror, where the bloodier, more gruesome, more realistic the killings the better (I believe the term is "torture-porn"), and it went for the proverbial jugular. And while delivering the thrills and bloodlust, it's an empty, shell of a movie. It's sole purpose is to be an exhibition for murder. I'm not here to pontificate on the rightness or wrongness of such existence. But leaving out a message in this kind of movie leaves the viewer with a weird feeling. At least in the Saw franchise there's a message (value your life), however twisted they go about it.

But like I said, one can't deny that it at least delivers on the thrills. If you're going to waste time and money, there's no real better way than Friday the 13th.

The International

3 stars

Clive Owen and Naomi Watts highlight this international political thriller about the global banking system and world arms trade. And how they alledgedly go hand in hand. It's an entertaining little movie, not meant to break new ground, but to explore what's there.

The International spins the tale of Interpol Agent Louis Salinger (Owen) as he works with New York ADA Eleanor Whitman to expose the criminal dealings of International Bank, who alledgedly supplies weapons to third world countries.

This movie reminds me why I initially supported Owen to be the new James Bond a few years back, and makes me glad he isn't. Owen is too rugged for Bond. Too rough around the edges, to blue collar. He almost always looks like he woke up from a night of drinking, which, in my best estimation, is his charm. He brings sort of an everyman quality to his roles. There's rarely a hint of grandeur to his performances (even when playing King Arthur, which wasn't ALL bad).

Director Tom Tykwer finally makes his big American debut, and as expected, it doesn't live up to Lola rennt (Run, Lola Run), but it's a different film geared to a different audience, so I can't be too hard on him for that. But to his credit, it is beautifully shot, with nary a wasted scene.

The unfortunate thing about most movies released January-February is that they will in no way make huge waves in movie making (notable exceptions include The Silence of the Lambs and last year's Cloverfield). They tend to just exist, and the companies behind them have very little faith in their audience draw or general quality. This film doesn't change that. It just kind of is. But what is, is a cut above the general dreg out there.

Push/He's Just Not That Into You

2009-02-12T19:34:00.003-05:00

He's Just Not That Into You

2.5 Stars

I did have high hopes for this going in. Greg Behrendt was a stand up I enjoyed (he wrote the source book). It has an impressive cast. But it came across as Love Actually: American Style. Sadly, I was just not into He's Just Not That Into.

Interconnecting stories of love and human behaviour comprise the film based on a bestselling self-help book. Gigi (Ginnifer Goodwin) has trouble reading the dating rituals of men after a mediocre date with Conner (Kevin Connolly) who is also dating Anna (Scarlett Johansson), but she just met and fell for Ben (Bradley Cooper) whose marriage is kinda on the rocks because of his smoking, which his wife Janine (Jennifer Connelly) has made it clear she doesn't like. She works with both Gigi and Beth (Jennifer Aniston), who's longterm boyfriend Neil (Ben Affleck) won't marry her because he doesn't believe in marriage. Oh... and Mary (Drew Barrymore) has relationship issues as far as status unknown. Oh... and Conner's best friend Alex (Justin Long) starts dispensing relationship advice to Gigi.

I felt to best exemplify exactly how I felt about this movie... by providing the synopsis in the most annoying way possible. Which is what this movie amounts to... whiney young rich people annoyingly discussing their love lives. There was no relatability to any of the characters. Sure there were certain aspects that I could relate to. And certainly the situations they were put in are relatable. But the characters, and unfortunately the actors playing them, were just a means to an end. They were incidental. You could play musical chairs with the actor/role and it would have no bearing on the movie. Also... if Jennifer Aniston's biggest problem is Ben Affleck not marrying her... she's on frickin' easy street.

I do not find it hard to believe that people like this exist. What I find it hard to believe that they expect us, the viewing public, to sit in a theatre and say "I totally get Neil," or "I sympathize with Gigi." Like I said, on a basic level, the situations themselves, are relatable, but the essential plot devices are not what you base the movie around. You build from them.

Perhaps had they handed the reins to someone other than the guy who offered us Dunston Checks In. Though to Ken Kwapis' credit, he did a few episodes of "Freaks and Geeks", which is an undeniably great show, which had 18 great episodes, and a grand total of zero bad ones.

I give it kudos for situational relatability, but which is unfortunately hindered by the complete lack of compassion or empathy for the characters. This is one movie that if it wanted to, and even tried, it could have been a great, and a good American Love Actually, which had one thing going for it... characters you actually liked.

Push

3 Stars

Do you remember back a few years ago, there was a great show that was on television... about people with special powers, coming to terms with it. There was a shady organization hunting them down. Normal people paired up with people with powers... "Heroes" it was called. That was a great show. The show that's on now called "Heroes" is a shell of its former self, that is rapidly circling the drain. I bring this up because I want to dispell the comparisons of Push to current "Heroes." Push is what "Heroes" used to be, and should still be. And with that... "Heroes" references end........................NOW

After witnessing the death of his father at the hands of the ruthless Division, Nick Grant (Chris Evans), a mover (telekinetic) has exiled himself to Hong Kong in an effort stay off the radar. Yeah, about that, a super watcher (psychic) predicted he would do this, and that a pusher(force thoughts into one's head), Kira (Camilla Belle), would escape division and seek his help. The daughter of this watcher, another watcher named Cassie (Dakota Fanning) comes to Nick's aid to protect themselves and the pusher from a more powerful pusher/Division agent (Djimon Hounsou), who, incidentally, killed Nick's father.

It clocks in under 2 hours, but it's stilla bout 20 minutes too long. I've never had a problem with long movies. But it had a pacing problem. They could have cut some of the fatty meat from the film and it still would have been good, and most likely would have been better. Director Paul McGuigan has a recurring problem with flow. Lucky Number Slevin had the same problem. Too long due to extraneous scenes. Trim the fat, and it's better.

Sometimes I think I'm the only one who enjoys the work of Chris Evans (Cellular). Sure he's not the next Sean Penn or George Clooney (though considering Penn and Clooney's early filmographies, it's not entirely out of the question), but he's no Keanu. He's a decent actor and at times downright good (see Sunshine). And he proves himself to be a thoroughly comptent and entertaining leading man.

Fanning (Man On Fire) is easing her transition from precocious (and eerily too smart) child star to more mature material. I have a feeling, and am truly hoping she follows the path of Jodie Foster and Ron Howard on transition from child star to A-Lister. We're rooting for you Dakota.

It truly is "Heroes" when it was good, but unfortunately it ends up being a movie that just is. It offers up nothing great. It comes and goes, and won't leave a mark. It just exists for the purpose of existing. It is a feather in no one's cap.

Taken-Frost/Nixon

2009-02-05T19:41:00.002-05:00

Taken

3.5 Stars

One man against the criminal (or not strictly criminal) underworld movies are a dime a dozen. Jason Statham tends to star in most of them (though I have this theory that he's really a superhero who refuses to wear a cape). But there's something about Liam Neeson hunting down sex slave traders who have kidnapped his daughter in Paris. It doesn't re-invent the genre, but it certainly upgrades it.

Former spy Bryan Mills (Neeson) relunctantly allows his daughter Kim (Maggie Grace) tour Europe with her friend, Amanda, on the condition she safe. Unfortunately sex slave traders have other ideas, and promptly kidnap the two girls upon their arrival in the city of lights. What's worse is Bryan was on the phone with Kim when it happened. Utilizing his old skills and old contacts, Bryan begins the race against the clock to find his daughter before she is literally lost forever, and takes him on a violent, rage and vengeance fueled romp through Paris.

Neeson is the true highlight of the film. He shows that these solo action ventures aren't just for the young guys like Matt Damon and the aforementioned Statham. And, given his pedigree, he brings a gravitas to a role that could have otherwise been very bland. He doesn't exactly breathe new life into the role that has been routinely played by Harrison Ford (family man trying to get back his family, tell me I'm wrong) for the past ten years, but he does bring a different perspective.

It's hard to believe that it took almost a year to get this in the States (released in France almost a year ago), but Pierre Morel's directorial follow up to 2004's District 13 seems tailor made for the American action film climate. By that I mean the aging hero back in the game, and with Statham and Damon movies doing well, it's a perfect fit. I found the most intriguing aspect of his cinematic eye (on this film, anyway) is his removal of the rose tinted glasses we've been looking through when thinking of Paris. He finds the underbelly, and enhances it in a completly un romantic way.

I felt like I got my money's worth with this film. I was entertained, and glued to my seat the entire time, and really... entertainment goes a long way with me. It's not a game changer, but it is a performance enhancer.

Frost/Nixon

3.5 stars

I had the misfortune of seeing this after the Oscar nominations were announced, after much had been written on it, after much negative had been written on it. One piece by me. I had said "Instead the Academy opted for the generally safe historical dramas. "Nothing against Frost/Nixon, as I have yet to see it, but what could it possibly bring to the filmmaking table that The Dark Knight did not? It's a dramatization of TV interviews. You could pretty much Youtube about half the movie." And in some aspects... I was right. But in some... I was completely not.

As stated, Frost/Nixon is a dramatization of the 1977 David Frost (Michael Sheen)/Richard Nixon (Frank Lagella) interviews, where he, as the film so delicately puts it, gives him the trial he never got. But it is more than a regurgitation of what we could buy in a TimeLife set for the low low price of $19.99 plus S&H. It highlights Frost's personal and professional struggle to get the interviews, and, much in the same way W. did with George W. Bush, humanizes Nixon.

Langella has been heaped with his praise for his portrayal of the fallen President, a role he originated in the stage show. And Langella (Superman Returns) does in fact bring a vulnerability to the character. But overlooked has been his adversary. Sheen (The Queen) brings an intensity and conflict to a character who is a celebrity of his time. And, as per usual, the dynamite performance of Sam Rockwell (Confessions of a Dangerous Mind) has gone criminally overlooked.

The main problem with this film is that while the performances are engaging, as a whole, the film is standard at best. In pure filmmaking terms, Ron Howard (The Da Vinci Code) shows no signs of growth concerning historical drama from his 1995 epic Apollo 13. It doesn't change the game for filmmaking, and isn't a landmark in any respect. It was as I expected. And that was it's detriment. The film didn't wow me.

Go and stay for the performances, but you won't get much else out of this film than what you can catch on YouTube, or PBS if they're feeling frisky.

Rachel Getting Married/Slumdog Millionaire

2009-01-29T21:10:00.000-05:00

Rachel Getting Married

2 stars

There's a reason Anne Hathaway's street cred boosting film Rachel Getting Married is only getting award notices for Hathaway's acting. Because quite frankly, that's all this film has going for it.

After being in and out of various prisons and rehab facilities for 10 years, Kym (Hatheway) is released into her families custody just days before her older sister Rachel's (Rosmarie DeWitt) wedding. This leads to explosive confrontations between Kym, Rachel and their parents.

Certain aspects of this film is more than a passing resemblence to Sherry Baby, Maggie Gyllenhaal's much better film of a rehabed druggie returning to the outside world. Nothing against Hathaway, but Gyllenhaal was better. The primary source of notice for Hathaway is that it was a left field performance for her, and did prove herself as more than a Disney alum trying to make it in the world.

Hathaway's main source of acting support comes from Rosmarie DeWitt. As Rachel, she offers a great foil for Hathaway's Kym. She exudes the exaspiration of a bride to be faced with daunting and unresolved family issues. Hathaway's performance, and likewise the film as a whole, wouldn't be nearly as good as it is without DeWitt.

But stellar performances from the two leads isn't enough to launch this past a 2 star rating. The rest of the characters and actors are treated as incidental, with no real major impact on the overall final story.

And while throughout most of the film, the Kym/Rachel dynamic is engaging, it occasionally slips into a "Whose issues are bigger?" pissing contest. And the remaining characters don't help take it out of annoying status.

Then there's the wedding. A first generation Jamaican-American marrying a WASP, and they have a Hindi/African/American influenced wedding. The rehearsal was an open-mic night? Were they trying to be hipsters? Too much just didn't work, and ended up being annoying.

So in addition to annoying, whiney characters, you had an annoying plot point. And you walk away just embarassed for all involved.

Luckily DeWitt and Hathaway were able to come away unscathed. But I doubt I'll ever look at Jonathan Demme the same way again.

Slumdog Millionaire

5 Stars

In a year filled with Oscar bait movies, leave it to Danny Boyle to throw a wrench into the works with the crime/romance/bio/drama Slumdog Millionaire. It's a fascinating film that keeps you on your toes and never asks more of you as an audience than is absolutely necessary.

By sheer luck, Jamal Malik (Dev Patel), a young man who grew up in the slums of Bombay and now works as an go-fer in a tech support call center, has made it onto India's "Who Wants to be a Millionaire." By even more luck, or possibly eerie coincidence, he's got a shot at the 20 Million Rupee question. Jamal can't believe it. Indian Regis (Anil Kapoor) can't believe it. The Indian authorities can't believe. Jamal is promptly arrested on suspicion of cheating. As he and the police cheif watch the tape of his performance, Jamal reveals the story of his life, with each chapter informing his correct answers to the questions presented to him.

If you were to ask me to pick one film to define director Danny Boyle's career... I wouldn't pick this one. But that's only because he is a filmmaker who consistently mixes up the genres. Were I to name several of Spielberg's films, you'd recognize them as Spielberg. Same with Scorsese, Fincher, Tarantino and Smith. They have their signature styles. While Boyle certainly a great director, and leaves his stamp on his films, he removes his personality from the film. If I didn't know any better, I'd never be able to tell that Trainspotting, The Beach, 28 Days Later... and Slumdog Millionaire were all directed by the Boyle.

I commend Boyle for meshing the styles of Western filmmaking (he's British) with Bollywood. Including the random, yet not out of place dance sequence during the end credits.

The performances from the actors are powerful, engaging and truthful. You aren't hit over the head with the weight of what they're doing. There's a bizarre subtlty to it. Which is only bizarre when you realize that the 9 actors who play the leads (3 characters at different ages) have very little experience amongst the lot of them. It's films like this that make me wish they had a best ensemble performance or best Casting Oscar. While an actor can have a great single performance in a great movie (or terrible movie, as is the case with the previous movie reviewed), sometimes the whole cast together elevates a movie, as is the case with this one.

What makes this film perform well is a great match of strong script and director. Boyle understood the story that needed to be told, and told it very well.

And I've got writers block.

So... in summation... Slumdog Millionaire= One of the best of the year.

Concerning the Oscars

2009-01-26T19:15:00.003-05:00

So the Oscar Nominees were announced, and as someone who is, as some would say, "a fan of movies" (which if you do actually know me, that's putting as lightly as one could possibly put it), and as someone who has been to and experienced the Oscar blitz (not as a nominee, as a fan) I should weigh in.

Not speaking as a fanboy... not speaking as someone who doesn't really know how the Oscars operate (and there are several on the message boards I regularly visit)... I say this with as much authority as a 23 year old film critic can... WHAT THE FUCK!?!?!

The Dark Knight was more or less shut out. That movie more than deserved the 8 nominations it got (7 in technical categories, more on the eight later). But it deserved Picture, Director, Writing and Supporting Actor, as well.

I'm not going to claim that I've seen all the nominees, or even all of the eligible films. But for The Dark Knight to go relatively unnoticed in the artistic categories, it's an insult. And it really shows how out of touch the Academy is with mainstream audiences.

Now, mainstream films often are out of tune with what is generally considered "Award Worthy". And I in no way consider, Paul Blart, last week's box office champ, Oscar Worthy, in any category. So it's not a "mainstream vs. indie" argument on my part. It's on their part. The Academy's near reluctance to recognize mainstream films for major awards is a history that is long and storied.

Think about it, remove the fact that it's Batman, look at The Dark Knight as a straight crime saga. It's up there. The performances and the execution were great.

Unfortunately when they do go for a mainstream film, it turns out that film is Rocky, winning best picture over Network, Taxi Driver and All The President's Men. Really? WTF? Don't get me wrong... Rocky is a great film. Better than those other three? Certainly not.

Same with Wall-E. Point of fact, the only animated film ever to be nominated for Best Picture was Beauty and the Beast (and deservedly so). But with the recent addition of the "Best Animated Film" category, the liklihood of that ever happening again significantly dropped. With Wall-E not making the cut, I doubt it will ever happen again.

Those two films were widely considered the very best of the year. From highly respected critics to bloggers like me. And the box office receipts proved it. Instead the Academy opted for the generally safe historical dramas. Nothing against Frost/Nixon, as I have yet to see it, but what could it possibly bring to the filmmaking table that The Dark Knight did not? It's a dramatization of TV interviews. You could pretty much Youtube about half the movie.

I guess Ron Howard is a good standby, as opposed to going for directors who experiment and explore the boundaries of filmmaking. No nods for Darren Aaronofsky or Christopher Nolan for The Wrestler and The Dark Knight, respectively.

There is no greater proof of that than Howard over Peter Jackson in 2001 for A Beautiful Mind over The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. Or in 2004, Clint Eastwood over Martin Scorsese for Million Dollar Baby over The Aviator.

I'm not going to say that they're political, though they have made "I'm sorry" choices in the past, like Scorsese finally getting that ever ellusive (unless you're name is Clint Eastwood) Best Director Oscar for The Departed. Sure it was well deserved, but Scorsese's Best Director Oscar has been well deserved for over 30 years.

And while it may be Robert Downey, Jr., I'm glad to see them finally recognize mainstream comedic work for acting (Best Supporting Actor for Tropic Thunder). When it comes to recognizing comedies, the Academy will slide more in the line of "dark comedy," "black comedy," or "dram-edy." It's a trend the've missed going on many years. Perhaps the first major missed opportunity is Sean Penn in Fast Times at Ridgemont High. And now they've nominated Downey for Tropic Thunder. They've certainly come a long way, but I agree with most critics and bloggers... James Franco in Pineapple Express, anyone?

I of course will still watch. I of course will still enjoy and severely geek out. But... they really need to look beyond the usual Oscar fair. Recognize the great films. Not just what is deemed Oscar worthy.

Because quite frankly, "Oscar worthy" is quickly becoming a sub-genre, rather than an honour.

On the flip side... major kudos for Slumdog Millionaire. Totally deserves it.

More Reviews Than You Can Shake a Stick At

2009-01-22T21:00:00.000-05:00

I've got 5 films to review, so it'll be 5 mini-reviews. Kinda like when "Rescue Me" did those "mini-sodes" after the 5th season got postponed due to the damn writer's strike. Only there was no strike. I just fell behind.

Gran Torino

4.5 stars

It's interesting... I knew at somepoint I would have to accept that I would eventually be reviewing Clint Eastwood's last film as an actor. I just figured he'd be dead. But no, he's retired. And his swan song, Gran Torino is caps off an overall wonderful, if at times curious and disappointing, career.

Eastwood is pitch perfect as an aging Korean War vet with an archaic (re: racist) view of the world. He's stuck in his ways, but is forced to confront his evolving neighbourhood after he helps the kid next door out of a scuffle with a street gang. He even grows to respect and even grows fond of the next door neighbours, treating them as family. Actually, better than he treats his own family.

As director, Eastwood utilizes a great cast of Korean non-actors to further separate his character from theirs. And for never having done any professional screen work, the performances turned in by young actors Bee Vang as the wayward youth Thao, and Ahney Her as his older sister are remarkably impressive, and do well in holding their own against 50+ year veteran Eastwood.

I'd say this is one to watch come Awards season, but since I'm writing this on Oscar Nomination Day (it's a Holiday for me), that's a little anachronistic (it wasn't nominated for anything). But this is definitely one worth viewing. It has the added bonus of Eastwood holding a shotgun and delivering the greatest version of every crazy old coot's favourite phrase: "Get off my lawn!"

Bride Wars

.5 Stars

Oh, Anne Hathaway... I expect more out of you. Not so much out of Kate Hudson, this film is about on par with what I expect from her. But Anne, Anne, Anne.... You're more talented than this. So is Kate, now that I think of it, but she hasn't made a good career choice since Almost Famous, and that was 10 years ago.

A scheduling mix-up forces two best friends to duke it out over who gets to keep their dream wedding. With alledgedly hilarious results.

But the actual results are predictable, unfunny, forgetable and ultimately insulting.

I've seen some unfunny comedies in my day, but this one has to take the cake (no pun intended). Sure, maybe I cracked a smile every now and then, but was I laughing at the content, or the fact that the content exists? 99.9% of the time, the latter.

Every character except the two leads was expendable, and the writers seemed to make it that way. The only way I was able to tell which fiancee was which, was by which female lead happened to be on screen, and unfortunately that didn't help in several scenes.

But it truley dives into the insulting pool by it's portrayal of women. They're sycophantic, shallow, and I wonder if they're actually functionally retarded. There are no socially redeeming, or remotely admirable qualities in these two women. It pains me to say that Sex and the City was a more accurate representation of women, and they're materialistic, sex crazed bimbos. If those two were really friends, and I've seen this in real life, one would have made a sacrifice. These are who little girls are looking up to. Seriously, Judd Apatow, Kevin Smith, Joss Wedon and Quentin Tarantino need to write more scripts, they're the only ones writing great roles for females, it seems like. I'm saying that and Apatow's been accused of sexism. So.... eat it Hudson.

Hudson says she wants jucier roles, so lets hope she makes better choices. Because she can be a great actress, she just needs to pick better roles. And Hathaway.... stay far away from material like this. If you hadn't long ago proved yourself as a competant actress, I'd say this role is enough to get your recent Oscar Nomination revoked (she got it for Rachel Getting Married, a thankfully unrelated movie, review coming next week).

Paul Blart: Mall Cop

2.5 stars

Safe? Yes. Original? No. Enjoyable? Yes

Paul Blart (Kevin James) is a mall security guard. Paul Blart is a mall security guard because he can't seem to pass the New Jersey State Troopers exam. His heroics are put to a Die Hard-ian test when his mall is overrun with criminals out for credit card info on Black Friday.

James treads the safe waters of goof-ball, broad-comedy, quasi-parody with Paul Blart. It's clearly a poor man's Die Hard, but Airheads did it better 15 years ago when the reference was relevent.

But it gets in some good jokes, and the some of the best parts may be in the trailer, but there's some good filler. Wait for the DVD on this one, though.

It's safe, it's harmless, good for the whole family. But seriously, what's the deal with Jayma Mays' eyes, they take up like half her face?

Last Chance Harvey

3.5 Stars

You know... Joel put it best: "Romantic comedies tend to never really be romantic. Or comedic." I agree with that sentiment (that and they aren't geared towards the demographic I am a part of), so I stay away from the usual effor that is put forth in the genre. But this one piqued my interest, due to the leads. Dustin Hoffman and Emma Thompson. Both of whom I am a fan. And both are interesting choices as romantic leads. In 2009. Hoffman, yeah, sure, about 40 years ago. Thompson, about 25 ago.

And it works. I count the two amongst my favourites in their respective genders, and they are on top of their game. The film isn't nearly their best work, but it's good. It doesn't have to break the wall down to be good.

Hoffman's titular Harvey, a New York jingle composer, travels to London for his daughter's wedding, only to find out his daughter wants her step father (James Brolin) to walk her down the aisle. Hoffman makes a hasty departure for the airport to get back for a big meeting with a client, only to be informed en route that he's been fired. He connects with Thompson's Kate in an airport bar, and the two commiserate over drinks, and they begin an unorthodox romance.

And with his spirits renewed, Harvey returns to his daughter's reception with Kate. And with nothing to go home to, decides to stay in London for a while.

It speaks to the dis-heartened souls, who are frustrated with life. That something will come along to bring them out of a rut. It's not holding a rosey coloured lens to the world, and giving the Disney ending of a story, but it is providing a good, happy ending, with out the overly sweet sentimentality.

Think of it as Diet Disney.

My Bloody Valentine 3D

3 Stars

I entered this movie the same way I entered watching Zombie Strippers- very low expectations. It's a cheesy slasher flick, a modern one at that. Think of the last time a really good horror movie was released. Saw. The first one. After that... I got nothing. And slasher flicks? That sub-genre hasn't been good since Scream effectively satirized it to death 13 years ago (I'll do a post soon about my feelings on Scream soon, but I do love it).

But you know what? If you enter it with your expectations set at "Good way to kill an hour and a half" and nothing more, then you will have an enjoyable time.

One year after a crazed miner went on a killing spree following the collapse of the mine, he awakens from his coma to go on another killing spree, and is killed in another mine collapse, in the same mine. Then 10 years later, when the son of the mine owner (and cause of the original collapse) returns to town, the killings by a masked miner start again. Suspicians abound as to who could be causing it. But think about it, the ending isn't as shocking as perhaps they want it to be.

It's a good slasher flick. A nice throw back to the slasher hey day of the of 1980's. Unfortunately is missing the thinly veiled social commentary that Elm Street, Halloween and Friday The 13th had. Lots of gratuitous violence, gore and nudity, all in one neatly wrapped 3D package. You don't get that much these days.

The performances... well they sucked. Little to no actual character there. Just brooding angst, nuttiness, faux heroics and the obligatory stupid whore. I went with Joel and his fiancee Fawn (who watched the film through her fingers), but Joel commented about halfway through that WB/CW mainstay Jensen Ackles clearly graduated from the Keanu Reeves School of Acting.

What made this movie was the kitschy nostalgia of 3D horror. And that's really all the film has going for it. I give it higher marks for not having too many scenes that are obviously only in existence to flex the 3D muscle.

So if you like horror movies... go for the 3D, stay for the... 3D. I can't wait for the sequel that they will most likely make.

Valkyrie/The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

2009-01-08T19:49:00.004-05:00

Valkyrie

3.5 stars

Valkyrie is the tale of how Tom Cruise and Eddie Izzard traveled through time to kill Hitler. Ok... it's not, but that would have been a way funnier movie. But Valkyrie is the story of the final of 15 separate plots to assassinate Das Fuhrer. And while I'm glad they didn't make it funny (good luck making Hitler funny, it's not easy, just check this very short lived British sitcom). But Cruise and company made a damn compelling film.

Cruise (War of the Worlds, Scientology) portrays German Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg, mastermind of the Valkyrie plan. The original Valkyrie plan was a government restructuring plan to be implemented in the event of Hitler's death. After climbing the ranks of Germany's military, Stauffenberg is able to redraft it so he and his cohorts would be in charge, effectively putting an end to Hitler's Germany. The film follows the path from development to failed execution, and the risks each men take to see it through to the finish.

The first thing that piqued my interest in this project was the amazing cast assembeled. In addition to Cruise's strong performance, we also get magnificent work from Kenneth Branagh (Hamlet), Bill Nighy (Shaun of the Dead), Tom Wilkinson (RocknRolla), Terrence Stamp (Get Smart) and Izzard (Ocean's 13). While Cruise puts forth a great performance, the movie would be nothing without the supporting cast.

I kind of want to ask director Bryan Singer what his fascination with Nazi Germany is. First he did Apt Pupil, about an ex-Nazi. Then X-Men, with Magneto being a holocaust survivor. Now Valkyrie. Not that it's led him astray. He's just like.... the poor man's Spielberg (and to further that connection, Spielberg was listed as a producer on NBC's ER a full 10 years prior to Singer being listed as a producer on FOX's House, MD).

But all that aside... he does a great job with the material. My main worry about this film going in was the direction. Singer could have dragged it out, run all sorts of circles around himself before he got to the point. But no. He kept the movie tight, and pace on a nice easy flow. It kicks right off with Stauffenberg being unhappy with Hitler's vision for Germany, jumps to the plot to kill him, and doesn't stop till the conspirators are rounded up and executed. It's a very well paced thriller.

As far as historical political thrillers go, I would count this one on par with All The Presidents Men and JFK. Only... with Hitler.

Hey you know who else was in this movie.... nevermind.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

4 stars

Sometimes a 3 hour movie is overly long on time and overly short on actual reason for being 3 damn hours long. Benjamin Button is not like that. It's a thoroughly engrossing story that keeps you in the moment and in the story for the entire run time. Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett have never been better.

Benjamin Button is a man born old. I don't mean he's mature for his age. He was literally born an 80 year old man, and is aging backwards. After his parents abandon him at a New Orleans retirement home, Benjamin (Pitt) quickly bonds with the home's residents and the caretakers (Taraji P. Henson and Mahershalalhashbaz Ali) become his adopted parents. We get to watch him live his life... backwards. From a young-old man to an old-young man, and how his reverse aging affects his personal and professional life. He has affairs with much older women, he travels the world. But he always comes back to his one true love, Daisy (Blanchett), who has grown up (normally) alongside Benjamin.

In my opinion, Pitt (Snatch) is one of the most under-estimated actors of this generation. When looking not just at his body of work, but his performances in those films, you really can't deny that he really is a damn fine actor, if not one of the best working right now. And this role as Button is another highlight in his career. He brings a subtlety, and a warmth to the character that I think we may have lost with some other actors.

And Blanchett (Babel) continues her reign as one of the best actresses in Hollywood. There's a charm, and grace she brings to the film.

Director David Fincher (Se7en, Fight Club) continues to bend your mind with his bold look at interesting stories. What I like about Fincher's take on the story, is that he forces the audience to accept that Button ages backwards without explanation, by himself accepting it without explanation. A lesser director would have attempted a half assed explanation, or try to give some big grand explanation that ends up seeming ludicrous and taking you completely out of the story. But by diving into the story, we're pulled along with him into it, and I ultimately didn't care that I didn't know why he aged backwards.

For an engaging life story, that's light fun, but great story, definitly check out this flick.

Marley & Me/The Spirit, plus a rundown

2009-01-07T18:45:00.000-05:00

Brodie Fanns!

I've been away, here's a rundown of the movies I've seen recently and not given full reviews.

Yes Man- 3.5 stars
Seven Pounds - 2.5 stars
The Day The Earth Stood Still - 2 stars
Zack and Miri Make a Porno - 4.5 stars
Saw V - 2.5 Stars
RocknRolla- 3.5 stars
Twilight - 3 stars
Four Christmases - 2.5 stars
Australia - 3.5 stars
Transporter 3 - 3 stars
Punisher: War Zone - 3 stars
Nothing Like The Holidays - 4 stars

And now onto the reviews:

The Spirit

2 Stars

Comic book movies really came into their own as a legitimate genre this year with impressive critical and box office results from both Iron Man and The Dark Knight. But if there was one movie that could undo all the positive press those two did over the summer, it would have to be this years last entry of the genre, Frank Miller's adaptation of Will Eisner's The Spirit.

The Spirit is the tale of rookie cop Denny Colt (Gabriel Macht) who is gunned down in the line of duty, only to rise from the grave (due to a medical experiment), only now he's invincible. In order to truely rid Central City of the despicable criminal element, primarily from The Octopus (Samuel L. Jackson), he dons a mask, coat and hat to become The Spirit, with only Police Commissioner Dolan (Dan Lauria) knowing his true identity. As the Spirit works to clean up Central City's streets, he has passionate love affairs with nearly every woman he meets, including his childhood sweetheart Sand Saref (Eva Mendes), his ex-fiancee Ellen (Sarah Paulson) and even having a grand old time with Octopus croonie Plaster of Paris (Paz Vega). Even the angel of death (Jamie King) seems to have a thing for the Spirit.

It's a hype-noirish tale in the fashion of Miller's own Sin City, but more like a watered down, store brand version of Sin City. The comparisons are unfortunately inescapable. Eisner and Miller were contemporaries and friends (Eisner passed away 4 years ago). Miller created Sin City, Eisner, The Spirit (not at the same time, just giving you some background on the two). Here's where I must call on the comparison of the two cinematic treatments. Miller was credited as a co-director on Sin City, but after watching this, it's clear he took on a more advisory role, as Robert Rodriguez handled the actual execution of the craft. Rodriguez has had 10 years to work on his craft and warrented the visual experimentation he utilized on Sin City. And he created a beautiful piece of work.

For Miller, it seemed like he may have picked up a few things from Rodriguez, and when he got to helm his own film, at every turn he must have been thinking, "Well, that's what Robert did..." But he never took the time to figure out why Rodriguez did what he did in his film. There was a reason for everything. Miller was just looking to follow suit. I hate to say this, because Miller is a legend in his field and I truely admire him as a graphic novelist, but it was reminiscent of late 90's punk bands, the bands that sprung up from the ashes of the true 80's punk bands. They were copying the sound, but not the emotion.

And the script he wrote wasn't much better. The dialog, while with full intention of calling back to the days when the comic was written and set, seemed cheesy and full of camp. The actors struggled with it, though oddly, the only one who seemed at home was Lauria (The Wonder Years).

And that does bring us to the performances. They weren't on a whole terrible. Just... not very good. Almost indifferent I suppose. I think Macht (Because I Said So) was looking to challenge himself with a different sort of role, but it fell flat. As did Mendes (We Own the Night) and Scarlett Johansson (Lost In Translation). Though Samuel L. Jackson, who is such a character in his own right, was able to rise above the material. Barely, as by my count he was only able to track a 20% success rate with his lines and actions in this film, but that's still better than anyone else.

Sin City, this is not. Hell, it's not even Spider-man 3. But fanboys may find it enjoyable. I like graphic novels, including the source book, but still found it hard to get into the movie. If you are looking for quality comic to film adaptations, re-watch The Dark Knight on DVD, or till April for Watchmen to come out.

Marley & Me

4 stars

When I originally presented this review on-air, I used three words I never thought I'd ever use for a film starring Jennifer Aniston AND Owen Wilson: emotional, evocative, effective. Ok, maybe Wilson, because he's at least got some indie cred... but not Aniston. But they all work for Marley & Me.

Marley & Me is based on the bestselling memoir by John Grogan about his rascal of a dog, named Marley. Wilson plays Grogan, Aniston his wife, Jennifer. It follows their marriage, with the life of the dog as a plot template. As the dog grows up with the Grogan's, their marriage grows. Grogan turns his life experiences as a young husband, dog owner, his subsequent fatherhood into fuel for his journalism career. It all culminates in an ending you know is coming, but is none the less effective, which is about all I can say without completely giving away the ending.

What makes this movie work, is the typecasting the two leads have built for themselves over the years, and the chemistry they create together. Wilson (Wedding Crashers) tends to come across as a directionless slacker, with Aniston (The Break-Up) as the neurotic love interest. But on this, the character types clash, and it works. I wouldn't call the Grogan character a directionless slacker, but Wilson still brings a hint of that attitude to the character. The characters are almost written to their respective strengths and weaknesses. While they won't win any major awards for their work, the two are certainly better than we've seen them in a while (if at all).

But the real accolade goes to Eric Dane (Grey's Anatomy, I believe they call him McSteamy, not that I watch the show or anything), who was Grogan's friend Sebastian. The character, and Dane's portrayal of him, is a not to subtle, but not to obvious counter to Grogan. While Grogan's dealing with married life, and the drudgery of his starter articles at the newspaper they work at, Sebastian is dating woman after woman, and jetting to Colombia to write articles on drug kingpins. And that foil continues through the entire film. Dane perfectly plays the guy Grogan wishes he could be, but also is glad he isn't.

And that brings us to what I have yet to talk about. Marley. The dog. This isn't a typical family film about a dog. I view it as a love story. Between a family and their dog. And that's what it is. The dog loves the family. The family loves the dog. And it's about the life they share together. And it's beautiful.

I'm not ashamed one bit to admit this movie made me cry. It has joined the ranks of Field of Dreams and The Green Mile as one of the few movies to make me cry. But it's that good, and that effective.

Coming soon... Valkyrie and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.

WALL-E: A DVD Review

2008-11-18T15:23:00.004-05:00

WALL-E

DVD- 4 Stars

I already posted a review for WALL-E. You can read that here. This review is about the DVD itself.

First off, the standard bonus feature for DVD's... Deleted scenes. For me, when it comes to deleted scenes, I like ones that may have been cut for time, or were interesting, but didn't make sense, something that makes them worth watching. And while the two provided are in fact alternate takes on existing scenes, and Andrew Stanton's director's commentary on the scenes themselves explains why they were taken out (story changes), they don't really provide enough entertainment to keep one interested.

Speaking of Andrew Stanton's commentary, his running commentary throughout the entire film is worth listening to. He provides some valuable production insights into the developement of not only the character of Wall-E, but how the film and it's story came to be. This was a passion project for Stanton, and by all accounts, it shouldn't have worked. Basically a silent animated film about a robot who falls in love. That's the driving force behind the movie. But he talks about all the planning that went into it to make it work. And he does make it work.

As with all Pixar films, the short film that accompanied the theatrical release is included on the DVD, as well as an additional short exploring a minor character named BURN-E, that plotwise, takes place at the same time as the main feature. Just as good as the film.

The real gem of the DVD is the "Building Worlds with Sound" feature, because not only does it do an intensive study on how they did the sound effects for WALL-E, which is an SFX heavy film, but also the history of SFX at Disney, exploring the career of legendary sound man Ben Burtt, who also supplied the voice of WALL-E.

For the movie alone this one is worth the rent, but the SFX documentary, animated shorts and director's commentary make it one to own.

Quantam of Solace

2008-11-16T14:21:00.003-05:00

Quantum of Solace

4 Stars

When one walks into a Bond film, one expects an air of class, suaveness and a certain something that elevates it above your average spy/action flick. That's not entirely so with Quantum of Solace. But with the new direction the Bond films seem to be taking, is that a bad thing. Yes. And no.

Quantum of Solace picks up immediately where 2006's Casino Royale leaves off, with Bond taking Mr. White captive in an effort to figure out what led Vesper Lynd to double cross MI6. This leads to a mysterious collective of business men, including Dominic Greene, a wealthy environmentalist with eyes on controlling Bolivia's water supply. Beautiful location shooting, the always lovely Bond girls, and intense action sequences highlight this recent entry into the Bond cannon.

While there is still a distinction between the two super cinema spies, Jason Bourne and James Bond, with each new Bond film, the line continues to blur. Untill 06's Casino Royale, Bond was suave, charming, gadget intensive, over-the top action, and humourous. Bourne was stripped down, gritty, brains, brawn and not much else, over the top, but more direct action sequences. There were clear stylistic differences between the two, and no one would dare confuse them. But following the success of the Bourne saga, and the diminishing critical acclaim for the Brosnan Bond flicks, producers and filmmakers decided to follow a similar Bournian path with the new films.

The performance of Daniel Craig (Layer Cake, Munich) ranks as not only one of the finest in the Bond catalogue, but in the genre, and of the year. He brings an emotional depth to a character traditionally played as emotionally detached. That's not to say the character was flat, just... in control. Craig not only launches himself to another tier of acting, but the character to a whole new level.

But this brings up the aforementioned conflict. This new Bond shows off not only the evolution of the character, but the evolution of the spy genre and the evolution of cinema in general. From Sean Connery in Bond's debut in Dr. No, to Pierce Brosnan's Bond swan song Die Another Day, there was always a knowing wink that the action was fictionally over the top, as were the gadgets and what not. That's what made Bond such an admirable hero. He was played as a larger than life character who couldn't possibly be real.

The conflict is, do we want the old Bond? Or is this new Bond where it's at? There's part of me that wish it was the way it was, the old Bond. But as I mentioned, the character, the genre and movies in general have all evolved since 1962, hell since 2002 (Die Another Day). So Bond is just adjusting to the times.

I think director Marc Foster (Finding Neverland, Stranger Than Fiction) knew exactly where to put the character. In not just a personal moral dilema to explore his raw emotions, but in a professional dilema, and have the two decidedly cross.

And that brings him to Dominic Greene, one of the more fascinating villains in Bond history. He was brought to life by French actor Mathieu Amalric (Munich, Marie Antoinette). Amalric plays Greene with restrained bombacity. Yeah... I know, an oxymoron if there ever was one. He's everything you ever liked about the villains, but reigns in the performance to bring a sense of reality to the character. Sure guys like Dr. Julius No, Auric Goldfinger, Max Zorin and even Le Chiffre couldn't possibly exist, but Greene, there's a very real chance of it. And that's pretty scary.

And dear lord are the Bond girls ever beautiful. Ukrainian actress Olga Kurylenko (Max Payne, Paris, je t'aime) as the deeply troubled and vengeful Camile gives great life to the Bond girl, the character type which has gotten completely ridiculous in the more recent entries. Sure Eva Green's Vesper Lynd in Casino Royale was great. But did anyone really buy Denise Richards as a nuclear physicist? Especially one named Dr. Christmas Jones? Though conflict continues when a low level agent babysits and subsequently sleeps with Bond. She is just as absurdly named, with the moniker Strawberry Fields, though the relatively unknown Gemma Arternon brings beauty, grace and depth to her character's brief stint on camera.

As it's own movie, leaving the Bond legacy behind, it's a damn fine movie. But you can't rate it without looking into the legacy. It suffers from the same thing that makes it great. Progress. Though I'm glad it's progressing. It makes for much more interesting films.

W.

2008-11-08T16:51:00.002-05:00

W.

4.5 Stars

No one knows controversial films about Presidents better than Oliver Stone. See JFK and Nixon for proof. But he made those with a nice 20 - 30 year cushion between film and subject. How does one tactfully take on the life of not only the sitting president... but a now unpopular one? With a life and presidency fill with controversy, the story of George W. Bush would not be an easy one to bring to film, especially with a few months still left in his term in office. But the decidedly left Oliver Stone did a phenomenal job.

W. is not so much an indictment of Bush as president or as a person, but an exploration of both. Josh Brolin (No Country For Old Men, Goonies) stars as the titular president, and brings a humanity to the character that through the past 8 years, a humanity that we as the American people hadn't been privy too. He plays the character with respect, careful to stay far away from charicature.

There were certain members of the supporting cast who did unfortunately walk, and subsequently cross, the line of character and charicature. I couldn't get past the noticably awkward gruff voice Jeffery Wright (Casino Royale) uses for Colin Powell. Or the bizzare make-up on Thandie Newton (Crash) to make her look like Condoleeza Rice.

There were, however, outstanding performances given by the supporting cast. James Cromwell (L.A. Confidential) and Elizabeth Banks (Zack and Miri Make A Porno) as Bush Sr. and Laura Bush, respectively, were the shining stars of the non Brolin variety. With Richard Dreyfus (Jaws) and Scott Glen (Backdraft) as Cheney and Rumsfeld also clocking in outstanding performances. If Brolin doesn't garner a nomination come award season (and he damn well should), on of these four definitely will.

I think Stone's own reputation is what did him in with this film. He's known for being a leftist conspiracy nut, with a flare for style and audacity. But while W. was a genuinely good film. It was mostly a bland entry into the Stone canon.

As I said, it was a damn fine film, but safe and tame. You will walk away from this film respecting Bush as a man, as a person, if not as a politician.

How To Lose Friends and Alienate People

2008-10-11T15:52:00.000-04:00

How To Lose Friends and Alienate People

3 Stars

Simon Pegg has had tremendous success in his native UK, and his projects have done well state-side as well. But can he carry a U.S. film? Short answer: Yes, but not yet. In my opinion anyway.

How To Lose Friends and Alienate People is based on the book of the same name by Toby Young, a British Journalist who traveled to the states to pursue a job at Vanity Fair. Sidney Young (Simon Pegg) is the ficitional representation of Toby, and his small time UK magazine caught the attention of Sharpe's editor Clayton Harding (Jeff Bridges) who asks Young to come write for their entertainment and lifestyles section. Young's borish, obnoxious and cavalier behaviour, however, clashes with the upscale temperments of the magazine's writers, editors and clientele. He soon learns, with the help of fellow writer Alison (Kirsten Dunst) and uber-publicist to the stars, Elanor Johnson (Gillian Anderson) that if you want to go anywhere, you have to play the game.

Rarely do I complain that a movie is too long. I have absolutely no problem sitting down and watching a 3.5 hour movie. But the problem with this movie is that it's overly long. At nearly 2 hours, a good 25 minutes longer than it needed to be. It could be argued that some of the awkward scenes were put in to heighten the awkwardness of the character. But most of the time it comes off as just... awkward. A good portion of the time I was squirming in my seat out of discomfort.

But to the credit of the actors, they did a pretty good job with what they were given. They weren't given much. Pegg (Shaun of the Dead, Hott Fuzz) proved he can move comfortably outside of the Edgar Wright collaboration that has treated him so well in years past. But his effectiveness in carrying a movie has yet to be proven. Luckily his next major American release is an ensemble (Star Trek, he plays Scotty).

I still have yet to see anything of value (outside her stunning looks) in Megan Fox (Transformers, that's about it). She just so happens to be the IT girl of the moment, which gives dubious credence to her casting in just about anything. Kirstin Dunst is still somewhat of an oddity. Her script choices never seem to make use of her talent. Start picking edgier fair, Ms. Dunst. Stay away from the romantic comedies. You're treading the waters Meg Ryan drowned in.

The film wasn't completely dreadful, it did find the humour from a cliche fish out of water story. Something tells me the real life stories were much more interesting than the film has you believe, but the film was restricted by it's attempts to appeal to a broader audience (and be a cliche rom-com). Had a different director (Robert B. Weide's directorial filmography includes just a handful of biographical documentaries and few episodes of "Curb Your Enthusiasm") taken on the subject matter, say Alexander Payne, it probably would have been a better film. Edgier, tighter, funnier, better.

At best, it's an enthusiastic "meh." I don't completely endorse nor completely condemn this film. It had it's moments, but not enough to warrant anything more than 3 stars. It gets to three on Pegg alone. Wait for it to show up on HBO, bypass the theatrical and DVD releases.

Burn After Reading

2008-09-30T18:03:00.000-04:00

Burn After Reading

4 stars

How dark and violent was last year's Coen Bros. offering No Country for Old Men? Now... imagine that... only funny. And without Tommy Lee Jones. Such is the case of Burn After Reading. It's dark. It's violent. It's hilarious. Really it is. In a year filled with several funny movies, this is another interesting entry into that cannon.

After finding what they believe to be top secret government documents, personal trainers Linda and Chad (Frances McDormand and Brad Pitt) engage CIA analyst Osborne Cox (John Malkovich) in a blackmailing scheme for the return of said documents. Unbeknownst to Linda, Chad and Osborne, the documents are actualy Osborne's personal finance records, which his wife, Katie (Tilda Swinton), had prepared in advance of the divorce papers she is filing. The divorce papers are because she is leaving Osborne for U.S. Marshall Harry Pfarrer (George Clooney).

Sound complicated? It's not, really. The comedy doesn't draw from how they're connected, but from that they're even connected in the first place. Rarely does Brad Pitt take on roles that challenge his comedic prowess, but he was really able to sink his teeth into a role that let him shine. He showed glimpses of timing in the Ocean's saga and Mr. and Mrs. Smith, but this was his moment to prove himself, and prove himself he did. With a cast of great actors playing great characters (including Clooney, Swinton, McDormand and the always fantastic Malkovich), Pitt was truly the one to watch.

The thing about the Coen brothers, and I have yet to decide if this is a good thing or not, is that even when it seems like they're phoning it in, they're still a cut above the rest. They've been funnier (The Big Lebowski, O Brother Where Art Thou?) and they've been darker (Fargo, No Country For Old Men), but even when they're just so-so (Intolerable Cruelty, The Ladykillers), they're still watchable, if for nothing more than the quirkiness of their scripts. They were quirky and bizarre before it was trendy, and continue to transcend the palate of "quirky indie" to always remain a level above everyone else. With stories about wholly unlikeable characters, you find yourself siding with them for some reason or another.

Such is the case with Burn After Reading. It's a story populated with cheaters, vain people, and all around total assholes. The few "good people" are disregarded by the rest, and Pitt, while generally good, is still an annoying D-bag. But you end up liking them for some reason. Can't put my finger on it.

When compared to their previous effort, No Country For Old Men, this comes off as an easy follow-up, meant to rest their creative processes, and hopefully prepping for something bigger and better. But I would never decry someone to take an alternate route with a new film. And while we've seen similar efforts from the Coens, I don't feel they've ever quite so successfully fused the comedy and the dark. They are filmmakers for which the term "black comedy" was practically invented.

Paul Newman RIP 1925-2008

2008-09-27T10:52:00.002-04:00

Legendary actor, race car driver, philanthropist, sauce maker, gentleman and all around cool guy Paul Newman passed away Friday after a long battle with cancer. He was 83.

As per usual, videos below:

From Cool Hand Luke:

From Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid

From The Hustler:

From Slap Shot:

Pineapple Express AND Tropic Thunder

2008-08-18T19:50:00.000-04:00

I've been away for awhile, I know. Demands of the new job. But I'm returning with a double dose of reviews. Both comedies... both good.

Pineapple Express

4.5 Stars

There's something to be said for stoner comedies. Some people will get them. Some people won't. But they are generally funny if they aren't too reliant on cliched jokes. Judd Apatow is proving himself to be the Pixar of R-Rated comedies: he just can't seem to miss.

Dale (Seth Rogan) witnesses a dirty cop (Rosie Perez) and the city's most ruthless drug-lord (Gary Cole) murder a member of a rival drug cartel, and subsequently drops a joint in his panic. But this isn't any joint. This joint is some of the rarest weed on earth, the titular Pineapple Express. Since Ted Jones (Cole) is the primary supplier of it, he can easily track it to Dale and the dealer he bought it from, Saul (James Franco). Thus Dale and Saul embark in a game of cat and mouse, trying to stay one step ahead of their pursuers, all while trying to keep the groovy buzz going.

Apatow and Rogan have been ever pushing the boundries of the R-Rated comedy, ever since their break out success with The 40 Year Old Virgin. And this goes balls to the wall with action. The action comedy ground work laid down by Eddie Murphey in the 80's, coupled with the stoner-buddy comedies of Cheech and Chong makes for a potent combination, one that I was initially wary of. But I shouldn't have been. I should know that if it's done by Apatow and crew, I need not worry.

It could have been a dumb little flick about weed. It could have been a mediocre entry into the Apatow cannon. But the bar keeps getting pushed higher (no pun intended) and the boundries expand further and further.

I wouldn't say it's completely brilliant, but it is a mostly original entry into the stoner comedy sub-genre. It's one of the finer comedies to be released in recent years, especially amid all those *Insert random genre* Movie pieces of shit flicks that have been churned out with disturbing frequency.

The real hub of the film, the glue that kept it together, was James Franco. He takes a break from his more serious roles and takes on a role that he seems almost born to play. It's good to see an actor play a character that's out of his usual range and stock. It's like when you go back and watch Sean Penn as Jeff Spicolli.

I laughed the whole way through, and it probably hasn't been since Seth Rogan's previous flick, Superbad, that I laughed so hard and so consistently at a flick. Highly recommended.

Tropic Thunder

4 Stars

Perhaps my expectations on this one were too high. But I couldn't get into this one as much as I wanted to. It was good. I enjoyed it. I laughed a lot. It certainly wasn't a bad movie, far from it. But I kinda wanted more. But Tom Cruise was the bomb.

Ben Stiller, Jack Black and Robert Downey, JR. play prima-donna stars in a new Vietnam War epic, who are dropped into an actual South-East Asian war zone when their on and off screen antics get to be too much for rookie director Damien Cockburn (Steve Coogan). Stiller's action star Tugg Speedman, Black's comic actor Jeff Portney and Downey, Jr.'s method actor Kirk Lazarus unfortunately don't know they're in a real warzone and continue "acting" through real raids, real kiddnappings and real deaths. Hilarity ensues.

It does. It really does. There are times when there are several in-jokes, where if you're an astute observer, as well as being well-versed in war flicks, you'll get the jokes. I got them, but I'm a film nerd like that. Everybody did a damn fine job playing off each other, and no one stole the show (except Tom Cruise).

But... I don't know. I can't put my finger on it. I was just expecting more, I guess.

As for the controversy... To me, the retard thing wasn't that big of a deal. They weren't making fun of the mentally handicapped. They were making fun of actors who feel like they have to play a mentally handicapped people in order prove their worth as an actor, and the sometimes ignorance of the actual affliction. Same thing with Downey, Jr. in black face. He was making fun of "method acting." They're highlighting the extremes of each, blowing it out of proportion to comedic effect. And it worked.

I felt everyone did a good job. And especially Cruise's over-the-top cameo as bad ass movie producer. It almost seemed as if he was making fun of both his real life role as head of United Artists, and his role in Jerry Maguire. I dug it.

It was funny, I liked it, go see it in theatres... but to me, it was missing something that I just can't put my finger on.

Dear DC...

2008-08-01T06:04:00.004-04:00

So, Brodie Fanns...

I've never really made an effort to hide that when it comes to the great Marvel vs. DC debate, I side with Marvel. I think their characters are better written and better developed. And Superman's kind of a pansy. He is. Face it.

Anyway, I came across this interesting article over at Movie Retriever, about the future of DC films. And it raises some very interesting points. Basically that while The Dark Knight is the greatest cinematic achievement known to man, woman, child and certain cave dwelling amphibians, two great movies out of three since the comic book genre caught fire seven years ago isn't exactly a stellar track record when compared to other comic book publishers, say for instance, Marvel, who have gone back and forth with their adaptations, but their top-tier flicks tend to be solid offerings.

So far DC's offered us two great Batman flicks, and a barely passable Superman retread. I would have liked to see Singer do to Superman what Nolan did with Batman. Forget the first franchise, and take it in a newer, more mature level. I don't mean "mature" in the boobies and swear words sense, but mature in the advanced story telling sense.

They had some great ideas for the future of DC and I agreed with some of them. It boils down to Keep Batman confined to his movies, Superman confined to his movies, set up a Wonder Woman franchise, keep her confined, and then bring out the B-Listers for crossovers (Green Lantern, Green Arrow, The Flash, Hawkgirl, Aquaman, Martian Manhunter). That's all well and good.

But I was discussing Batman, Superman and DC with a good friend of mine and came up with the following strategy:

Christopher Nolan, who is doing absolutely amazing things with Batman, signs a longterm contract with Warner Bros./DC. ties him to at least two more movies, with the allowance to do side projects if he so chooses (The Prestige, anyone?). But he is contracted for 2 more DC movies, at least.

The third Batman film needs to start introducing more aspects of the DC Universe, particularly Metropolis and Superman. And this is where he starts a creative collaboration with Bryan Singer.

For the next Superman movie... Singer basically needs to abandon the notion of tying the Routh Superman to the Reeve Superman, and take it in it's own direction. And he can start doing tie-ins and crossovers to the rest of the DC Universe, particularly Gotham City and Batman.

Now, Singer and Nolan do a full on creative collaboration for the subsequent films in their series'. Here's why... do a two part Batman/Superman flick, Nolan taking part I, Singer taking part II.

So the franchises would go in this order: Superman II, Batman III, Batman/Superman I, Batman/Superman II. In the second part, you could introduce some of the other DC heroes, though not in major roles. Oliver Queen/Green Arrow, Hal Jordan/Green Lantern, Diana Prince/Wonder Woman, and Wally West/The Flash.

You could do that to do introductions of characters. Then once you've got it all set, move on to the big Justice League Movie, and the runs of Batman and Superman with that, and spin off with the aforementioned heroes.

It follows an opposit pattern as Marvel, and it does away with the "Origins story" for them, because we're setting them up. Then once they get to their own flicks, they can jump right into their own stories.

It works. Trust me. You hear that, Joe Quesada. Put me in charge of cinematic development. Cause I'm a cat who knows what's what. Hells yeah.

- Brodie Mann

The Dark Knight aka BEST MOVIE EVAR!

2008-07-20T13:25:00.003-04:00

The Dark Knight

5 Stars

There's been a lot of advance press concerning this new Batman, The Dark Knight flick. And I know a lot of you... well a lot of you probably already saw it. But for the 2 people in the civilized world who have yet to see it, and are sitting on their couch, reminiscing of the good old Jack Nicholson days of the Joker, wondering whether or not the film is worth all the positive press it's receiving. Wondering whether or not Heath Ledger's Joker really is Oscar worthy. Wondering if it does in fact live up to the hype. Well wonder no more, Brodie-maniacs. Cause as a person who actually saw the film, and as a well respected, admired, and not very well paid film critic, everything you've heard is not only true, but also a vast understatement of the true greatness of the film. I only give it 5 stars because that's how many my usual rating system would allow. On the IMDb, I gave it 10.

Christian Bale returns as Bruce Wayne/Batman, this time fighting a mysterious and demented criminal known only as The Joker (Heath Ledger). Aiding him in his fight against the scarred madman are his trusty butler Alfred (Michael Caine), the now Lt. James Gordon (Gary Oldman), Gotham City D.A. Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart), wise businessman Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) and Bruce's former girlfriend, A.D.A. Rachel Dawes (this time played by a real actress, Maggie Gyllenhaal).

One thing the Batman franchise as a whole, from the comics to the movies to the animated shows and movies, has always done is blurred the line between hero and villain. Batman is a hero, but he's not a clear cut hero (like his DC counterpart, Superman). He fudges the moral and ethical line to take down the bad guy, and makes no effort to show remorse for doing so. So he's the hero, but he's no Boy Scout.

On the flipside of that, the villain isn't necessarily pure evil. The way John and Chris Nolan wrote the character, and to an even greater extent, how Ledger (Lords of Dogtown) played The Joker, presents the villain as doing villainous things, as being a morally devoid entity, as being chaos incarnate, but it's not entirely clear that his motives are all that wrong. Sure his methods are destructive, murderous and utterly criminal. But is chaos for the sake of chaos all that wrong?

And that's the magic of Chris Nolan's directing and writing. He upholds, skewers and satirizes the traditional comic book notion of Hero vs. Villain, all at the same time. To intensify the point even more, there's Dent's downward spiral from beam of hope D.A. to corrupt and deranged Two-Face, fascinatingly portrayed by Eckhart (Thank You for Smoking). Eckhart portrays the cool, confidence of a D.A. who champions the fall of organized crime. And for the first two acts, you believe in Harvey Dent as the symbol of all that is good in Gotham. Then, after certain events, he begins his rapid descent into cynicism and madness. And to a character shift like that takes a special kind of moxie. And Eckhart exudes the talant to do so.

But make no mistake, there is one clear hero amongst the villains and near-heroes- Lt. James Gordon. Oldman (Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban) brings gravitas to what has previously been nothing more than an ancillary character. And his desire to do good and keep the people of Gotham safe is the shining beacon of good in a city shrouded in moral ambiguity.

It would seem that the three supporters of Batman are the only three truly "good guys." Gordon, who we already talked about, but there's also Caine's (The Prestige) Alfred Pennyworth as the guiding voice of reason for Bruce. And there's Freeman's (Wanted) Lucius Fox, who, in a very poignant scene, objects to Batman's methods, offers to help, then tenders his resignation due to his objections. Proving that standing by one's ethic code is more important than the alleged greater good.

Nolan's direction was perfect. He paces the movie just right. You never look at your watch, in the entire two hours and thirty minutes, wondering when it's going to be over. In fact, once the credits start rolling, you're asking yourself "Wait... it's over? No, there has to be more." Part of that is due to Nolan's deep understanding of how to construct his characters in their action sequences.

I've saved the elephant in the living room for last. Heath Ledger's performance as The Joker. If you're a regular follower of my blog, you'll remember that I've been ranting and raving about his performance since the first teaser hit theatres back in December. And I did the appropriate memorial page when he passed in January. So it may seem like people have been fawning over his performance on the merit that he did pass away.

But oh how you would be wrong, if that's your mentality. Ledger digs way deep down to find the true essence of The Joker. He's a mystery. He's an enigma. And he is the personification of pure insanity, pure chaos. He exists to create anarchy. Ledger takes Joker's lack of real purpose and motivation to exemplify himself as a counterpoint to Christian Bale's Batman. The performance is not only the best cinematic villain ever (take that Hans Grueber), but it is also one of the most nuanced and perfect performances ever committed to film.

Ledger's performance is completely Oscar worthy. Ledger lost himself in the role, and it is pure acting, at it's core. And there are plenty of other aspects to this film that are Oscar worthy. It is not only the perfect super-hero movie, but it's a perfect crime drama epic, oddly reminiscent of Goodfellas and The Godfather.

I give it 5 stars, because it truley deserves all 5 of them, and then some.

- Brodie Mann

My Perfect Day: In Movie Scenes

2008-07-18T07:00:00.002-04:00

Brodie Fanns!

I was perusing other movie blogs, as I do from time to time. And one of my favourites is "Misfortune Cookie", really cool stuff over there. Last week, I was checking it out, and she wrote this cool post on constructing the perfect day, using scenes from movies. This link takes you to the actual post.

I rather enjoyed it, and I figured I'd take a crack at it.

- I'd most likely start the day off recovering from the night before with Russell Hammond of Stillwater in Almost Famous.
- Then I'd probably grab a cheeseburger from Big Kahuna Burger, the cornerstone of any nutritious breakfast, like in Pulp Fiction.
- After breakfast, I'd probably want to pick up some new records. First I'd head to High Fidelity's Championship Vinyl, and try to trade barbs with Rob, Dick and Barry. Then I'd cruise over to Empire Records for "Rex Manning Day." Say no more, mon amour.
- For lunch, I'd have to do Chotchkie's, the favourite coffee spot for Office Space's Peter, Michael and Samir.
- I'd probably take a trip to the convention center, see if they've got a comic book convention going on, like in Chasing Amy.
- I of course can't make it through the day without taking in a Sonny Chiba flick or two, hook up with my good buddy Clarence Worely from True Romance.
- Dinner at American Psycho's Dorsia with some co-workers, but only if we have reservations.
- In the late evening I'd probably go bowling for a game or two with The Dude, Walt and Donny from The Big Lebowski. Of course, I'd make sure not to step over the line.
- I'd spend the rest of the night chillin' on the football field with the Robert E. Lee Class of '77 out of Dazed and Confused. When I first conceptualized this list, I thought about just making my entire day out of that movie, but that would be cheating.

Watchmen Trailer

2008-07-17T19:37:00.003-04:00

Brodie Fanns!

The trailer for the cinematic adaptation for the single greatest graphic novel ever written is finally upon us. It will play before The Dark Knight. So I can't wait to see it on the big screen. But here is a damn fine quality video of it.

Get Geeky Brodie-Maniacs. It's Watchmen.

I'm also going to post the URL, just in case the video doesn't play.

http://www.traileraddict.com/trailer/watchmen/trailer

- Brodie Mann

Hellboy II: The Golden Army

2008-07-15T07:15:00.002-04:00

Hellboy II: The Golden Army

4.5 Stars

Hellboy II: The Golden Army is one of those niche films based on a niche comic book directed by a niche director. By all accounts, it shouldn't do well with mainstream audiences. But it's just too damn good to not do well. I think because director Guillermo del Toro is just too damn bizarre to resist.

Hellboy (Ron Pearlman) has his hands full in the newest installment. Not only is firey girlfriend Liz (Selma Blair) demanding more out of the relationship, but an elvish prince is seeking to take world domination away from the humans. By using an unstoppable army. A golden army. Now Hellboy, Liz and Abe Sapien (Doug Jones) must join forces with Johann Krauss (Seth MacFarlane) and the princes sister to prevent the centuries old truce between the two races from being broken.

Hellboy, the character, let's talk about him. Ron Pearlman brings a sarcastic, sardonic, anti-hero attitude to the big red beast, playing the character to perfection. He's a reluctant hero, but he's not as scornful towards the people he saves as they are to him. He understands that he has a job to do, and does it, despite the rejection from the public. And Pearlman exudes that. It's not too many people who would be able to play so well through piles of make-up, but Pearlman is the perfect match for the character.

As an actor, he's able to balance the character's conflicts. He never emphasizes one over the other, as they are all equally important to the story. His internal conflict with who he is and who he could be, his constant arguments with Liz about where their relationship is heading, and his duty to save humanity from the forces of the golden army.

Guillermo del Toro launches himself to the position of greatest modern fantasy director with this film, as if El Laberinto del Fauno didn't already cement that title for him. His ability to create a visual spectacle that leaves you amazed, breathless and hungry for more is unmatched, even against heavyweights Peter Jacksons, Steven Spielberg and George Lucas. del Toro takes fantasy to the extreme, yet keeps it simple. He doesn't rely on the CG like the rest tend to.

The only complaint I really do have is that he tried to cram too much into the film. It's too busy, there's too much going on. He should have dialed it back, especially in the first act. It's such an overload of bizarre creatures, that you're hoping for rest, which you never get.

For a perfect mix of comedy, action and fantasy, it doesn't get any better than Hellboy.

WALL-E

2008-07-02T04:41:00.003-04:00

WALL-E

5 Stars

I need to get a star graphic. Oh well. WALL-E is beyond good. It is beyond great. It is, without a doubt, the greatest Pixar film ever. But more than that, it is one of the finest animated films ever.

WALL-E (Waste Allocation Load Lifter-Earth class) is a simple robot, charged with the simple task of cleaning up earth 600 years after humans abandoned it following the global conglomorate Buy N Large's almost eco-decimation of the planet. There were other WALL-E units, but WALL-E is the only one who remains active, and he's developed a quirky personality. He lives alone on the planet, save for a pet cockroach, and the random interesting knick-knacks he finds. To bide his time, he watches an old VHS copy of Hello Dolly!, deciding what he's missing in his life is love. Enter searcher robot EVE, sent by the humans (who live on massive space stations) to find signs of life on Earth. It's the classic story of boy meets girl. Except boy and girl are robots. WALL-E falls in love with EVE, though she's more interested in accomplishing her primary directive, which she does when WALL-E gives her a plant he found (get it, like a flower, awwwww), and then she promptly shuts down, waiting for the transport ship to collect her and her findings. Thus starts and interstellar journey to bring the humans out of their sluggish and completely pampered lives aboard the space stations, but more importantly, one of the greatest love stories ever committed to screen. Involving robots.

I really don't know where to start with this. I haven't had pre-release anticipation for an animated film since 2004's The Incredibles (also Pixar). And I haven't truley been impressed by one since then.

What got me with this one was a bizarrely intriguing story, coupled with fantastic filmmaking. And that, I believe, is the magic of Pixar. Where other animated films try to do a mix of adult content and kid stuff, so there's "something the whole family can enjoy!", Pixar films take the adults, particularly the adults without young kids (like myself), back to when we were kids. It recaptures the magic we all felt when we saw Aladdin go on the magic carpet ride with Jasmine, when Belle and Beast danced in the main ballroom, when Robin outfoxed (pun intended) Prince John, when Pinocchio turned into an ass, when Dumbo flew for the first time and when Prince Charming kissed Snow White to bring her out of her deep slumber. It leaves out the slick pop-culture references and the dubious double entendres the older audiences would understand but the youngens won't.

But mostly, Pixar rewards its audience. And WALL-E is no different. There's payoff. You don't walk away wondering why you just sat through the movie. You walk away glad you were able to get to the theatre to see it.

Director Andrew Stanton (A Bug's Life, Finding Nemo) took a risk in creating what, for all intents and purposes, could be considered a silent film. A silent animated film. The first half hour is nothing but WALL-E, the cockroach, and ultimately EVE. Sure we get snippets of Fred Willard as the CEO of Buy N Large (live action no less) and a few clips of Hello Dolly!, but for the most part, it's a robot and his bug. There's a significant Buster Keaton/Charlie Chaplin feel to the character. To do that sort of thing in a modern "kids" film, takes guts. And Mr. Stanton, you've got 'em.

There's some great political commentary in there, too. About the environment, about mass capitalism, about societal apathy. But all that is obvious to the viewer (except the younger ones, who probably define capitalism as "Washington, D.C."). The thrust of the film, and what is most engaging about the picture is the love story.

We're not looking at two human characters, or personified animals. These are two robots. It's a new kind of love story. And it's played perfectly between the two characters. Stanton kept it simple. He didn't try to overcomplicate it, or make it goofy. It was a love story, and he told it. They just happen to be robots.

But really, and this is the technical portion of the review, the film would have been no where without the fantastic artwork of the Pixar animators. There's a meticulous attention to detail that even in some of the better animated films you don't get. And nothing is without purpose. There's a reason everything that appears on screen, appears on screen. Be it foreshadowing, be it plot advancement, or be it just for laughs (like the Pizza Planet truck, or Hamm the Piggy Bank), it all serves a purpose. Nothing is thrown away.

It is my third 5 star review of the year... and it is the first ever animated film to hold the number one slot in my living list of "Best Film of the Year." And that means in the now 5 years that I've been keeping those lists, this is the first time. Seriously... go see it. You have to. I loved this film.

Wanted

2008-07-02T03:49:00.003-04:00

Wanted

4 Stars

Action movies, let's talk about 'em. They got goofy and campy in the 80's... then Die Hard came along and redefined the genre. Then every action movie after that tried to be Die Hard. Then in 1999, The Matrix redefined the genre all over again. Lather, rinse, repeat. Which brings us to 2008. I'm not saying Wanted has redefined or revolutionized the action genre. But it's definitely changed the rules, and has done something pretty damn good.

Scottish star James McAvoy stars as Wesley Gibson, a 20-something nobody working not-so-comfortably as low-rung management at an accounting firm. Barely content that his life means nothing and will go no where, his world almost literally explodes when he is drafted into The Fraternity by Angelina Jolie's Fox. The Fraternity, a secret society of assassins headed by Morgan Freeman's Sloan, wants Wesley to pick up where his father left off before his untimely murder by a defected member of The Fraternity. Why are these assassins so special? Why is Wesley so special? They have heightened senses, which allow them to react to a situation better than a normal person. With his training complete, Wesley must now face an ultimate, life changing conundrum: go after the man who killed his father, or listen to him when he reveals the alterior and sinister motives behind Sloan's bidding.

While it certainly doesn't break any new ground with the plot (lonely guy working in a dead end cubicle job is informed that he's special in many ways and must now use a plethora of guns and some kick ass action sequences to stop the bad guys... aforementioned Matrix say what?) What it does do, is shatter the traditional notions of good guy vs. bad guy in the action genre. Primarily through Wesley. Why is becoming this super-assassin? Is it for the thrill he gets off of his new found talents? Is it to avenge his father's death? Is it because it is what he is told his destiny is, and he's blindly following it? There's a philosophical discussion in the making here, and it's something that hasn't really been explored since The Matrix.

Similar traits have been explored in the plethora of super-hero movies that have been released over the past nine years, but those were traits that were engrained in popular characters long before they were put to the silver screen. While I admitedly have not read the comics this film was based on, there's a bit more legitimacy to it than there is when the guy is donning red and blue spandex. The Wesley character is more tangible because we know who he is, we can see him. He's not wearing a mask, metaphor intended.

McAvoy (Atonement, The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe) deserves a lot of that credit. That role could have been played a myriad of ways, but he plays it right. The transformation of frustrated meek to frustrated strong. It doesn't seem like a stretch for him or the character, and it's certainly not as offensive to the audience as the three hour long GAP ad that was Spider-Man 3. There's a natural flow to his progression as a character, and I don't mind the obligatory sequel set-up at the end.

What I liked most about Freeman (oh come on, if you don't know who Morgan Freeman is, you have no business reading my blog), is that not only is the character a sharp contrast of his usual character-type, but it's a particular opposition to the character we'll be seeing in two weeks with the release of The Dark Knight. He's stepping out of character, which is good. Not to say he's the villain, far from it. But there's more depth, I suppose, to his leader role. There's doubt. There's mystery. There's skepticism. You never quite take your eye off of him. The fact that it's Morgan Freeman doesn't lull you into a false sense of security. To the credit of Freeman, he doesn't let his personality take over the role.

And then there's Jolie. Damn is she hot. I mean, yeah, good actress, miles of talent on that one. But DAMN! Enough of me being a guy... She's a good actress, done some really great work. While you could tell she had fun with this role, there always seemed to be a slight hint of boredom on her face. Could have been a character trait for Fox. But I couldn't tell.

I have to give props to director Timur Bekmambetov (if you know who this guy is, then you get a free pass to my blog for life). I was unsure of how he would make the move to doing a mainstream American film. He gained some notice State-side a few years back for his decidedly Russian Night Watch franchise. But I wasn't overly impressed. They were alright, but nothing to write home about. That's always kind of a shakey deal, when someone from a vastly different cinematic community (particularly one as diverse, storied and different like the Eastern European/Western Asian community) tries to break it elsewhere. Very few Bollywood and East Asian directors have been able to do it (face it, Ang Lee's American stuff sucks, as does John Woo's). But having seen Night Watch, I can tell that he didn't compromise his voice to the studio, and that's something you have to respect in a director helming such a high profile, tent-pole of a film. Thumbs up, Timur. I don't know what that means in Kazakhstan, if it's a good thing, or if I just insulted your mother or whatever. But here... means good stuff. Keep your eye on this kid.

So Wanted unfortunately doesn't break new ground in the genre, but it definitely stirs the pot a bit. And that's what you've gotta do every so often... stir the pot. And it was thouroughly enjoyable.

Get Smart

2008-06-24T07:00:00.001-04:00

Get Smart

4.5 Stars

There have been many a great cinematic adaptations of television shows. And there have been many a terrible ones, too. Where does Get Smart fall? On this side of great. Not quite The Fugitive, but miles ahead of *shudder* The Brady Bunch.

We're introduced to Maxwell Smart (Steve Carell), a mild-mannered and mostly naive analyst for CONTROL, a top-secret spy agency reportedly dismantled after the Cold War. He's on the brink of becoming a full blown agent, but he's just too good at his current job. But after the ruthless Siegfried (Terrance Stamp), leader of KAOS, bombs CONTROL headquarters and has their top agents assassinated, Smart gets promoted and gets assigned the task of bringing Siegfried to justice. All with the help of the beautiful, and more seasoned Agent 99 (Anne Hathaway), the superstar Agent 23 (Dwayne Johnson), and the careful guidence of the Chief (Alan Arkin).

With any adaptation of a TV show, and I probably delved into this a bit with Sex and the City, there's always the fans of the show that are hinging on whether or not it will be a faithful adaptation of the show, or if it will just be a goofy take-off. But what do you do when the show you're adapting starred the hilarious Don Adams, and was created by the even more hilarious Mel Brooks? Well, it's going to be goofy. But it's never insulting to the source material.

Get Smart the movie keeps the same light spirit as the show, with it's bizarre take on the spy genre. And I think the parody/satire has evolved with the genre. Where the spy genre had to reinvent itself after the fall of the Soviet Union (you can thank 24 and The Bourne Identity for the reinvention), Get Smart had to follow suit and become relevent again. And it does so in glorious fashion. It takes a cue from the Bourne page and hypes up the action, but doesn't strip itself of the slapstick and pratfalls. Carell and Hathaway have significantly more fight scenes than Adams and Barbara Feldon would have ever done, but that doesn't mean they are completely gadget-less. In fact, with the fantastic progress in actual techhnology that has been made in the past 43 years, the gadgets were even funnier and more outlandish than they were back then.

I have to do it because it's an iconic role... compare Carell to Adams as Smart. This was a hard role to take on, only because Adams poured so many idiosynchracies into the character, that to do a straight impersonation would have been wrong, and an ultimate fail. But to not play it like Adams would have been an insult to the character and the show. So Carell had to, and did, find that balance of playing the character, and also making it his own. It never became a charicature of Maxwell Smart. And that speaks volumes on Carell's talent as a comedian.

The same could, and should, be said about Hathaway taking on 99. Granted she had a bit more wiggle room with the character (though not in that dress, yowzah! Very nice!) than Carell did. But I think she did a fantastic job of portraying super-sexy yet super-deadly and the whole time super-sweet secret agent that has to carry Smart through his first real mission, and oddly doesn't seem to really mind.

I give major props for all involved, they really did an amazing job of capturing and subsequently updating the 40 year old TV show. You will not have more fun at the theatres at all... I sure as hell haven't.

George Carlin: 1937-2008

2008-06-23T13:10:00.004-04:00

I know much of the western world is deeply saddened by the news of George Carlin's passing earlier today. I am in particular. He wasn't just my favourite comedian. He was the reason I got into comedy in the first place. I got my hands on one of his tapes way back when I was a wee lad, say around 6 years of age. It was "FM&AM", if I'm not mistaken. I was six, so I didn't get a lot of the jokes, but he was making the audience laugh. And from then on, I was hooked on stand up. Loved it ever since. I've seen numerous specials and plenty of live shows. And thankfully, last year, I got to see Carlin down in Escanaba.

He was a brilliant comedian. Words were his instrument, and he was the Eric Clapton of comedy. And he wasn't about quips, one liners or insults. He was about dissecting the language and the absurdities of it. He didn't need to be profane, but because the dirty words were part of our language, they were part of his act. He could do 10 minutes on the word shit. In fact, I'm pretty sure he did.

He got his start in the late 50's, hosting a radio show with Jack Burns. He did several TV appearences and live shows. This is an early one of his from the Smothers Brothers way back in '68.

He was a frequent guest and guest host on The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson. He was the first ever host of a little program called Saturday Night Live.

This link takes you to the first part of "FM & AM." I can't embed the video, but I can link you to it. You can listen to the entire album, and you should, it is fantastic.

This link takes you to the first part of "Toledo Window Box." Again... no embedding, but I can link you to it. Listen to the whole thing, it too is fantastic.

But I can give you a few of my favourite bits.

Carlin's Revised 10 Commandments:

And I can't do this post without posting...

The comedy world, and indeed the world itself is saddened by his unfortunate passing. He will be missed.

The Incredible Hulk

2008-06-17T07:00:00.002-04:00

The Incredible Hulk

3.5 Stars

It's easy to restart a franchise when enough time has passed to wash the bad taste of a terrible cinematic outing out of the collective mouths of the movie going public. Just ask Christopher Nolan, who successfully restarted the Batman franchise following Joel Schumacher's failed attempts at the caped crusader. But what about just five years later, when the stench of failure still lingers? Louis Leterrier decided to find out by rebooting The Incredible Hulk, and where the pairing of Ang Lee and Eric Bana failed (which was everywhere), Leterrier and Edward Norton pass with flying colours, even if they only manage to produce a slightly better than average superhero flick.

Leterrier throws caution to the wind and decides to completely ignore the previous film, and instead take it on a new path, that parallels the iconic 70's TV show. Provided only a brief, yet informative exposition, we join Bruce Banner (Edward Norton) in self-imposed exile in Brazil, working at a bottling plant by day, conducting his bio-chemical research at night. Gen. Ross has (William Hurt) has vowed to bring Banner back to the States for studying, and has gone so far as to bring in Emil Blonsky (Tim Roth), the Russian born, English raised soldier known for his tenacity. After two failed attempts at capturing Banner, Ross and Blonsky conspire to infect Blonsky with the same gamma radiation that transformed Banner, only at a lower dose. Just to even the playing field a bit. This back fires when Banner visits his old love Betty Ross (Liv Tyler), and a maximum carnage battle ensues on a college campus. Blonsky becomes addicted to the radiation, and soon turns into Abomination, sort of a Hulk meets Stegosaurus. Epic battle in Harlem that ends in... I'm not going to tell you the ending. Go see the movie.

Yes, I do in fact recommend this film. The comics and TV show always managed to find the balance between the sublime inner-torment of the character, and the utter ridiculousness of the fact that he's a scientist turned Not-so-Jolly Green Giant. That's where Ang Lee's film failed. He took the subject matter too seriously. But Leterrier found the balance. He injected his film with enough to make the character seem human, one who the audience could connect with. But he kept in the humour, and just a smidgen of camp.

Normally I don't do this, but I have to give HUGE props to Craig Armstrong, the composer. He incorporated some of the TV show's original music into his score. I particularly enjoyed his use of the sad walking away music (this piece of music right here).

The thing about Edward Norton (American History X, Fight Club) is that he is such a talented and versatile actor, yet this doesn't somehow seem beneath him as an actor. This could be that the landscape of superhero movies has changed, with such noted actors as Ian McKellen, Robert Downey, Jr, Kevin Spacey and anyone in the principle cast of Batman Begins not named Katie Holmes, taking on roles in the superhero genre. Norton takes on the difficult role of Banner, and makes it his own.

It ranks up there as one of the better heroic performances in the genre, certainly miles ahead of Eric Bana's, but he doesn't wow me in the role, as Bale and Downey, Jr. did in Batman Begins and Iron Man, respectively.

I think the strongest performances belong to the two villains, of all people, Blonsky and Gen. Ross. Roth (Reservoir Dogs, Four Rooms) never goes over the top with Blonsky/Abomination, almost playing him as a junkie. And Hurt (Into the Wild, A History of Violence), going in the opposite direction, plays an often cartoonish villain with the right amount of serious vigour, and goofy, overdrawn mannerisms. His performance comes off as an odd mesh between Patton and Carter Pueterschmidt (that's a Family Guy reference, second one of the review).

But while this film is clearly a step up from the previous effort, it lacks the social consciousness, or the stunning introverted look at the character that other superhero films have offered.

This marks the end of the official review. In the next paragraph, I'm going to geek out a bit, and it does contain spoilers as to the end of the movie. If you would not like to read the spoilers, surf over to another page.

*I hope that Marvel studios isn't just toying with us on the prospects of an all star The Avengers movie. If you remember from the end of Iron Man, Samuel L. Jackson showed up as Nick Fury, recruiting Stark to join a "new team." Well, at the end of The Incredible Hulk, we get a shot of Banner learning to control the Hulk, cut to Gen. Ross in a bar, in walks Downey, Jr. as Stark, looking to recruit Banner for a "new team." With Captain America and Thor movies in the works, scheduled to be released ahead of The Avengers, it is safe to speculate they are planning an all star Avengers movie. Not to mention, that the Captain America film is called The First Avenger: Captain America. If Marvel is smart with the marketing, and no one has ever accused them of not being smart in that area... they could open up the summer with Cpt. America, and close it with The Avengers. It's too bad Marvel's film licensing is spread out all over the various studios, because then they could at least attempt cameos from other stars/heroes.

END SPOILER

Sex and the City: The Movie

2008-06-03T01:25:00.003-04:00

Sex and the City: The Movie

3 Stars

Remember how last week it pained me to rate Indiana Jones 4 so low at 3 stars? This week... it pains me more to rate Sex and the City so high at 3 stars. But it's not that I liked it. But from the completely objective film critic standpoint... it wasn't as completely terrible as I thought it was going to be.

Sarah Jessica Parker, Kim Cattrall, Kristen Davis and Cynthia Nixon return as Carrie, Samantha, Charlotte and Miranda in the spin off movie of the hit HBO series. What have they been doing in the four years since we last saw them? Finding love, starting families, pursuing careers. Lots of sex. Oh and Carrie's getting married to Mr. Big (Chris Noth).

Let me get the completely objective film critic stuff out of the way first. One problem in adapting a TV show for the big screen is overcoming the episodic nature of the show. The show was half an hour long. Writer/director Michael Patrick King had to stretch the already thin premise (as Brian Griffin once commented on an episode of Family Guy: "So... this show is about three whores and their grandmother?") from half an hour to a full TWO AND A HALF HOURS! What we were given was a sloppy, convoluted mess of a film that had little direction.

It was trying to take a cue from Love Actually by interweaving multiple story lines into one over all plot. But Love Actually was able to deftly maneuver between the several sub-plots. Sex and the City wasn't. There should have been one story that was the primary focus, not four (in a sense, five).

And the Cinderella subtext was either the worst analogy ever, or the worst deus ex machina ever, I have yet to decide, or even figure out, which it was.

I have caught a few episodes of the series. I will admit to that. And this film felt like nothing more than a really long episode. When it comes to cinematic versions of current or recent television shows, there needs to be some expansion on the world of the show. I had the same criticism for The Simpsons Movie, where it didn't "go as far" as it should have. Both flicks just felt like long episodes, there wasn't a real special cinematic quality to them.

On the plus, all involved put forth strong performances. Even if we're just talking an extended version of their TV characters. It worked to their advantage to do the movie so soon after the show had ended. They weren't too far removed from the characters. Particularly Parker and Noth, they slipped back into the characters and put forth some relatively compelling scenes.

But through it all... as a critic I'll give it props. It wasn't completely terrible. There is an audience for it. Women. The ladies will love this movie. And that's why it's a PERFECT girls night out movie. It is NOT a date movie, however. Ladies, leave your boyfriends/fiancees/husbands at home. Guys, go watch Indiana Jones.

As a guy myself, I'm pretty sure we're protected from this film by several parts of the Geneva Convention. For guys, there is nothing to like about this film. It's girls talking about girl stuff for two and a half hours. And it's not even interesting girl stuff.

I consider myself to be a relatively smart person. And it bugged me that the characters were so vapid and shallow. But beyond that, I don't know what infuriates me more: that there are people who are actually like that, or that there are people who want to be like that.

Like I said, completely objective critic P.O.V., ladies will love it, and the film is not without it's merits. But guys, seriously, avoid at all costs.

-Brodie Mann

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

2008-05-29T03:22:00.003-04:00

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

3 stars

That right there, giving it 3 stars, pains me. I really wanted to like this more. But because George Lucas was involved, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull went from a moderately enjoyable to completely ridiculous faster than Dr. Jones can piss off the Nazi party.

It's been about 20 years since we last saw Dr. Henry "Indiana" Jones, Jr. (Harrison Ford), and that's how much time has passed in his little movie-verse. The year is 1957, right in the middle of the Cold War, and the KGB, led by Irina Spalko (Cate Blancett) has enlisted the help of Indiana to track down the famed and elusive Crystal Skull of Akator, with ties to a lost city of gold in Peru. Don't worry, Indy hasn't gone Red. He's an unwilling participant, the KGB is using him for his knowledge of ancient artifacts. After he narrowly escapes a nuclear blast test (thank you 1957 home appliance construction), Indy returns to his day job: college professor, only to find out a former colleague, Dr. Oxley (John Hurt) has been captured by the KGB, and Ox's protege, Mutt Williams (Shia Labeouf) has come to Dr. Jones for assistance in tracking down Ox. Which leads them to Peru and the search for the Crystal Skull.

I can't really get into more without revealing key plot details, but that's the long and short of it. And it's a really great premise.

Indiana Jones 4 succeeded where several reboots and sequels have failed. It didn't fall into the trap of "Hey, remember this from the original? It was funny then, so we're gonna do it 20 times in the new one." *cough*Pirates 2*cough* It alluded to the original trilogy, in so much as it provided good bridging stories for several favourite characters, including Dr. Jones, Sr. and Marcus Brody. And there certain logical references, including a flash of the Ark of the Covenant in a secret hanger. But it never strayed into the territory of *nudge nudge wink wink*.

The problem is that it is 20 years on. Harrison Ford is showing his age. The franchise is showing its age. The 80's were a different cinematic landscape than the 00's (I believe the preferred nomenclature is the Odds, or something like that). And I appreciate the throwback to both the original franchise specifically, and to the old serial genre in general.

In the 80's, the films were centered the mythos surrounding the Judeo-Christian faith, and they took several liberties with it in the name of entertainment. And let me state that that was always the intended purpose of the films: to entertain. And they all, including this new one, succeeded fantastically at entertaining. But in 2008, the social climate concerning religious dogma, particularly concerning the Judeo-Christian faith, has become more of a taboo than it was 20-30 years ago. And I think that hindered the development process of the Indy 4. They had to take on a new artifact from a different era and a different culture. Maybe that strayed a bit too far out of my Indiana Jones comfort zone.

But since they went with the ancient Mayans, let's focus on that. Really entertaining, and I stuck with it even through Mutt Williams swinging on vines like Tarzan. But where it jumped the shark into complete ridiculousness was the end, when it switched from Spielberg to Lucas real fast. I sat in the theatre thinking "What the hell?" Only I used a slightly stronger word in place of hell. I still can't grasp my head around the ending. Oh, I understood it. I just can't believe that they did it, because it's so phenomenally stupid. And the thing of it is, is that it's not entirely stupid. Just one aspect. Had they ended the sequence a few minutes sooner, it would have been semi-OK. But no, they went for it, and it's just a severe letdown.

Ford slips back into Indiana Jones like an old baseball mitt. He's dusting it off, finding his comfort zone, all the little spots that made the character his own. But there are definite signs of aging. Fortunately he doesn't come across as an old guy trying to recapture his youth. He plays the character as too old for the action, but he does it anyway, and he does it brilliantly.

I can't finish this review without talking about Cate Blanchett. There are so few great villainous roles written for women, and she's the perfect actress to take it on. She's the finest of our time, and throws in the right amount of villainy, naivety and curiosity.

I spoke earlier of the throwbacks to the original trilogy, and perhaps the biggest and best was saved for the third act. Karen Allen returns as Marion Ravenwood. It brings the story full circle, rather than being a cheap attempt to bridge the films.

If you liked the original trilogy, you'll be entertained by Crystal Skull. But don't expect it to be the greatest Indy film, because it isn't. As much as that pains me to write.

- Brodie Mann

Seven Instances of Real Life Proving Movies Right

2008-05-23T04:12:00.000-04:00

In most case scenarios, real life tends to prove the movies wrong. From sound/explosions in space, to lit cigarettes igniting a gas spill. But what about when movies are correct? Here's a list of movies proven correct by the real world.

7) Brad Pitt + Angelina Jolie = Sexiest couple in the history of the world

We all know that Angelina Jolie is the sexiest woman EVAR! And Brad Pitt is the sexiest man EVAR! Putting them together in a movie is one thing. That's just good marketing. Which is why Mr. and Mrs. Smith was such a success. Oh yeah, they're also damn fine actors. But those two shacking after making the movie up is an explosion of sexiness that this world was not entirely ready for. And their kids? Holy crap. They're gonna be so good looking, that to look upon them will induce face-melting the likes we haven't seen Raiders of the Lost Ark. Just watch this scene. Even when they're kicking each others asses it's hot. And it gives way to a wicked hot sex scene. It's a tame sex scene, but still hot.

6) J. Dawson was a real dude. Told rich chicks he was an artist so he could see them nekkid.

There were many surprises to come out of the film Titanic. Did you know that the ship was real? And really did hit an iceberg? News to me. But more so, there was a real J. Dawson who died on the real Titanic. Still no word on whether he did the nasty in the steamed up backseat of a Renault.

5) Distilled Urine- Nutritious! Delicious! Full of Electro-lytes

One of the coolest scenes of Waterworld was when Kevin Costner urinates in a jar, distills it, then drinks it. But we here in the real world would never have to do that, that's why it's funny when Costner does it. And technically that's still true. Except for NASA astronauts. In an effort to reduce costs of hauling water into space, NASA is exploring technology to distill urine. (click for full article). Costner: Trailblazer in Piss drinkin'!

4) Nazi's are bad

Time really told on this one, and it could have been devastating to the plot of Raiders of the Lost Ark had it gone the other way. But luckily for Spielberg and crew... Nazis were dicks.

3) Scott Peterson in Chryo-stasis

We all remember that overlooked gem of an action flick known as Demolition Man. Simon Phoenix, the baddest mother f***er in 1993 gets frozen in a chryo-prison, in hopes for reanimated rehab sometime in the future. So does the cop who caught him, Mr. John Spartan. In 2030, he's unleashed on the Utopian society known as San Angeles. After going on a murder/death/kill spree, Phoenix decides to unleash the baddest of the bad also in Chryo-prison. You have to overlook the fact that he sets Jeffrey Dahmer free, even though he died a year after the flick was released. Because if you look on the screen with the list of criminals he's setting free, we see Scott Peterson. Now, in 1993, it was impossible to know that 10 years later Scott Peterson would kill his wife Laci and their unborn baby, but he did. Proving Sylvester Stallone right.

2) Bob Fosse is a psychic- predicts own death 8 years prior to following through with it.

Bob Fosse, one of the hardest working guys in show biz back in his time, directed big budget, Academy award winning/nominated Hollywood movies. But that was his side job. His real job was directing/producing/choreographing/costuming/designing/starring in/ushering big budget Broadway musicals. And after all that... he still found time to pop pills, smoke like a fish, drink like a chimney and have more sex in one night than Paris Hilton has before breakfast. So in 1979, he felt it was necessary to write/direct/produce his own semi-autobiographical film, All That Jazz with Roy Scheider playing the role of Joe Gideon (Fosse). SPOILER ALERT! Gideon dies of a heart attack from all that work, pills, booze, sex and cigarettes. 8 years later, Fosse kicks the bucket, also because of work, pills, booze, sex and cigarettes. Creepy. How'd you like that... to predict your own damn death.

1) San Dimas High School Football does, in fact, rule!

As you may recall, the primary focus of Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure was the fact that they had to give a history report, which is why they were traveling through time in the first place. Well, the last half of the flick is cut with scenes of other students giving their oral reports. One of the students was a football player. He was struggling. So gain the favour of the crowd, he calls out "San Dimas High School Football RULES!!" Are we supposed to take his word for it? Up until last year, yes. But then this happened. Undeniable proof that San Dimas High School football is the best ever!

The Chronic-WHAT-cles of Narnia: Prince Caspian

2008-05-21T05:43:00.003-04:00

The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian

4.5 Stars

You know, Peter Jackson, god bless him, but he set the bar so impossibly high for epic fantasy film making. Damn your rings and the lords of them. However... directer Andrew Adamson continues to come within striking distance of said bar with his thus-far very impressive and equally epic Chronicles of Narnia series, continuing this past week with part 2, Prince Caspian.

So, the Pevensie children, Peter, Susan, Edmund and Lucy (William Moseley, Anna Popplewell, Skandar Keynes and Georgie Henley, respectively), when we left them at the end of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, they had vanquished the White Witch, brought peace to Narnia, and grown up to be legendary Kings and Queens. Then they get transported back to the real world, where literally no time has passed, and they are back to being kids. In the second installment, it's a year later for them, yet 1300 years have passed in Narnia. And they return after Prince Caspian (Ben Barnes) calls for them on Susan's mystical horn. Caspian is the rightful heir to the throne, but in a move reminiscent of the Bard, his uncle, King Miraz (Sergio Castellitto) made a deadly move for the throne by killing Caspian's father. Miraz is a tyrant, all the Narnians are now thought to be extinct, yet they're just living in hiding. So Caspian, along with the Pevensies, must bring peace, order and balance back to Narnia.

As previously stated, the bar for epic fantasy is so, well, epically high, that it seems almost unattainable. And it's hard to compare The Chronicles of Narnia to Lord of the Rings, because they are so different thematically, in tone, in presentation, in style and in it's target demographic. The target audience for LotR is people who perpetually live in a fantasy land, while living in their parents' house, having never had sex, while the target audience for Narnia is children.

But there is still that similar genre, so comparisons must be made. The reason the Narnia films have done, and will continue to do, so well where others like Eragorn and Golden Compass and even Bridge to Terabithia have failed is that it seems to refuse to placate to the childhood nostalgia aspect. The others have played it safe by staying safely within the realm of "kids movie," never having to invest a lot in grabbing older audiences. But Narnia is going all out in it's movie making. While it is significantly toned down, when compared to LotR, it doesn't feel like a "kids movie." And it is the one series, I feel, that can truly be enjoyed on every level by kids, parents, and even grandparents.

Adamson presents the film, and the story, for that matter, as is. He doesn't "dumb it down" for the kids, and he doesn't get too convoluted with the storytelling. He respects the source material, C.S. Lewis, and the audience, and that's the strongest thing this film has going for it. And despite the PG rating, the battle scenes are really intense. Very well done.

I always take time to discuss the actors, because they need to respect the material just as much as the director or writer does. Adamson gets some absolutely fantastic performances from the young actors, who descend in age at 21, 19, 16 and 12 (Moseley, Popplewell, Keynes and Henley). Their grasp of the characters they play, the importance of the script, their handling of the script, and the subsequent gravitas they bring to the characters shows talent that some actors more than twice their age struggle to exhibit. With the third installment, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader already in pre-production (set for a 2010 release), I'm gonna miss Moseley and Popplewell. Peter and Susan are not in that book (not for long anyway), so they won't really be in the flick. And they'll be missed. By me anyway.

Definitely hit the theatres for this one.

Speed Racer

2008-05-14T05:03:00.003-04:00

Speed Racer

3 Stars

I've often pondered if a movie can scrape by on sheer entertainment factor alone. Speed Racer answers yes, but barely.

Based on the 60's anime series (check out the first season on Hulu), Speed Racer (Emile Hirsch) is the kid brother of racing legend Rex Racer, who walked out on the family business and met an untimely death in a cross country rally race. Ten years later, Speed is the next big thing in racing, and he must now compete to save his family's independent auto company, and to bring honour back to the sport of racing. In order to do so he must compete in the same race that killed his brother, there-by qualifying for the Grand-Prix. He's able to do so with the help of his father Pops (John Goodman), girlfriend Trixie (Christina Ricci), mechanics Sparky and Spritle (Kick Gurry and Paulie Litt) and the mysterious Racer X (Matthew Fox).

I defended this flick for a long time because I figured it would come up against the same kind of nay-sayers that 300 hit last year. They just wouldn't understand the filmmaker's vision and direction. What Andy and Larry Wachowski were going for is a bizarre amalgamation of live action and anime. And fortunately for the film, they accomplish it. It's a high energy, very kinetic, very fantastical film. I was dazzled by the sheer ballsiness of it. And it did entertain me for the entirely too long 135 minute run time.

But it came apart in the writing. That's where it got it's length. Too often the story plodded along toward the action. That could be the problem with translating anime to a feature film. Anime is known for taking forever to go somewhere (and why it got so popular with the ADD afflicted youth of America, I'll never understand). And it's sort of an irony of hypocrisies that the film called Speed Racer moves at a snails pace. But the Wachowski's never seemed to figure out that this wasn't a high concept action flick like The Matrix. It was a film based on an anime about a guy who races a really cool car to fight corporate corruption and avenge his brother's death. Stick to the racing guys.

But the remarkably talented cast did their damnedest to work with the little they were given. Hirsch (Alpha Dog, Into the Wild) has set himself up as one of the most promising young actors in the game, and even with the kitchy dialog and drawn out non-racing scenes, you get this sense that he really is trying to do both his talent and the material justice. If only the Wachowski's had done the same.

Ricci (Black Snake Moan) is pitch perfect as Trixie. As is Goodman (The Big Lebowski) as Pops. The two seemed to have a deeper understanding of the characters, that went beyond what was handed to them at rehearsals. Granted, Pops and Trixie aren't the most complex characters in the world, but they certainly are fun, and iconic in their own way. They knew it was important to get the characters right, and they did. Kudos to them.

I would have to say that kids and those with only a passing interest in the original Speed Racer would enjoy this (especially kids), as the more hard core fans will only leave the theatre disappointed and feeling nothing but resentment and disdain for the brothers Wachowski.

- Brodie Mann

Iron Man

2008-05-07T01:55:00.000-04:00

Iron Man

5 Stars

The trailer for this film spoke volumes. The film... speaks an entire library. It falls in line with the great superhero films, like Spider-Man 2 and Batman Begins. And in some ways, tops them. Such is Iron Man.

Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.) is a multi-billion dollar industrialist who made his money from weapons development for the military. After experiencing the destructive nature of his arms first hand while a hostage in Afghanistan, Stark feels it necessary to change his life's goal, much to the chagrin of his business partner, Obadiah Stane (Jeff Bridges). Keeping Stark on track and in line are his assistant/love interest Pepper Pots (Gwyneth Paltrow) and his military liaison/best friend Jim Rhoades (Terrance Howard). In order to combat his former war profiteering ways, Stark develops an advanced suit of armor with the latest in robotics, computers, weaponry and metals, leading him to be affectionately known as the Iron Man.

In recent years, mostly since 2005's Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, Downey has become one of my favourite actors. and the character of Stark/Iron Man is the best for him. Or maybe he's the best for the character. The thing fascinating thing about Stark is his motives behind being a hero. With Batman it's revenge, Superman the desire to do good and Spider-man it's guilt. But with Iron Man, it's atonement. Stark experiences first hand the wrath of his weapons. And then he realizes that he has to do more than just denounce weapons production. He has to right his wrongs. Only way to do that, is to be Iron Man.

And that's where Downey takes over. Downey has a knack for playing uniquely troubled characters. Tony Stark is one that he deeply understands, as he himself is a fan of the comic book. Downey figured out the character, and enveloped it. Too many times we had Brandon Routh as Superman or Tom Jane as The Punisher. But with this, it was Robert Downey, Jr. is Iron Man.

But Downey, as talented as he is, did not make this flick on his own. There was the bizarre, inexplicable romantic chemistry between him and Paltrow, as his long suffering assistant Pepper Potts. The two actors have had very different careers, and never in a million years would I have picked those two to portray romantic leads in a film. But for some reason, it worked. The fact that they are so different, and so are the characters, made it work.

Jeff Bridges (The Big Lebowski, Arlington Road) is an actor, who if you were to ask me to define his career, I couldn't. He's played a multitude of characters in a myriad of different genres. But his turn as the villainous Obadiah Stane/War Monger is a fantastic look at a villain. He wasn't the traditional villain. He wasn't driven by hatred for the hero, or megalomaniacal desires. He's driven by protecting his own interests in war profiteering. He's the embodiment of true villainy. He's looking out for number one, and he's protecting his greedy interest. He's got no real regard for anyone else, just himself. He's the perfect counterpoint to Downey's Stark.

Director Jon Favreau deserves a lot of the credit for this film. He kept the reigns on the story to keep it from getting too out there, and actually explored the practical science of Iron Man. Sure you have to suspend some disbelief as several pieces of technology don't exist or completely defy laws of physics. But a lot of it is very interesting. And Favreau, like Downey, knows and understand the material. He was able to respectfully bring Iron Man to the big screen.

I highly recommend this for anyone. It combines what made the dreadful Fantastic Four popular and what made Batman Begins so damn good. It finds the balance with light fun, hard core action and in-depth character study.

Live from... Marquette? It's... Friday morning?

2008-05-02T05:01:00.002-04:00

Brodie Fanns!

What we've got tonight is one of the most important and longest running shows in television history.

Saturday Night Live.

In it's 33 year history it has certainly had it's ups and downs. It's highs and it's lows. It's really fucking high man's and it's terrible lows. But through it all, you cannot argue the undeniable talent that has walked through the doors at studio 8H. And I'm just talking cast and writing staff. Fuck the hosts/musical guests.

Here's the first ever sketch on SNL:

I obviously wasn't around for it's start, it's older than me by 10 years and 18 days. I joined in the fun during it's 3rd hey day of the early 90's era. Phil Hartman, Kevin Nealon, Mike Meyers, Dana Carvey, Chris Farley, David Spade, Adam Sandler, Jan Hooks, early Tim Meadows. That's when I joined, It was later that I got into the older stuff, thanks to some old records of my dad's, and thankfully TV specials about the show. And of course reruns.

In the late 70's, there really wasn't anything to cater to the younger crowd in terms of late night comedy. Sure, I look back on Johnny Carson as a pioneer, but had I been around 30 odd years ago... it would have been different.

But along comes this cat named Lorne Michaels. A nobody at the time. And he says, "Hey, I've got a show for you." Several pitches later, "... The Aristocrats!"

Kidding. It was a late night variety show, musical guests, sketch comedy, short films. It's about what's hip, what's cool, what's now. And he puts together this phenomenal ensemble cast of Dan Aykroyd, Chevy Chase, Gilda Radner, John Belushi, Jane Curtain, Garret Morris and Larraine Newman. The first guest host was George Carlin, first musical guests were Billy Preston and Janis Ian. The first sketch I saw of the original cast was this one, from the 7th episode with Richard Pryor:

That sketch would never make the air today. Why? Too racially charged. But it's hilarious. It's one of the funniest sketches in SNL history, and it would never make the air today.

It showed brilliant writing, and brilliant timing between the two comedian/actors. You just don't get that today.

I don't really want to get into the full history of the show, for several reasons. a) it's just too damn long and storied. b) I don't know it all. c) a lot of it would probably boring to you.

If you really want to get into it, there is this great book called "Live From New York: An Uncensored History..."

That hyper-link takes you to the Amazon page for it. It's really good, it's written like a documentary (and should be a documentary), with excerpts written by cast, crew, writers, network execs and guests. It's a compendium. It's written by people much more knowledgeable than I.

But here's the thing about SNL and me. It, for whatever reason, spoke to me. It came into my life right when I was getting into comedy. And it showed me how much there was to it, and how much fun it could be. And how smart it could be.

Best cast is debatable, best Weekend Update anchor is debatable (not really, it was Norm McDonald), best cast member is debatable, best sketch is debatable, best host is debatable. But what isn't debatable, is the fact that this show is an institution. Even for people who have been around longer than the show, at this point, it's hard for them to remember a time when the show wasn't on the air.

Even though it really does suck right now, I still watch SNL. I will continue to watch SNL. There is promise in three newer cast members. Bill Hader, Kristin Wiig and Andy Samberg.

Bill Hader (as Al Pacino):

Andy Samberg (with Chris Parnell):

Kristin Wiig (as Penelope):

I liked that last sketch. It needs work. But it's interesting. The character could use some fine tuning. It's almost there.

And with that... I leave you with one of my all time favourite sketches. It involves Christopher Walken. And it doesn't involve a cowbell.

- Brodie Mann

Summer Movie Edition. With Trailers!

2008-04-25T05:02:00.006-04:00

Brodie Fanns!

Aloha everybody. April is coming to an end next week, and you know what that means. I think you do. You should. It's the start of the Summer Movie Season. Calenders be damned, Hollywood starts the summer in May. And holy shit do they start it in May. I'm going to give you the full Summer movie forecast of the flicks you should definitely check out, starting with the finest month of releases I have seen in a looooooooong time.

MAY

2nd: Iron Man Starring: Robert Downey, Jr., Gwyneth Paltrow, Terrance Howard and Jeff Bridges. Directed by Jon Favreau. I'm going to let the trailer do the talking on this one.

9th: Speed Racer Emile Hirsch, Matthew Fox, Christina Ricci, John Goodman and Susan Sarandon. Directed by The Wachowski Brothers. A lot of people have prematurely dismissed this film, and I think it's because of an intense misunderstanding. The Wachowskis (The Matrix) are two on the forefront of the digital revolution in cinema, and they're taking filmmaking in a very interesting direction. This film is not intended to be a realistic portrayal of super car racing. It's meant to be campy and wild and bizarre and resemble a strong acid trip. It's meant to be like the cartoon. I think it'll surprise and delight.

16th: The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian. Starring William Moseley, Anna Popplewell, Skander Keynes, Georgie Henley and Ben Barnes. Directed by Andrew Adamson. The first one was fantastic. And I honestly can't wait to see how they handle this and future Chronicles.

23rd: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Starring Harrison Ford, Shia Labeouf and Cate Blanchett. Directed by Steven Spielberg. When watching the trailer, you can't help but get giddy when you see the hat while the opening bars of the theme slowly rise in the background. And come on... the addition of Cate Blanchett? Awesome!

JUNE

13th: The Incredible Hulk. Starring Edward Norton, Tim Roth and Liv Tyler. Directed by Louis Leterrier. This is a "do-over" for the Hulk franchise, with Marvel crying mulligan over the last one. This time, it's an all new cast, all new crew, all new Hulk. I'm a little nervous after hearing about the row between Leterrier/Norton and the producers, debating on whether the film should be plot/character driven (former) or action scene driven (latter). But I have confidence Norton wouldn't attach his name to complete piece of shit... like Ang Lee's Hulk was.

20th: Get Smart. Starring Steve Carrell, Anne Hathaway and Alan Arkin. Directed by Peter Segal. As with any feature version of a beloved TV show, I enter with caution. However I'm enamoured with the casting of Carrell as Maxwell Smart. And though she is young, Hathaway has been impressing me lately. So time will tell.

27th: Wall-E. Starring Jeff Garlin and Fred Willard. Directed by Andrew Stanton. As a general rule, I don't see animated films in theatres. Animated films are attended by kids. I don't like kids. I especially don't like kids in theatres. But with Pixar movies... I make exceptions. And this looks to be their best. I simply can't wait for this one.

JULY

4th: Hancock. Starring Will Smith, Charlize Theron and Jason Bateman. Directed by Peter Berg. I like this because it's an alternate take on the superhero genre. It's like the "Behind the Music," so to speak, of Superman. And Will Smith's return to his comfortable throne of 4th of July Box Office King is a welcome return.

11th: Hellboy II: The Golden Army. Starring Ron Pearlman and Doug Jones. Directed by Guillermo del Toro. Hellboy is the hidden gem of the comic book genre. It's smaller, but it's unique. Which is why it's smaller, I suppose. It's a fun little-big flick, that by all accounts shouldn't exist, but for some reason does. And I like it that way. Check it out. You won't see it gross $200 million. But you probably won't have as much fun at the theatres if you miss it.

17th: The Dark Knight Starring Christian Bale, Heath Ledger, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Morgan Freeman, Gary Oldman, Michael Caine and Aaron Eckhart. Easily the most anticipated movie of the year, partly due to Ledger's untimely death. I for one am eager to see his next to final performance. If the trailer is any indication, it very well could be one of the finest, most demented performances ever put on film.

25th: The X-Files: I Want to Believe. Starring David Duchovny, Gillian Anderson and Billy Connolly. Directed by Chris Carter. Alls I knows is, this takes place outside of the main thrust of the series, so it's like one of the off shoot episodes (which were always fun). And that we've been waiting too damn long for this one. But it's finally here. I just wish there was a trailer.

AUGUST

8th: Pineapple Express. Starring Seth Rogan, James Franco and Gary Cole. Directed by David Gordon Green. If the movie is even half as funny as the trailer, it'll be worth it's proverbial weight in gold.

15th: Tropic Thunder. Starring Ben Stiller, Robert Downey, Jr., Jack Black and Steve Coogan. Directed by Ben Stiller. If Platoon proved that war is hell, then Tropic Thunder proves that war is hilarious!

That's it for now. Look out in August for the fall preview.

- Brodie Mann

Forgetting Sarah Marshall

2008-04-23T08:30:00.000-04:00

Forgetting Sarah Marshall

4.5 Stars

You'd think that in the 3 years since Judd Apatow hit it big with his heartwarmingly raunchy The 40 Year Old Virgin, he'd start to lose some steam. But with the Apatow produced Forgetting Sarah Marshall, he's proved that he's got more than enough material to keep going.

Composer Peter Bretter (Jason Segel) gets dumped by his TV star girlfriend of five years, the titular Sarah Marshall (Kristen Bell). In an effort to clear his head and escape the anguish of the break up, and at the suggestion of his well-meaning step-brother Brian (Bill Hader), he takes a week long vacation to a Hawaiian resort. Unfortunately for him, Sarah is vacationing at the same resort with her new fling, pop sensation Aldous Snow (Russell Brand). Luckily for Peter, he's got sexy hotel clerk Rachel Jensen (Mila Kunis) to take his mind of everything.

Segel's (Freaks and Geeks, Knocked Up) script is one of damn near perfection. It approaches the level of comedic balance and precision that one rarely sees these days. You are busting a gut, laughing your ass off, but then he comes in with a really poignant scene to center it, then explodes it all over again. All within minutes.

The best scene to exemplify this, is the now infamous Jason Segel nude scene, where you get to see Jason's Segel. And some credit must go to director Nicholas Stoller (making his feature debut) for this. But normal scene, nothing particular hilarious. Peter gets dumped by Sarah, she's going through the "I love you, but..." speech. Peter just happens to have just stepped out of the shower, and he's standing there, naked. It's not a typically funny scene, but the fact that he's naked honestly adds a bizarre level to it. It is as I've always described Apatow's films and shows- earnest.

And with the literal balls to stand there, Jason Segel immediately launches himself to comedic lead status. Of course he was in tune with the material he wrote, but that gave him an intuitive look into the character. And he played the jilted lover trying to move on with sheer perfection.

One thing I've always admired about Apatow and crew is that they've always been able to write fascinating and hilarious roles for women, outside of the tired ditzy, damsel cliche. Both Kunis (That 70's Show, Get Over It) and Bell (Veronica Mars, Heroes) turn in two of the finest female comedic performances of this era. They fall in line with the working relationship Segal, Jonah Hill and Paul Rudd have developed over the course of their past several films, and steal scenes away from them.

The film would be nothing without that supporting cast, including Hill (Superbad, Strange Wilderness), Rudd (Anchorman, Knocked Up), British comic Aldous Snow, and SNL star Hader. Their parts always move the story along, but never drag it down.

It's one of the funniest movies in a long time, one that holds up against some of the great classic comedies, and Richard Roeper was right to rank this in his top 50 comedies of all time.

Here's a trailer for you.

-Brodie Mann

New List... from my Dad!

2008-04-18T16:53:00.002-04:00

Brodie Fanns!

In my ongoing series to inform my reading public of the favourite films of the people in my life, I now bring you the list of the man who helped shape my taste in music, TV and film. My dad. This is a great list. I love almost all of these flicks.

Here you go:

10. Wrath of Kahn - The very best Star Trek movie. No Star Trek movie (original cast or TNG) has lived up to this one.

9. Field of Dreams - The very best movie about baseball.

8. Airplane - King of the one liner. And Don't Call Me Shirley.

7. Gone With the Wind - Classic, and I do give a damn.

6. The Longest Day - All Star cast. The very best war movie.

5. Wizard of Oz - Still watching after all these years.

4. Raiders of the Lost Ark - Still the best of the trilogy.

3. American Graffiti - Timeless classic of a bygone era of Rock & Roll. An All Star cast that were not quite all stars at the time.

2. Young Frankenstein - Taco doing Puttin' on the Ritz in the 80s, the price of a 45. Peter Boyle doing Puttin' on the Ritz in the 70s... Priceless.

1. Casablanca - What is not to like. Has everything, Suspense, Romance, Comedy, Music... the one movie that had everything. Humphrey Bogart, Ingrid Bergman, et al, It just does not get any better.

That's my dad's list. Reviews and other stuff to return next week.

-Brodie Mann!

Previously on... Sports Night

2008-04-10T05:15:00.000-04:00

Brodie Fanns!

In my continuing saga of discussing my favourite television programs, I've gone with another "Gone To Soon" show. And it is my hands down, all time favourite television program.

Sports Night

Sports Night was a sitcom-ish show that aired on ABC from 99-01 and was one of the pioneers in the single-camera comedy revolution. Essentially, most comedies had been shot as if they were on a stage, never breaking that fourth wall. What Sports Night did, is they moved the camera. The audience was suddenly integrated into the show. Which was mostly unheard of for comedies. At least here in the states. But it gave birth to the new era of the sitcom. Arrested Development, Scrubs, Malcolm in the Middle, My Name Is Earl, 30 Rock and The Office all later followed Aaron Sorkin's lead into the single-camera sitcom. But it was Sports Night that planted that seed in everyone's head to do so.

Sports Night was a show within a show. It was about a nightly sports news magazine show (coincidentally called Sports Night), similar to ESPN's SportsCenter, and the people who produce it. There were anchors Dan Rydell and Casey McCall (Josh Charles and Peter Krause), Executive Producer Dana Whitaker (Felicity Huffman), Associate Producers Jeremy Goodwin and Natalie Hurley (Joshua Malina and Sabrina Lloyd) and Editor-in-Chief Isaac Jaffe (Robert Guillame), along with various other production staffers.

And the purely content level, it was the first show that I watched in my generation that was about broadcasting. I of course watched reruns of The Dick Van Dyke Show, The Mary Tyler Moore Show and WKRP in Cincinnati (that gets it's own post). But Sports Night was mine.

But deeper than that, it was the first of my shows that I felt really challenged me as a viewer. When I say "my shows", I'm referring to shows in my generation, that were still in production when I started watching and paying attention to shows. Ones that I didn't watch because my parents did. Not that there's anything wrong with those shows. But... I digress.

Shows that I had watched up until then, like Wings, Cheers, Home Improvement, Drew Carey Show, Boy Meets World and Spin City, while good, and very enjoyable, I look back on, watch the reruns, and feel that I wasn't challenged by them. I liked them on a sort of basic, almost superficial, level. They're gag reliant shows. Very funny gag related, but... I feel too much emphasis on where the next joke was coming from.

But Sports Night, holy shit. Such a great, dialog centric show. For the first few episodes, you have too look past the unfortunately network mandated laugh track (which they swiftly got rid of, thankfully). The show was about the quips, the wit, the sarcasm. It's fast paced so you have to pay attention. And the jokes are a little more cerebral. References to 19th century poetry, early 20th century musicals, philosophers, weather patterns and of course, sports figures.

But it never launches too far over your head. Sure, the average TV viewer wouldn't "get it", and that unfortunately led to it's demise, but you don't have to be well versed in trivial knowledge to at least appreciate the show.

As a long time fan, and having sat through the entire series (this one lucked out and made it to a full 2 seasons) no less than 7 times (not exaggerating that figure), I can say that now, to me, it is the show that really got me into writing. There was a Mamet-esque feel to it that you never saw on network TV, at least not then. I never thought that something like that could exist on TV.

It's one of the finest shows ever, and no one watched it. I want to share some of my favourite clips with you. Some are longer and heavier in material, others are shorter and show the wit and fun of the dialog. But it's important to show how the writers and actors expertly maneuvered between compelling pieces of drama and the hilarious exchanges.

As with most clips, I highly recommend you rent, borrow, or even purchase the DVD's, and watch the full episodes, so you can see them in context.

This first clip, from the second episode. Dan made some comments in a magazine interview that he supports the decriminalization of marijuana. The network brass didn't much appreciate it, and ask him to make a public apology. This is what he said:

This one is another Dan one. Funnier. Shows his lighter side. And yes. That is Yeardly Smith, voice of Lisa Simpson. Please ignore the unnecessary use of the laugh track, most viewers did, and they got rid of it after the first few episodes.

Another serious one. Jeremy gets to produce his first piece. Unfortunately it's on hunting, which he is opposed to.

Funny one for Jeremy. From the pilot, he's interviewing for the Associate Producer job. (Spoiler: He gets it.)

This is a great one, especially for the under appreciated technicians of the world.

And let's go out on a good one.

That's it... that's Sports Night. I hope you enjoyed the clips as much as I liked the show.

- Brodie Mann

Leatherheads

2008-04-09T04:39:00.002-04:00

Leatherheads

2.5 stars

George Clooney seems to have this fascination with the Golden Age of Hollywood. Not that there's anything wrong with that. He's done some great work that hearkens back to older styles of filmmaking. But, like anyone, he can misstep. And holy crap does he with Leatherheads.

Leatherheads, essentially, is about the start of pro-football. Clooney pulls double duty, both directing and starring as Dodge Connelly, a cocky, yet aging football star of the Duluth Bulldogs in the laughable pro-football league of 1925. In an attempt to continue playing and subsequently legitimize the sport he loves, Connelly scouts the talents of hot shot college star and WWI hero Carter Rutherford (John Krasinski) to bring in fans and, more importantly, money. Lexie Littleton (Renèe Zellweger) is a reporter charged with debunking the myth of Carter Rutherford, but plays romantic interest to both male leads instead. Hijinks ensue!

Yes. Hijinks. Anyway... It's not a wholly unlikable movie, and with both Zellweger (Chicago, Empire Records) and Clooney's (Good Night and Good Luck, O Brother Where Art Thou) classic charm, matched with Krasinski's (The Office- US version) boyish charisma, it's really hard not to like it.

But, and it's tough for me, as a huge Clooney fan, to admit this, Clooney got a bit to esoteric. Which I suppose is a fancy way of saying "full of himself." Not in a bad way, mind you. But he tried to throw too much into the stew and it came out muddy, with a funny after taste.

When it was good, it was really good. Really funny. But there were just as many, if not more, bad scenes that dragged down the entire proceedings. There could have been some big cuts made to the film, and the storyline would have remained intact, and more enjoyable as a whole. Instead you walk away saying "I liked this scene, but not this one. And then this one, but not so much that one."

Again, no actor was bad. There just wasn't anything exquisitely good about their performances. Though Krasinski holding his own against the formidable co-star that is George Clooney was impressive. His career seems to be following a similar trajectory as Clooney's. Breakout star of hit NBC during the Must See TV Thursday night line-up, make a couple of movies, eventually move on from said show. I just hope he doesn't have a fiasco of Batman and Robin like proportions on the horizon.

So... final verdict, not terrible, just not very good either. You'll walk away unfulfilled. Definitely worth a rental though!

Peace out!

- Brodie Mann

Happy Birthday Quentin Tarantino

2008-03-27T03:52:00.004-04:00

I've been shying away from movie reviews this week, not because I don't have one to review. I do, it's Horton Hears A Who!, I give it 3.5 stars, it was a delightful flick. But the reason is... well one, I've got a lot going on this week, don't ask, it's pretty heavy shit. Two, I really wanted to get that Freaks and Geeks piece done, and I lazed a bit over the weekend. Three, it's Tarantino's birthday today.

This is a big deal for me. It's not like I know the guy, or have a man-crush on him or anything. The man-crush is saved for Clooney. But I do idolize the man. He, along with two other filmmakers, are the reason I love movies so much. The other two being Robert Rodriguez and Kevin Smith.

I remember always having an interest in film. Sitting down and watching films with my parents was always fun for me.

But it was... I want to say right around my freshman year in high school that I really started getting into films as a hobby/passion.

One day I went to the library, got all three Godfathers and there went my weekend. But the big red letter day came when my mom got a Blockbuster account. I had a short list of flicks I had always wanted to see, and after she got what she wanted, she let me get a few I wanted. They were out of Empire Records, so I went with Clerks. and Pulp Fiction. I think I also got Mallrats. Thankfully my mom was pretty clueless about those flicks and said "Sure, we can get these."

I went home and popped in Clerks first. Right away, I knew I was watching something that was meaningful or important. At that point, I didn't really have the perspective to grasp why, but I knew it. It was something. And I had just become a part of it. Then I went with Mallrats and Pulp Fiction. In the few days we had them, I must have watched each several times over. At one point my mom walked in during the "My girlfriend sucked 37 dicks!" scene, and was disgusted to say the least. But I just laughed.

After that I got online, to the 1999 edition of IMDb, and read up all I could on the maestros who created such wonderful works of art. And at that point, Quentin Tarantino and Kevin Smith became my heroes.

A year later I caught Desperado early one morning on HBO or something. And that too blew my mind. Because it was a western, but different. That wasn't my dad's western, the John Wayne/Clint Eastwood flicks. This was fuckin' different.

But I really got into these cats, Tarantino, Smith and Robert Rodriguez. At 12-14 years of age, these were flicks that were unlike anything I had ever seen before. And it was just... holy shit.

Then I started reading up on them, anything I came across online about them, I read. Any book I could find, I got. I own a copy of the script for Pulp Fiction. And I read it. Over and over. One day at Hastings I sat down with Rodriguez's Rebel Without a Crew, read about half of it there in the store, then purchased it.

I own copies of scripts by all three. I own movies, soundtracks, memorabilia. It's just... these guys are why I love movies.

And here's why: Above all else, above being directors, writers, producers, editors, actors, musicians, what have you, above all of that... they're fans. They got into it because they love film. They still do it, because they love film. They got into the game on their own terms, and they continue to operate on their own terms.

So as a fan, they're filmmakers I can respect. They love what they do, and that shows in what they make. They make they're films, and if you didn't like it... too bad, it wasn't made for you. It was made for the cats who did like it. Cause they're gonna get it.

I came across this, and I suppose it's only fitting since it's Tarantino's birthday. Happy 45th, Q!

And then there's this video, which for me, was like... if heaven were real... this is what it would be like.

Peace!

-Brodie Mann

Brodie Mann Films goes... TV?

2008-03-26T06:01:00.000-04:00

Brodie Fanns!

Word. To your mothers. As those of you who have been loyally following my cinematic exploits for the past 101 posts, you know that this is a... well... film blog. I talk about film. Movie reviews, lists, essays, what have you. I talk about film.

But occasionally I venture into the realm of Film's awkward younger brother- Television.

I did this once before with Scrubs and I think I'm gonna make this my next big project... discussion on my favourite TV Shows: Past and Present.

One of my all time favourite shows is one that lasted all of 14 episodes on NBC back in the 99-00 season. But in those 14 episodes it proved to be one of the more heartwarming, endearing, original and hilarious shows on television. I'm speaking of course of Freaks and Geeks. From now on, if I write about a film or TV show, I'll link it to the IMDb page for it.

Anyway... Freaks and Geeks. What an amazing show. I had just entered high school at this time. And I had seen a few teen movies, but nothing really ever spoke to me as a new high schooler. It was an awkward time for me. For everyone. And teen movies rarely hit on that. Fast Times at Ridgemont High comes close, the book touches on it better. Breakfast Club, while a good movie, is a tad ridiculous with the stereotypes. I had yet to see/fall in love with the awesomeness that is Dazed and Confused. And 90's teen flicks, basically any after Clueless, were self-indulgent, hipster wannabe flicks. They weren't that good. They tried too hard to be cool and funny.

Freaks and Geeks, however, succeeded where so many had failed. There were the stereotypes of the high school social structure, but just like in real life, they weren't so sharply defined as they were in the late 90's teen flicks. As with any high school, there were the jocks, the geeks/nerds, the smart kids, the popular kids, the theatre kids and so on and so forth. But it wasn't so segregated. They all interacted with each other. And realistically so. It was the anti-Saved by the Bell. Which by all accounts would be reason enough to hate it, because Saved by the Bell is just so gorram awesome.

But like Saved by the Bell, what made it work was casting actual teens in these roles. I think the oldest cast member was Linda Cardellini at 24, the rest were 14-19. It wasn't like Judd Nelson, who was freakin' 30 when he did Breakfast Club. He's still kick ass, though.

So you had teens who had just gone through all this stuff, or still were. They were in the shit. And they knew what was going on. They brought that level of earnestness and reality to the stories they were telling.

And the stories were real stories. They touched on serious subjects, but never got preachy. It was preachy in the way high school guidance counselors are, not like a very special episode of Blossom preachy.

So after only 14 episodes of this much beloved, and now cult classic show, NBC does the smart thing and cancels it. Way to be. You leave ER on well past it's prime... but Freaks and Geeks you cut loose.

So I figured I'd bring you my 10 best Freaks and Geeks moments. For various reasons, these are scenes I just love. They do tend to be Bill or Daniel heavy, but those were the two best characters. I fuckin' hated Neil.

I didn't count these down, cause they're all just classic. So it's just 10 in no particular order. Though the first three really, truly are the best... The rest are just icing on the cake.

Bill Watching Gary Shandling

There are plenty of things that make this clip great. "I'm One" by The Who. The silence of the scene (aside from The Who, of course). It's a brief, yet fascinating look into the world of Bill. He's just a kid who does what he does. It's hard to describe. It's an intensely personal scene, and for a then 14 year old to be exuding that kind of grasp on a character, it's nothing short of brilliant. And it includes Gary Shandling. Who's always delightful.

Daniel Desario is in Track 3

What makes this such a great scene is the fact that it's so poignant, then pathetic, then absolutely hilarious. And he plays it off so well, that you know he's pulled this scam before. Kudos for pulling it on the same person twice in one day. At least trying to anyway.

Homecoming

It was such a relatable moment. Geek finally gets to dance with the girl... and fuckin' Styx totally ruins it. Leave it to Tommy Shaw and Dennis DeYoung to ruin everything. There's this great "DAMN IT" look on Sam's face. But then he rolls with it and has a great time. It's fantastic.

Bill Dances

It doesn't matter if you're cool or not. You're cool with your friends. And that's what matters.

Don't Wake The Dog!!

I've never been this high....

Daniel and Harris

Everyone reaches that point in their life where they wonder not only who they are... but who other people think they are. I love how Harris is who he is, and Daniel is in sheer awe of that.

Vikki and Bill- 7 minutes in heaven?

Coincidentally the 7th video... you have to skip forward to about the 2:30 mark to get the good stuff. To catch you up, the geeks end up at a make-out party, Sam's off with Cindy doin' his thang, while Bill and Neil are playing a rousing game of spin the bottle. Bill ends up with head cheerleader Vikki in the closet. Go Bill! Skip through the bottle spinning and the Sam/Cindy stuff (that storyline doesn't get good till the following episode).

That Punk Rock Music

Thankfully my parents were never that crazy. Or out of it. But luckily I'm that crazy and out of it. I don't know anything about modern music. I'm only 22 and already I'm a TV dad. I don't even have kids. Damn! I talk like that too... "That punk rock I've been hearing so much about." Generally in jest.

Oh yeah... Chicks dig Sam

What's great about this scene, is that with just one tracking shot... Sam goes from king of the world to king of the dorks. He walks in like he owns the place, then the look on his face turns from cockiness to complete terror. Pretty soon, he dies. Not literally, but trust me... he dies.

Stay Cool. Stay Sober. Stay Utterly Lame.

If you say you never had to endure one of these PSA skits in middle or high school... you are a damned liar. Again... DAMNED LIAR! You know how I know you're lying? I used to act in those things. Not because I actually believed them, but I was a theatre kid, what do you expect? Daniel's reaction to the DD is priceless, though. Who hasn't thought that about one of the wicked hot, yet goodly and sober chicks at a party?

So that's it. 10 of the best Freaks and Geeks clips YouTube had to offer. Thanks YouTube.

And thank you America!

-Brodie Mann

Doomsday

2008-03-18T05:17:00.002-04:00

Doomsday

0 stars

No... that's not a typo. I'm really giving this zero stars. No stars. Not even half a damn star. It gets zero. Why? Because it's unoriginal. I know what you're probably thinking... "But Brodie, Hollywood has a long history of unoriginality, why is this so special?" Well, it's so blatantly unoriginal, that based on the trailer alone I picked up on at least 3 movies it ripped off. Actually viewing it gave me a few more.

*SPOILERS HERE IN* Don't read any further if you really want to see it. But I recommend you read further, because you shouldn't want to see it.

In Doomsday, the deadly Reaper virus breaks out in Scotland, causing the British government to wall off the small nation from the rest of the world. In the year 2035, a whole generation later, survivors are spotted on satellite photos, roaming around the streets of Glasgow. An elite military team is sent in to the desolate landscape that once was the mighty Scotland to extract any survivors in hope for a cure, as the Reaper virus is now making it's rounds in downtown London.

And then it gets weird. Because this is when the elite military team comes across the crazy, futuristic cannibal warrior savages that now inhabit and rule the streets of Glasgow and Edinburgh. Taken prisoner, someone gets cooked and eaten, big fight scene... Now they're on the run from the Warrior-king, with King's sister who is leading some sort of resistance against both ruling clans. The first obviously ruled by her brother, the second led by her estranged dad, who has set up a nice little Renaissance Fair in an old castle. Military team not welcome there... big fight scene... The escape, and now there's a big chase scene with a souped up yet 25 year old BMW on the perfectly preserved country roads of Scotland. The cannibals are in this chase in standard post-apocalyptic modes of transportation. Lots of beat up old vehicles adorned with various parts of the skeletal structure. And armed to the core. Which product placement wins in the end?

YAAAWWWNNNNWho cares? Did you count 'em all? We've got Mad Max, Escape From New York, 28 Days Later..., 28 Weeks Later...(while we're at it), Waterworld, Braveheart, Army of Darkness, The Village, James Bond (pick a flick), Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome and a little Warriors thrown in for good measure.

Admittedly, some of those movies have the benefit of time on their side. The Warriors and Mad Max came out the same year as Alien, Manhattan and Apocalypse Now. In 1979, who would have guessed that in nearly 30 years time, we'd still be talking about the former two, and ranking them up there with the latter three? No one probably. And who knows, maybe in 2035 we're talking about Doomsday. Most likely cause it actually happened. Hopefully cause it actually happened, because that's the only way this movie will stay relevant once you're done reading this review.

Well... let's move on to the crap production quality, shall we? Where do I start? Is it the complete lack of direction from writer/director Neil Marshall? Yeah sure. That sucked. And I liked his previous effort, The Descent. But this... it's like he got through the first act and said "Fuck it! You remember Mad Max? Let's do that for a while." Then he got halfway through and said "Fuck it! Mel Gibson's crazy... Let's do Braveheart for a while. With Malcolm McDowell." Which is admittedly cool. The Renaissance Fair town is run by Malcolm McDowell, which as a colleague of mine said, "would be a pretty cool Ren-Fair." But then he got bored with the historical epic angle, and said "Fuck it! Let's have a car chase." Can you see why it's hard to watch?

How about the painfully flat acting of all involved? Including the usually awesome Bob Hoskins. Rhona Mitra, who's done a few episodes of Nip/Tuck and that's about it, tries to keep the "Huge star out of nowhere" mojo alive. But... she's a bad actress. She couldn't even make the "Fake/Bionic Eye" thing cool. Oh yeah, her character has a bionic eye that she can remove and use as a spy camera. How one royally fucks up the bionic eye/spy camera thing, is beyond me.

I award this film no stars. None. Zero. You go home with nothing. You suck. Do not spend money on this film.

One more thing... if this does actually happen in 2035... could we wall of Wales, instead?

- Brodie

100th Blog! Here's to 100 More!

2008-03-14T18:15:00.000-04:00

Brodie Fanns!

Well... we've reached a milestone. An important milestone. This is my 100th blog posting. I'm of course talking about here on the main blog, the Blogger. If you're reading on the myspace, this is like my 52nd blog entry, and if you're reading on the facebook, I don't know what number this is, because I RSSed my Blogger to my Facebook, and they retroactively posted a bunch. Let's say it's 30-ish. Who the hell knows?

Anyway, I was wondering what would be an awesome 100th post. Then it came to me... my top 100 films of all time. FUCK! I already did that. How about... my top 10 Guiltiest Pleasures? Movies I shouldn't like, and any respectable film critic wouldn't, shouldn't and couldn't. But gorram it, I like them.

So... here you go... the movies I like, nay, love, but probably shouldn't admit to it. But you know what? A lot of these flicks have a nostalgia factor to them. To back when I was a kid, when times were simpler. So that's why I still dig them, even though I've come to realize that The Godfather is the greatest film ever made, not Hook.

10) Can't Hardly Wait

I saw this in theatres the summer before my 8th grade year, mostly due to my massive crush on Jennifer Love Hewitt. But being 12 that year... that flick (amongst many other in the teen genre) shaped my idea of what high school was like. Come to find out that wasn't the fuckin' case, but when you're 12 it's a pretty cool ideal to hold onto. I dug it then, and to this day, it's a cool little nostalgia trip to the late 90's.

9) Roadhouse

Ok, seriously, if I was gonna pick a Swayze flick, it would be Point Break, but I went with Roadhouse for 2 reasons. a) The Riff Trax for this is absolutely hilarious. b) For the wisdom expressed by Swayze in the accompanying clip.

8) Batman Forever

Normally the fact that fuckin' Joel Schumacher directed this would keep it far away from any top ten list... but this movie holds a special place in my heart. Nicole Kidman was freakin' hot, Tommy Lee Jones was crazy, and it's the movie that introduced me to one of my favourite bands- The Flaming Lips. Plus it was kinda cool to see Val Kilmer go from the Lizard King to the Dark Knight.

7) Tremors

This movie can sometimes be a saving grace when it comes to that pesky "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon" game. My prowess in that game has propelled me to "Favourite Parlour Trick" amongst my friends. Plus, it's a fun, cooky, bizarre monster flick. Who doesn't love those? I'll tell you who. Nazis.

6) Snakes on a Plane

Admittedly much better on a big screen with a theatre full of fans, this is a fantastic cheese fest cult classic. Do you know why this movie is so good? Cause it's snakes. On a plane. And Samuel L. Jackson, the baddest motherfucker ever to walk god's green earth, lays the smack-down on the serpents. It's crazy shit. And I have never been to an opening night, midnight showing of a flick, and people were already reciting lines along with the characters. It was a phenomenon.

5) Mighty Morphing Power Rangers

When I was a kid, there was no show cooler than the Power Rangers. When the movie came out, that was like the shit. I was 9, and I could have died the next day, and I would have led a full life. I still have every single trading card in mint condition. Hells yeah.

4) Demolition Man

Maybe it's that in the future, they view the past (which at the time of the films release, it was the present) to be a quaint, barbaric time. Maybe it's Wesley Snipes' fighting skills. Maybe it's that Sandra Bullock was hot. Maybe it's that in the future, everything was Taco Bell. Who knows why I will watch this movie anytime it comes on TBS? But I do. And I like it.

3) D2: The Mighty Ducks

Too many people view the first one as the superior one. Fuck that. The second one is where it's at. They're taking on the world. Ain't nothin' gonna stop Charlie Conway and his Triple Deke. Or the Bash Brothers. Or Julie the Cat Gaffney. Or Gordon Bombay. They're unstoppable. All hockey games I have ever seen I've always compared to Ducks vs. Iceland. It's Knuckle-Puck time! QUACK! QUACK! QUACK! QUACK!

2) Bio-Dome

In all honesty, trying to pick the best Pauly Shore movie is like trying to pick the shiniest piece of crap in the pile. Either way, it's still a piece of crap. But, this one's so funny. As Phillip J. Fry so eloquently put it... They sure caused trouble in that bubble. One other thing it has going for it... inclusion of a non-Alec, Baldwin brother- Stephen.

1) Waterworld

Kevin Costner drinking his piss. That's where cinema went in the 90's. And thank god they did. I think it caught a bad rap for some stupid reason. But it's a very entertaining Apocalyptic movie. It was like Mad Max meets The Little Mermaid, only Ariel's a dude and drinks her own piss. And really... it's the precursor to Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. Thanks for bringing global warming to the cinematic forefront, Kevin Costner. You truly are a visionary ahead of your time. Next time I see you, I'm buying you a nice frosty mug of piss.

-Brodie

10,000 B.C.

2008-03-13T05:36:00.000-04:00

Brodie Fanns!

New review for you. I'm goin' pre-historic on your asses.

10,000 B.C.

1 Star

So... Roland, if I may call you that. What the hell happened? You had us with Stargate, Independence Day and The Day After Tomorrow. And now this? I don't even know what to classify this as. It's barely a step above something the Discovery Channel would put together, only with a Sci-Fi Channel twist.

D'Leh (Steven Strait) is a hunter/warrior from what I only assume is a Sub-Saharan mountain tribe. After his tribal lands are attacked by Egyptian warlords, he embarks on a quest to save his one true love, who also happens to be his people's saviour. I think. Along the way, he meets up with other tribes who have been attacked by the Egyptians, and they all stage a revolt to free the slaves being used to build the pyramids.

Where to begin with what is wrong with this film? Is it the laughably bad dialog? The maybe dead languages they use? Could it be the very obvious visual effects they use? Or how about the oddly perfect bodies they have? I'm not talking being fit. I'm talking nice skin, well maintained hair, perfect manicure, perfect make-up. On tribes-people.

There was nothing about this production that worked. It's almost as if they wanted to fall in line with Mel Gibson's historical epics, but decided they didn't want to spend a lot of money. And good lord did it show.

And you could tell the actors were of the mindset "This movie sucks, but at least I have one more thing to put on my resume. And a paycheck." I can't comment on their performances... because to call what they all did acting is an insult to acting.

I'm being generous with my one star rating, as I usually don't believe in the "Award for just showing up" philosophy. But come on... they tried.

But really, I can't recommend this to anyone. Avoid it.

- Brodie

Return of the List!

2008-03-07T06:03:00.003-05:00

Brodie Fanns!

If you remember, a while back I did an epic mini-series of blog postings where I counted down my top 100 favourite films. As a follow-up, I started to post the top 10's of my various family members. I then took a break from that, due to big happenings in the world of cinema, including the end of the Writer's Strike, and then my fatigue inducing Oscars 08 Live blog-a-thon.

But now I'm back, from outer space... kidding, I'm back with that follow-up series, and this week, I'd like to thank my sister for providing me with her top 10 list. Also... her son, my nephew, is due in like... 2 months. I couldn't be happier for her and my brother-in-law.

Here's Heather's List:

1.Gone With the Wind

2.Love Actually

3.Never Been Kissed

4.Hairspray (the new one)

5.How the Grinch Stole Christmas (Jim Carrey)

6.Beauty and the Beast (Disney)
*ALREADY POSTED VIDEO ON THIS ONE*

7.The Goonies

8.Forrest Gump

9.Grease

10.The Passion of the Christ (not so much favorite, just a really powerful movie...hard to watch...saw it twice in theathers and bought it but I haven't watched it since.)

Well, that's my sister's list. Next week... who the heck knows. Could it be Katherine? One of my parents? Is Jesus stopping by? The world may never know. At least not till Friday. Have a good one!

-Brodie Mann

Vantage Point

2008-03-03T05:55:00.004-05:00

Brodie Fanns!

It's been a week since I last saw you guys. Seriously, a week. Since the Oscars, really. And there is a perfectly logical explanation for that. That whole live blog thing I was doing, I was doing on 3 different blogs. And that took a lot out of me. It was tiring. Plus I had a few days off work, so I just sat around getting drunk all week.

Anywho!

Here's a new review-

Vantage Point

3 Stars

It’s a good movie that keeps you guessing, has interesting plot twists and is well acted all around. It’s a bad movie where the plot would have been a really good season of 24.

Vantage Point is told Rashomon style (log onto IMDb and look it up), and we get several interesting perspectives on a terror plot to assassinate the president of the United States in Spain. And thanks to that nice little summary, my blog is now “one of interest” to several government agencies. We get the perspective of Secret Service agents Thomas Barnes and Kent Taylor (Dennis Quaid and Matthew Fox), tourist Howard Lewis (Forest Whitaker), the terrorists, their pawns, a news crew (Sigourney Weaver and Zoe Saldana and even the president himself (William Hurt). It all culminates in a pulse pounding series of chase sequences, ending in glorious American cinema fashion: dead bad guys, heroically and miraculously alive good guys.

For what comes off as Die Hard meets 24 with a little Bourne Identity thrown in mix, it really isn’t as bad as it could have been. The mixed narrative gets a little annoying because some versions overlap with other versions, so you’re getting the same story over and over, rather than multiple yet separate stories.

I’ve long thought of Dennis Quaid as the poor man’s Harrison Ford. Which I still stand behind. But you have to remember, even if you’re getting discount store Harrison Ford, Dennis Quaid is the Target version- still really cool. At least he’s not Tom Berenger, the K-Mart Harrison Ford. It was good to see Matthew Fox take on this kind of role, as you can see him start to shed the “Jack Shephard” image he’s been relishing in for the past three and a half years. I’m interested to see what he does as Racer X in Speed Racer come May. Edgar Ramirez continues his streak of roles requiring him to be the mysterious Latino with a steely glare. But if I were making a movie that had a mysterious Latino with a steely glare in it, I would pick Ramirez, as he’s not a bad actor, just needs to step out of the typecasting.

As I said before, my interest in the plot starts to fall apart during the first act when they’re constantly re-showing the assassination. Luckily once that’s over about 40 minutes in, we can settle in on some good, old-fashioned, pulse-pounding action fun. And it doesn’t skimp on that. It is an unfortunate page right out of Jason Bourne’s playbook though, and at times, I thought I had been magically transported to the summer of ’02 and was watching Matt Damon speed around a European city.

But while it does draw a lot of comparison to previous works, it still is an enjoyable film. I predict we’ll see some heavy rotation on the USA network in a few years, as this flick seems right up their alley.

- Brodie Mann

Oscar Winners

2008-02-24T23:46:00.000-05:00

Brodie Fanns!

FINAL RESULTS ARE IN!

Tonight... going on right now, I am bringing my blogs (blogspot, myspace and broadcasteverywhere) to you live. With live updates.

Why? It's Oscar night, that's why. It's my Super Bowl. I locked in my predictions yesterday, and today, I will be bringing you live updates on winners. If my prediction matches the winner, the entry will be listed in green. If not, then the entry will be in red, with the winner in green next to it.

First up for the night... WHY IS MILEY GORRAM CYRUS BEING INTERVIEWED FOR THE PRE-CEREMONY BARBARA WALTERS SPECIAL?! That's the burning question of the interview.

Best Picture- No Country For Old Men
Best Director- Joel and Ethan Coen for No Country For Old Men
Best Actor- Daniel Day Lewis for There Will Be Blood
Best Actress- Julie Christie for Away From Her (Marion Cotillard for La Vie en Rose)
Best Supporting Actor- Javier Bardem for No Country For Old Men
Best Supporting Actress- Amy Ryan for Gone Baby Gone (Tilda Swinton for Michael Clayton)
Best Original Screenplay- Diablo Cody for Juno
Best Adapted Screenplay- Joel and Ethan Coen for No Country For Old Men
Best Animated Feature- Ratatouille
Best Foreign Language Film- Die Falscher from Austria
Best Documentary Feature- Sicko (Taxi to the Dark Side)
Best Documentary Short- Salim Baba (Freeheld)
Best Short Film Animated-Peter and the Wolf
Best Short Film Live-Action- The Mozart of Pickpockets
Best Cinematography- The Assassination of Jesse James... (There Will Be Blood)
Best Editing- No Country For Old Menm (The Bourne Ultimatum)
Best Art Direction- Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street
Best Costume Design- Across The Universe (Elizabeth: The Golden Age)
Best Make-Up- Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (La Vie en Rose)
Best Original Score- 3:10 to Yuma (Atonement)
Best Original Song- "Falling Slowly" from Once
Best Sound Mixing- Transformers (The Bourne Ultimatum)
Best Sound Editing- Transformers (The Bourne Ultimatum)
Best Visual Effects- Transformers (The Golden Compass)

Peace out fanns!

-Brodie Mann

Oscar Predictions

2008-02-23T10:25:00.000-05:00

Brodie Fanns!

It's the most wonderful time of the year...

No, not Christmas again. I'm talking Oscar season! The Super Bowl for movie fans. And thankfully the writer's strike is over, so it will go on, with Jon Stewart at the helm. If you remember, I was a big fan of his when he first did it 2 years ago (though I am still pushing for Conan to host... OH! Bring the Conan/Stewart/Colbert feud to the Oscars!)

So... like I always do, every year... Oscar Picks!

Click here for a full list of nominees.
Click here to fill out your own ballot!

Best Picture- No Country For Old Men
Best Director- Joel and Ethan Coen for No Country For Old Men
Best Actor- Daniel Day Lewis for There Will Be Blood
Best Actress- Julie Christie for Away From Her
Best Supporting Actor- Javier Bardem for No Country For Old Men
Best Supporting Actress- Amy Ryan for Gone Baby Gone
Best Original Screenplay- Diablo Cody for Juno
Best Adapted Screenplay- Joel and Ethan Coen for No Country For Old Men
Best Animated Feature- Ratatouille
Best Foreign Language Film- Die Falscher from Austria
Best Documentary Feature- Sicko
Best Documentary Short- Salim Baba
Best Short Film Animated-Peter and the Wolf
Best Short Film Live-Action- The Mozart of Pickpockets
Best Cinematography- The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
Best Editing- No Country For Old Men
Best Art Direction- Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street
Best Costume Design- Across The Universe
Best Make-Up- Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End
Best Original Score- 3:10 to Yuma
Best Original Song- "Falling Slowly" from Once
Best Sound Mixing- Transformers
Best Sound Editing- Transformers
Best Visual Effects- Transformers

Keep in mind that for some of those, I was working on speculation, as I only had buzz to go on. But it's hard to see all those flicks up here in the MQT.

Watch the Oscars tomorrow night on ABC!

Peace out fanns!

-Brodie Mann