paul

there was one reason in particular that i didnt see this one in the theater: seth rogan's voice.  sure, seth rogan is funny at times, but it is so distinctive that i just could not buy it coming out of this alien.
the story follows two brits who decide to have the geekiest vacation ever: they come america to attend the san diego comic con and then travel across the country to visit all the different alien landings and other kitschy sights.  after the con they head out to roswell to see where the aliens supposedly landed.  well, they just so happen to run into an actual alien!  the three of them and their winnebago have a run in with a very innocent woman who decides to tag along and a few government agents who are hot on their tails.
this movie is made for the nerds, those who like video games, comic books, movies, and alien stuff.  i really wanted to like it, simon pegg is usually a blast.  unfortunately this one was a bit of a miss.  they did a great job of making the alien a believable character, the problem though was that the character wasnt very funny or interesting.  the humor was weak and the story fizzled out after they left the comic con, which means it fell apart after the first five minutes!

woman in black

i've never seen daniel radcliffe in a movie that didnt have 'harry potter' in the title, and i must admit, i was rather impressed!
the story, set in the 1800's, follows daniel as he is called to take care of the book keeping and will of a recently deceased old woman.  he must leave his family he finds himself in a pretty creepy town being warned by its residents to stay away from the old woman's house.  well, if he would like to keep his job, thats not really an option.  so he heads over with his dog to keep him company and begins trying to make sense of the chaotic records and paperwork at this old mansion.  as you would expect, there are a bunch of spooky things that happen along the way, and i must admit: they all got me!  each and every little scare that pops out at us freaked me out- at one point i even screamed.  i am man enough to admit it.  granted, it embarassed my wife a bit though...

brave

one thing i've always loved about pixar movies is that they always have some unexpected point of view, or a way of looking at something that shares some sort of deeper truth.  that particular trait is missing from this one.  the film follows a young rebellious princess as she fights against her mother's expectations.  mom demands that her daughter fulfill the role of the upcoming queen and all that that entails.  she just wants to have a bit of fun and have an adventure.  she cant play by your rules, man!  well, as she storms out of the castle after another big fight with mom, she happens upon a woman who will grant her what she desires and will get rid of her mom.  as always, things dont go exactly as planned, and the rest of the film is the princess trying to make right what she has done.  its a very straight forward fairy tale morality play.  there isnt much in here thats new, different, or clever, as one has come to expect from pixar.  granted, the movie looks amazing, the lush forests are fantastic, and i really love the scottish setting- it lends itself to some very beautiful landscapes.  the movie itself though was pretty generic, but any pixar movie, even this one, is better than most other animated movies out there, so i shouldnt complain too loudly, huh?

dark knight rises

we finally get the highly anticipated conclusion to the dark knight trilogy.  batman begins was good, dark knight was phenomenal, and now we get dark knight rises which is just back down to good.  not bad, mind you, but about equal to the first one.  and in many ways it feels as though it is a more fitting sequel to batman begins than to the dark knight.  granted, this one couldn't have existed without the story events, particularly those that revolved around the harvey dent character, but this one is much more connected with bruce wayne's past, his return to gotham, and his ties to the organization that trained him.
the story starts up 8 years after the events of the last film, dent is lifted up as a hero while batman is seen as the villain, which is why he has been MIA since then.  we follow bruce as he is called back into action to confront the latest bad guy, called bane, who has threatened gotham with a nuclear device.  its a good movie, but i have some real problems with it.  first of all, this isn't a batman movie, its a bruce wayne movie.  that doesn't make it a bad thing, but it is a bit decieving to think that there will be much batman in the film.  it feels as though the cape and cowl are only in the movie for about thirty minutes.  and for a two hour and forty minute movie, that's not a lot of costumed crusading!  now, that is by no means a deal breaker, a movie can still be great without much batman, but the plot itself is so epic, so grandiose, that it is completely unbelievable.  granted, its a comic book movie, but the director christopher nolan has always grounded his batman films in a gritty realism.  so the absurdity of the plot developments that happen when bane steps forward and begins his reign of terror is just too much to follow along with.  the plot holes and leaps in logic are just too much.  its been five months and the US government still hasn't stepped in to do something?  really?  the cops would be stupid enough to fall for the ploy bane uses?  how exactly did bruce get all the way to the middle east?  how did he get back in time with no resources if he had already lost all his money?
also, i dont think bane was done in a way that was very interesting.  i felt like tom hardy, the actor who played him, didnt really do anything with him.  granted, he was really handicapped by the fact that most of his face was completely covered!  as for that voice?  there was a lot of hubbub about banes voice being too hard to understand.  they fixed that in post production, whatever.  my problem with the voice was that it just didnt fit the character at all.  it was too high, british (?), and quite obviously unconnected to the character on screen.  whenever he would talk it sounded like it was a voice over, not a voice that was actually emanating from anyone on the screen.  he works fine for what the story calls for, but he is certainly not the charismatic perfection that was the joker.
what about cat woman?  well, theres not much to say, really, because there's not much there. her role in the film is completely useless and feels shoehorned in because they needed a second 'bad guy' for the film.  she serves no purpose other than eye candy.  she isnt even a bad guy at all, just a common thief who always happens to be exactly where she is needed depending on the script.
all in all, i hate to admit it, but the movie was only 'meh'.  the grand ideas and allegories presented were interesting, but the rushed pacing and haphazard logic kind of stopped it dead in its tracks.  this is obviously the end of the line for this iteration of batman, but i'm sure we wont have to wait much more than 4 or 5 years before we see another one.  i, for one, will be eagerly waiting.

the devil and daniel johnston

i didnt know who daniel johnston was before i watched this documentary about his life.  judging from his musical popularity, i would guess i'm not the only one who doesnt know who he is.  the film follows his life, getting interviews with family members and childhood friends as it paints for us what daniel was like growing up.  he was a pretty normal kid who loved to draw and sing, but then when he hit puberty things started to change, he started acting weird and showing signs of mental illness.  his artistic abilities continued to increase, both in drawing and in song writing.  he tried to make a go of a singing career, becoming the hit of austin after a few memorable music festivals.  he also made an important fan: curt cobain!  positively affected by the interest, his career was about to take off when his illnesses reared their ugly heads.  the story of his life, both good and bad, is very interesting. its always fascinating to see stories of people who try to reach for their dreams but due to unexpected problems never quite achieve it.  through out the film there are many people who always talk about how daniel johnston is a song writing genius, how he is comparable to van gogh: an artist who was never recognized in his own time.  they go on and on about how amazing his songs are, as if they will change the world.  and through out the film they play many of the songs he recorded.  but here's the big problem: they arent that great.  in fact,  many of the songs sound infantile and derivative, like they were written by a teenager or something.  i found this documentary very interesting, but i dont buy in to adoration they place upon johnston.

horrible bosses

this one looked great, but unfortunately the sum is not as great as its parts.
the movie follows three friends, all very unhappy with their jobs: bateman's boss is a manipulative corporate prick, charlie day's boss is sexually harassing him constantly, and sudekus loves his job, but unfortunately his lovable boss just died and his d bag incompetent son just took over the company.  as the three friends are sitting around at dinner, they mention that they should kill their bosses.  well, things get a little out of hand and the actually act on this crazy plan!  as they get themselves in too deep things begin going very very wrong.
i was really excited about seeing this one because of all the great actors in it, but unfortunately the movie just doesnt come together like it should.  each of the roles are perfectly cast, and each actor does a great job, but for some reason the laughs are only mild, and the story doesnt take off.  i wanted to like this one, but instead it was a bit of a disappointment.

battle: los angeles

this isnt so much a sci fi alien movie as it is just a straight war movie.  all the predictable war tropes are there: brave soldiers, poor decisions by the higher ups, innocent children in danger, unexpected deaths.  everything one would expect from a generic war movie.  i would share the story, but there isnt one.  at all.  here it is as fleshed out as i can make it: aliens attack and soldiers fight back.  the end.  aaron eckhart is wasted here, he is an actor who is always at the top of his game, a true artist who can create a rich character and allow you to feel what he is feeling.  none of that is even close to necessary for this one, they just needed someone who can grunt and fight.  the special effects were pretty cool though!

rock star

i usually wouldnt be interested in this film except for the fact that one of my favorite musicians acts in it, and the movie even features a song he wrote just for the film.  the story follows mark wahlberg, who is the biggest fan of an 80's metal band, and even performs in a cover band dedicated to them.  well, the real band looses its lead singer and they give him a call.  he auditions and eventually gets the job and is now fronting the band that he was so obsessed with!  the movie is based on the real life story of the band judas priest and the replacement lead singer who joined the band.  the film deals with him having his dream come true and how that affects his relationship with his girlfriend.  the film does a pretty good job of showcasing the life of a rockstar during the haydays of the big hair metal band, but the highlight for me was seeing brian vander ark as the bass player in the cover band wahlberg leaves behind.  and the final moments of the film are filled with brian's song 'colorful', which gives the film its emotional weight as we see the relationship between the two resolve.  not the best movie, but worth it as a brian vander ark fan!

secret of my success

i enjoy a good 80's movie as much as the next guy, especially if its got michael j fox in it!  this one though, missed the mark.  the movie starts with fox leaving his provincial midwestern home to try and make it big in new york city.  he doesnt find anything because you have to have experience before anyone will hire you, but no one will hire you to give you that experience.  well, he calls in a family favor and gets a job in the mail room of a big business.  he happens across and empty office higher up in the building and starts to do the job of the guy who just got fired.  as he tries to maintain these two different jobs, he (of course) falls for a girl that he works with as a big shot.  can he manage the two jobs?  will he get the girl?  oh, how exciting!
its all well and good, a typical 80's movie and all that, but once it was all done i got to thinking...  the whole movie we are rooting for fox as he tries to trick his coworkers and the girl, but the more i thought about it the more i realized this unexpected twist:  michael j. fox is the bad guy in the movie!  they dont let on at all, in fact there would be no indication from the film itself, but the more i thought about it i realized that everything he did at the company involved him lying, cheating, blaming others, sleeping with a married woman, double crossing the only person in new york who was willing to give him a break, and eventually causing a negative hostile corporate takeover!  i dont know what to think, should i be outraged at how terrible of a guy this is, or should i be impressed that they fooled the audience in to siding with this scummy guy?

for your consideration

another funny improv movie from the people behind 'waiting for guffman' and 'best in show'.  this time they aim their bitting wit at themselves.  the film starts as a cast of almost nobodys and never weres are busy making a small movie.  we see what is going on behind the scenes and these past-their-prime actors do their thing.  everything is going hunky dory until someone mentions the possibility of awards recognition for the film they are making.  word spreads quickly as the cast and crew begin to believe the hype.  some of them dismiss the growing buzz, but most of them let it go to their heads.  the whole film is a silly farce of what happens when you begin to believe your own hype.
it is a rather fun film, certainly in the same style as 'a mighty wind' and the two listed above.  this ensemble is really amazing when they work together, you never know what role each of them are going to play, but you know its going to be quirky and real.  i appreciated this one a little more than 'best in show' and 'a mighty wind', but i think that may be more based on the topic: behind the scenes of a movie.  

spawn

i used to love this movie!  i saw it several times on the big screen back in the day when it came out.  i always new it wasnt that great, but i was so obsessed with the comic book that i convinced myself that it was everything i wanted in a spawn movie.  its not.
the story starts with our main character, al simmons, being killed by his double crossing government assassin boss.  then, mysteriously, he wakes up five years later.    the rest of the film is about him coming to terms with what has changed in the last five years and the deal he made to come back.  the comic book its based on is much much better than this film though, where the comic book is subtle and complex, this movie is blatant and simple.  it almost felt like the producers wanted it to be a generic comic book movie, so they just added in all the generic movie tropes that they felt they needed:  bad guy has gravelly voice, bad guy wants to take over the world, a young kid befriends our hero so that we can find him relateable.  none of this is in the comic book, mind you, just in the dumbed down movie.  also, one of the coolest visuals in the comic book is spawn's cape, in the movie it rarely makes an appearance, and when it does it looks super cheesy!  one question i always had about this movie even when i saw it back in the theater:  the devil confronts spawn and threatens him if he doesnt follow through on the plan.  he tells him 'do what you promised or else you will die!'  um, isnt he already dead?  how is that a viable threat?  i know so many things were much 'better' when we were younger, so i think i may have to chalk this one up to the fact that it didnt age well.  remember, at the time this movie came out we didnt have any other comic book movies, so this one was a bit of a rarity!

north

part of the reason i watched this movie is because of my curiosity.  i remember reading one time that this was considered by roger ebert to be one of the worst movies ever made.  i always wondered what would cause all that fuss, so when i saw it on the free movie channel, i figured i'd find out for myself.
the story follows north (yes, thats the boy's first name) played by elijah wood, as he feels under appreciated by his parents.  so, he decides to legally split from them and he begins a trek around the world to find replacement parents.  along the way he meets up with parents from texas, alaska, france, china, and a bunch more.  after i watched the movie, and wondered what ebert was so mad about, i read his review. i think he is more mad about the morality of the film and the complete lack of anything remotely funny in what is billed as a 'comedy'.  each of the parents are just terrible stereotypes, and not even funny ones at that!  the texans love guns, the alaskans live in an igloo, etc.  i didnt find anything so abhorrent that caused me to react as strongly as ebert, instead i would just dismiss it as empty fluff that wasnt very well written.  elijah wood, though, does a good job as the directionless north, but its still not a good movie.

the lost skeleton of cadavra

this is a throwback sort of movie.  remember those terrible black and white movies from the 50's that always had some creepy  crawly sort of alien thing that attacked people?  well, this is a straight forward parody of those types of films.  its not a parody in the sense that its filled with jokes, but rather an homage to that style of film.  the story starts with a spaceship landing on earth, the aliens need a very rare material to fix the rocket so they can be on their way.  at the same time, the lost skeleton hypnotizes a willing victim and tells him he must find the exact same rare material so that the skeleton can be reanimated.  it just so happens that a scientist couple are on vacation at their cabin and find said rare material.  what are the chances?!?  all the characters descend on this cabin and have a dinner party.
its a very faithful recreation of those 50's campy horror movies, right down to the poor quality black and white film and the fishing line connected to the skeleton to make him move!  i appreciated the quality of mimicry, of completely recreating those old movies.  the problem is that i dont care for those old movies!  i guess i am not exactly the audience for this film, huh?  it certainly feels like a film from the 50's, not a film from the 21st century!

quick change

oh 80's movies, why must you be so bad?  actually, this one is saved by the always fantastic bill murray!  the movie starts with murray walking into a bank in his clown outfit on, pulls out a gun, and robs the place.  the robbery itself is the best part of the film, so i wont ruin for you how it goes down, but it is quite clever (it has been ripped off since, but this one was before all those, so it was quite original at the time).  needless to say, in order for there to be a movie, the robbers get away.  the rest of the film follows murray, davis, and quaid as they try to leave the city.  turns out, getting out of the bank was the easy part, but leaving new york seems nearly impossible!
i must share my major problem with this movie and so many others like it: why do characters give up on the solution when ever they face an individual problem?  along the way, they get in to a taxi, which just so happens to be driven by a crazy person, they ditch the taxi, but then for some reason never try to get another taxi.  its as if they decide that because they had a bad experience with one taxi that they can never try another taxi again.  really?  also, when they leave the bank they get lost in their car.  really?  i'm pretty sure that if they had taken six months to plan the heist that they would be pretty familiar with the area and wouldnt get totally lost just because the construction worker took down one sign.  in reality, they would have pulled off the heist, gotten on the highway with ease, and been in europe by nightfall.  granted, that doesnt make a good movie though, so they need to have some problems with easy solutions that they never use.  this isnt a bad movie, just badly written.  but even all that is forgotten when ever bill murray is on screen- this is definitely one of his sillier roles, and he does it very well.

domino

this film follows the life of domino, a bounty hunter from england who finds bad guys in l.a.  this film, as hard to as it is to believe, is based on a true story.  the film starts as domino first decides to go into bounty hunting, falls in with the wrong guys (which i guess in her line of work is the right guys, huh?), and gets tangled up in a case that eventually involves the mob and the CIA.  the thing about this movie, though, isnt so much the story but rather the style.  its directed by tony scott, he has made many strangely stylized films and this one rockets to the top of the list!  filmed in a super saturated visual style, heavy on quick cut editing and distorted images and vocals, the style is front and center while the story sits in the passenger seat.  keira knightley does a good job as the lead, she isnt very believable as a bounty hunter, but thats one of the plot points, so it turns out to be exactly what the character is supposed to be like.  then it becomes good acting, i guess?  the chaos of the story line, as the characters are on drugs, on the run, and never sure what will happen next, is very visceral for us as audience members.  it is certainly a strange one, but the visuals alone keep this one from failing.

hackers

its always interesting to look back on movies that were about cutting edge technology and see just how wrong they got it. well, this one was pretty monumental in how wrong they got it! the film tries to make computers seem like the new cool punk thing to do, and those who know how to use them are rockstars. um, actually they are pretty nerdy, no matter how much you try to convince us otherwise! the movie follows a group of computer hackers as they 'fight the system'. one of the gang hacks in to a corporate system and saves a random files so he can prove just how cool he is. unfortunately the file he copied was the one file that could cause terrible things if it were to get into the wrong hands, so the company's tech guy, also played to be a total rockstar badass, has to go and get the file by any means necessary.
yeash, all of this sounds way more interesting than it actually is! this one is truly bad. i was watching it in the living room and my wife, who has sat through some real stinkers, had to get up and leave because it was making her mad at just how stupid the movie is. i cant blame her. i did get a good laugh out of how they try to make typing look exciting! as the characters are at their computers, we see all kinds of graphics of number and letter floating around them, the camera swirling, the rock music blaring. sorry, its still not exciting to watch someone type. the only reason this movie is still remembered instead of being lost to the sands of time is the fact that it stars angelina jolie. she was firmly in her 'bad girl' phase, trying to be hard by pouting her lips and folding her arms. just embarrassing, really. not just for jolie, but everyone involved.

somewhere

through out the whole movie i just kept waiting for something to happen.  it didnt.  this is the latest from sophia coppala, the director of lost in translation.  the movie follows johnny, played by steven dorff, an up and coming actor who lives at the chatau marmont, a famous hotel/apartment building in hollywood.  dorff hangs out in his apartment, then goes for a drive, then hangs out some more.  then some people show up and there is a party.  then he hangs out again.  at one point his daughter is dropped off by her mom who wants johnny to take her for a while and bring her to a camp in a week.  the mom is leaving town with no word on when she will return.  johnny and his daughter hang out.  they play guitar hero.  they swim.  it may not sound that bad, but here's the thing: there's probably only about 50-60 lines of dialog in the whole movie!  we watch johnny sit on his couch in silence for about three minutes, and this is what the whole movie is like.  i guess the movie is accurate to live, because in life not much happens, but i dont really want to watch a movie like that!  at the end we get some token moment of emotion from the daughter and a slight glimmer of change in johnny, but thats about it.  there is a moment or two that was fun, at one point johnny takes his daughter with him on a press junket in europe and they order one of each dessert from the room service menu.  but really?  thats about a two minute scene.   we spent more time watching dorff sit on the couch and stare at the wall!  i dont know where the movie gets its name because it goes nowhere.

brothers mcmullen

really?  this movie won the great prize at sundance film festival?  wow, in 1995 it must have been pretty slim pickings...  the film is a story about three irish brothers who are trying to deal with love and religion.  the oldest brother is married and contemplating cheating on his wife, the middle brother, played by the film's director and writer ed burns, doesnt want to ever get married and breaks up as soon as anything gets serious, and the youngest brother who is a strong catholic and is dating a jewish girl.  the story itself is fine, the idea of trying to understand love through the worldview of faith is rich with storytelling opportunities, the problem is the acting.  have you ever seen the movie 'clerks'?  it ignited the indie movie scene around the same time as this one, and also has terrible acting!  through out the entire film it felt like we were watching a middle school play, the actors were stilted and no where near believable.  the converstations were meant to be organic and natural, but they were the exact opposite of that- every line was delivered as if they were reading it though for the first time not sure where to put the inflection or emphasis.  terrible.  also, whenever there is a movie about faith, i get frustrated when each and every character has some sort of revelation that faith is stupid and God is dumb.  that exactly what each of the people in this film do, it changes from an authentic life choice, and instead becomes obvious that the writer has an axe to grind.  i can appreciate the work that went in to it, the director financed the film himself and amazingly went from being a nobody to now being a well known actor and director.  good for him, but this was not the great start that everyone seems to think it was!  maybe it was better back then, but it is not at all good today.

rko 281

i saw citizen cane, the movie that is considered to be the best film ever made, back in high school. we watched it for a film studies class and i fell in love with it! i've probably watched citizen cane over a dozen times since then. because of my fondness for that film, i was drawn to this one. this is a movie of what happened behind the scenes of citizen cane. the story of how the film came to be and how every studio in town wanted it destroyed is a very interesting one, and it is captured quite well in this film. as a lover of film, i also love to know what goes on behind the scenes of movies, which makes this one so riveting: its the behind the scenes story of the greatest movie every made! in it liev schrieber plays orson wells, the genius director who was the visionary behind citizen cane, and james cromwell as william randolph hearst, the inspiration for cane. it was a rather sorted mess with everyone against wells- many of whom had pretty good reasons, to be honest! as the new 'it' guy in town, wells struggles to find his first big movie that will live up to his hype. inspired by the newspaper magnate hearst, wells decides to use his opportunity to expose the tyrant, to show to the world that the emperor isnt wearing any clothing. its a move that may cost him his career, and the careers of all those around him. its an impressive recreation of the events and an interesting perspective on how and why it went down the way it did. liev does a great job as the over confident wells, and cromwell is fantastic as the self righteous millionaire 'victim' hearst. if you have ever seen citizen cane, definitely search this one out, it will illuminate the classic in a whole new way.