tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7018198996538813712024-03-08T13:03:13.881-08:00The life and times of SeannyDThis blog used to be about movies and games and stuff, but that's now all taken care of on the-storyverse.blogspot.com. This is just about my life and random thoughts and musings that I may have.SeannyDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04705739486284594108noreply@blogger.comBlogger54125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-701819899653881371.post-8066456932938103742010-05-14T21:50:00.000-07:002010-05-14T22:01:40.903-07:00Gillette Fusion Power Proglide!Shaving sucks. I feel like it's such a waste of time. There's no fun in it at all plus it adds at least an additional five minutes onto the morning. So I try to do it as sparingly as possible without looking like a caveman. <br /><br />But for the last several years, my razor of choice has been the Gillette Mach 3. A few years ago, I tried the Schick Quattro and hated it. I immediately returned to the Mach 3. Not only because it was a better razor, but also because it's got such an awesome name. I mean, really. Mach 3 sounds pretty sweet. I feel like I'm using an Air Force Jet to remove the hair from my face. <br /><br />A few weeks ago, I found a link online that allowed me to get a free next generation razor from Gillette. The Fusion Proglide. So, not wanting to miss an opportunity for a free razor, I absolutely jumped at the chance. I had little hopes for it, since a four blade razor didn't work out for me, so a five bladed razor with battery power sounded even less exciting. <br /><br />Then...it arrived. And before I knew it, I was experiencing the cleanest, most impressive shave of my life. They weren't kidding. It was gliding. It was like someone dropped a penguin on my face and he slip slided around until it was smoother than it's ever been. In fact, even the next day I had to thank that penguin for keeping things pretty smooth. Actually, I wish they'd change the name to the Fusion Penguin. I think that would not only be cooler, but would provide for more exciting mascot opportunities. <br /><br />For some reason, as if they knew how much I was going to love it, they sent me another one a week later. So now I have two. Saving me several dollars as now I won't have to buy a new razor anytime soon. Sometimes free stuff works. And this has absolutely changed my opinion. I know the Mach 3 will always be there for me, but I think now I'm a Fusion Penguin man. Or Proglide. Whatever. Either way, it's awesome.SeannyDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04705739486284594108noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-701819899653881371.post-47426943587582430502010-03-09T23:41:00.001-08:002010-03-09T23:41:48.634-08:00Lost Thoughts on "Dr. Linus" for 3/9For most episodes so far this season, I have been rather conflicted between my attempt to manage expectations and the reality of the show. Yet this episode required me to do none of that. Finally there seems to be some solid forward progression with real momentum beginning to build. Arguably the best episode of the season thus far, all of the pieces came together to not only make a solid episode, but a fantastic piece of the greater whole. <br /><br />What needs to be mentioned first is the way in which Jack is finally beginning to come into his own as a leader. This is closer to season one Jack, the Jack who makes decisions and lives with them, as opposed to the Jack of the last few seasons who has just been floundering around hoping he's making the right decision. Now guided more by faith than any sort of rational deduction, his decisions border on crazy, but crazy with a purpose. The scene in which he sits with Richard trusting that the dynamite will not go off spoke volumes of his character, even though the audience knew there was no actual danger whatsoever. My fear was right after Jack sat Richard down that we would be treated to more non-answers via a commercial break. But instead while we didn't get detailed information, we received hints of what is to come and some very interesting facts.<br /><br />But the focal point of the episode resulted in yet another excellent Ben episode. What's interesting is how big a role redemption is playing for not only the 815 cast, but for characters such as Ben. Ben has always been a man who lusts for power and control. Even when locked up posing as Henry Gale back in season two, his ability to maintain some order of control is what made his character so fascinating to watch. His manipulation knew no bounds and very little of what he said could be taken at face value. He knew he would get out of his situation alive, and be better for it. <br /><br />Yet, on the island, his control is all but gone, and he is still attempting to manipulate and lie to people into doing what he wants. The problem is that no longer does he have any clout, since everyone now sees through his facade. Attempting to convince Miles to free him was not only futile, but slightly pathetic. Except when Miles told him that Jacob was hoping he was wrong about Ben, you could see this disappointment in Ben's eyes, as if Ben had disappointed the absent father who was never there for him. And again the show explores father issues through a different prism than they normally might. <br /><br />So when Illana finally confronts Ben after his escape, he is believable when he expresses such regret over holding the island in higher esteem than his daughter and that he is now, truly, a broken man with nowhere to go. Illana's decision to let him stay may have more to do with the fact that one more person on Jacob's side is better than a new recruit to Locke's, but Ben's decision shows how he has now resigned himself to accepting his role on the island as a part of a team instead of their leader. Locke's empty promise of allowing Ben to control the island after he leaves no longer holds any weight for Ben. <br /><br />This redemption is echoed through the sideways story, as Ben proves himself to be just as cunning and manipulative in that timeline as well. There was little more entertaining than watching him maneuver into a position where he could usurp power from Principal Donald "This Man Has No Dick" Reynolds. (Sorry, Ghostbusters reference.) And it's also a lot of fun to see Arzt hilariously continue to pop up in episodes. But in furthering the seemingly redemptive nature of these sideways stories, Ben chooses his prized student/island daughter Alex over the control he desperately wants and feels he deserves. The main thing that makes this Ben different than his counterpart is the fact that not only is his father alive, but he seems to have a loving relationship with him. Roger Linus feels that he is the one who disappointed Ben by leaving the island, an interesting revelation to be sure. The fact they were on the island at one point is a starting point to clue us in as to what happened to make this world so different. <br /><br />Elevating this episode even more is the classic reunion scene set to nothing by Michael Giacchino's excellent score. Beach scenes like this one really stand out in that there is nothing better than watching characters who have been separated for so long come together after all this time. There was an early season vibe that I felt in this reunion and it reminded me of a time when occasionally fun and happy things happened to the characters. Only to have that reunion punctuated by the brilliant revelation of Widmore arriving via sub, bringing that dynamic back into the fold after such a long absence. <br /><br />On a slightly unrelated note, I'm rather disappointed that Mira Furlan, who played Danielle Rousseau, isn't coming back this season, because while I'm making the assumption that she's still Alex's mother, I would have loved to see her as a stressed out mom trying to make ends meet after knowing her as this crazy jungle woman for so long. Of course, this also raises the question as to how this French woman ended up in Los Angeles, but I'm hoping it's one that will be addressed in time. <br /><br />Between Jack's solid decision making, Ben's decision to stay with the beach team, Richard getting ready to explain himself, and Widmore's imminent arrival, there seems to be a lot to chew on over the next several days and the excitement seems to be ramping up. While we still don't know what's at stake, at least we know that Jack is ready to take some action and make the leaps of faith he was so incapable of making at the start of the series. Episodes like this one allow me to forget about all the questions that I have about the series and enjoy it outright. But I do feel like a lot of questions we've held for a long time are beginning to be primed for answers. Personally, I'm really starting to get excited about the rest of this season. How about you?SeannyDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04705739486284594108noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-701819899653881371.post-21038736586905478632010-02-16T22:51:00.001-08:002010-02-16T22:51:55.302-08:00Lost ThoughtsComing into the final season of Lost, it's clear to me that I have spent not nearly as much time in thought and anticipation than in any other show. Something about this show has taken me in and clearly I am not alone. <br /><br />Yet, throughout these last six years, as the onion has been peeled back more and more, the concern mounts that what we find in the middle isn't going to be something that will be nearly as satisfying as it could. What seems to be most interesting is the subculture that has spawned in the wake of "Lost." People constantly analyzing every little movement, every character action, every story point, and attempting to cross reference that with probably hundreds of different sources throughout literature, film, mythology, and philosophy. <br /><br />Speculation is most certainly fun, but the major drawback is that we're working from limited information. The fact is, even four episodes into the final season, we still have nowhere near the amount of information necessary to make a truly informed decision. Things that still lay shrouded in secrecy are vital to our understanding of the show and therefore any speculation people have is clearly speculation and lends itself to ultimately weak arguments. <br /><br />The third season finale is a perfect example. When the concept of the flash forward was introduced, it blew my mind. I was confused, and my thoughts were most assuredly provoked. In fact, I spent hours that evening trying to understand the ramifications of the ending. Was this an alternate timeline? Was this the end point of the show? Those were honestly the only two ideas I could come up with that night, and both were completely wrong. After several months of waiting, I realized that the third option that I didn't think of, that this was yet another part of these characters' journeys, was something that was ultimately incredibly simple. At this point, I made the decision to do no more speculating to that degree. Since clearly I couldn't predict what was going to happen anyway. The only thing I could do is make minor inferences based on that which I could actually see, while realizing that my chances of accuracy were rather low. Of course, it was also after that premiere that I had decided this show wouldn't do anything crazy as alternate realities, yet, here we are. Experiencing alternate realities. <br /><br />For the last several years, I've held out hope that the end was going to be satisfying. Following the show with as much detail as I do, specifically listening to the weekly podcast from the creators, has imbibed me with a sense of confidence that the show does have a direction that it's following. Obviously that plan was not in place early in the first season, since despite their best efforts, there are things that just do not seem thematically consistent with later episodes. Yet, what does seem to be the case is a sense of knowledge that "all will be revealed" before it's over, and this was incredibly evident to me once the end date was finalized. <br /><br />But here we are, once again, three episodes into the final season, and the mad dash to the finish line I was expecting has yet to arrive. There was a nice sprint out of the gate, but I feel that while the wheels aren't exactly spinning, the pace is much more leisurely than I otherwise would have expected. <br /><br />The premiere was excellent, weaving between two realities relatively seamlessly while simultaneously hinting at detailed answers that were to come. While we can now say unequivocally that The Man in Black from the season 5 finale is not only taking the form of John Locke, but is also the Smoke Monster, we still don't exactly know WHAT he is. Nor do we understand what changed things so dramatically in the alternate timeline to make things so different, yet so similar. The ABC promos have been saying that "The Time For Questions Is Over" but frankly, it appears that I'm left with more questions than I had before the season began. <br /><br />The second episode "What Kate Does" was seemingly panned by a majority of the Lost community as a poor episode. Yet, surprisingly, I rather enjoyed it. Especially most of the flash-sideways. Seeing things happen that are eerily similar to what happened on island did give clues to the fact that this universe appears to be course correcting itself. That the situations that happened on island are going to be very similar in this alternate reality. And I thought there were some rather touching scenes in the smaller character moments, which is ultimately the biggest reason that this show is so successful. People want to know who these characters are. The problem was that with a premiere that had such forward momentum, only to be stopped in its tracks, the effect can be rather jarring. Although I suspect that when viewed as part of a whole, it won't be remembered as poorly. <br /><br />And this brings us to tonight's episode "The Substitute". The episode that inspired me to write all this tonight. Because with the exception of the flash sideways, all that really happened was Locke and Sawyer walked through the jungle and into a cave. Granted, there were interesting things, especially about the numbers, within the cave, but I felt slightly like we were stuck in a traffic jam, waiting for the roads to clear up. Movement is being made, albeit slowly, and that's not what I'm wanting at this point. In addition to the fact that I wanted to see what was happening with the people at The Temple, and being denied that was rather frustrating, especially given what happened with Sayid last week. To leave us hanging after that only to provide us with completely separate information this week probably lessens my enjoyment somewhat. Since my desire to see more Temple is overwhelming my desire to see Locke and Sawyer trekking through the jungle. And the more things like that happen, the more I become worried that despite my blank expectations for answers, the ending will just not be satisfying. <br /><br />The flash sideways again presented some really interesting questions, but none that were remotely answered. How did Ben become a teacher? (A hilarious scene by the way.) Who's Locke's dad that's going to come to the wedding? And if it's Anthony Cooper, then how did Locke get into the wheelchair this time? Although I must say it's rather awesome watching Terry O'Quinn play the juxtaposition of both confused, frustrated Locke, and completely certain, unwavering Locke and the fact that elements of both characters seem to be sliding between the two of them. Specifically sideways-Locke's acceptance of the reality of his situation and fake Locke's yelling about people telling him what he can't do. There seems to be more to that. <br /><br />Keeping everyone separated is also a mistake. Jin and Sun have been trying to reunite for over a season and a half now. For far too many episodes, Sun, Lapidus, Locke, Ben, and Richard have been hanging out by that four toed statue, essentially waiting for something to happen. Tonight they finally made the decision to head toward the temple, and hopefully the group will all reunite very soon. Since this show seems to work best when all the characters are functioning as one large unit and not incessantly separated. <br /><br />I suppose that when all is said and done, it's the journey, and not the destination that makes it all worthwhile. The characters are interesting, and the plot is just a vehicle through which the characters can make decisions and change. Yet, this does not mean that I am not interested in a solid resolution to the plot. On the contrary, I am very interested. And that is ultimately what I hope, and to a degree, expect to see. <br /><br />Also, where's Desmond? My favorite character needs to come back. Now. Come on man, where are you? <br /><br />Anyway, this ends this current article, for all of you who actually took the time to read it. I actually have a lot more to say, but I'll save it for another time. Feel free to comment if you want to start a discussion about the show, and I'm thinking about doing this every week now.SeannyDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04705739486284594108noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-701819899653881371.post-1381351696066096242009-05-26T13:50:00.001-07:002009-05-26T13:50:32.533-07:00"Up" ReviewPixar's track record continues to shine with the release of their newest movie "Up". While not as much of a masterpiece as last year's Wall-E, it still provides plenty of laughs and thoughtful storytelling that is above and beyond what would appear to be the reach of most studios.<br /><br />"Up" is the story of 78-year-old Carl Frederickson (Ed Asner) who has had a lifelong love of exploration and who never seemed to be able to get out there and do any real exploring. After marrying his childhood sweetheart, who shared this love of his, there was always something preventing the couple from going to Paradise Falls in South America, the one place they truly wanted to go. Illustrated in an incredibly moving montage at the start of the film, the audience is taken through the journey of their life together, including some surprisingly mature themes that will probably go over the head of smaller viewers but heartbreaking for those who have the ability to grasp the situation.<br /><br />After the death of his wife and being forced out of his home by business development, Carl decides he has nothing to lose and uses thousands of balloons to lift his house upward and spend his remaining years in Paradise Falls. Meanwhile, young Wilderness Explorer Russell is looking for his final badge, the "Help the Elderly" badge, so he can become a Senior Explorer. Carl unfortunately wants nothing to do with him, yet through a series of circumstances, Russell becomes part of Carl's journey and through this exploration they begin to learn more about each other and discover what it means to truly live a full life.<br /><br />The film excels more than anything else with the characters. Russell and Carl are so incredibly well written that each decision they make is one that can be understood. The progression of the characters moves along at a solid pace and when the moment of realization occurs for Carl, you really feel his epiphany with him, which is a testament to the great writing of the team at Pixar.<br /><br />And there really is something for everyone in this movie. Goofy sight gags for the kids, deep meaningful themes for the adults, all in a PG movie.<br /><br />The only real negative to the film was the fact that I didn't find myself buying Carl's willingness to deviate from his original plan. It seemed slightly forced in an attempt to create some sort of conflict, but upon watching it again, I suppose it's possible that it will be better understood why he decided to make the decision that he did.<br /><br />From a technical perspective, this movie is again a masterpiece. The light from the balloons, the stylized character designs, and even the 3D effects all add to create a beautiful atmosphere that could be enjoyed even if you had no idea what was being said on screen. What's also incredible is how the 3D effects were not overwhelming at all, only serving to add literal depth to the movie, and never going for the cheap poke-in-the-eye gags. Some movies can really have the 3D as a distraction, but here it was clearly part of the storytelling and they made every attempt to not abuse that.<br /><br />"Up" ultimately is a touching, unconventional story that succeeds on just about every level. Upon first viewing of the trailer last year, I wondered whether or not it would be viable to have an old man as a protagonist, but, as Pixar always does, they proved me wrong for even questioning it.<br /><br /><b><big>GRADE: A-</big></b>SeannyDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04705739486284594108noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-701819899653881371.post-64550218833296887632009-05-20T00:59:00.001-07:002009-05-20T00:59:22.247-07:00Terminator: Salvation ReviewNumerous interviews with the director of "Terminator: Salvation", McG, have reeked of a deep insecurity about the project; a desperate need to tell the world "this movie is good, really! Look at all the people involved other than me! That will show you!" Yet, the movie succeeds in being an interesting fourth entry in the Terminator franchise and a relatively solid summer blockbuster, but not much else.<br /><br />The movie begins with John Connor (Christian Bale) on a mission to take out a Skynet facility in 2018. Connor knows he is going to someday lead humanity to victory against Skynet, he just doesn't quite know when that is going to be. In the meantime, his pregnant wife Kate (Bryce Dallas Howard) sits at home doing doctor things waiting for him to return. The mission somehow wakes up Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington) from some sort of half-man/half-machine slumber. Frankly, describing the plot is partially an exercise in futility since it mostly involves the Resistance trying to defeat and run away from Skynet and Marcus discovering what he truly is.<br /><br />Which leads to the main problem of this movie: the plot is essentially incomprehensible toward the end. The motivations of Skynet are strange at best and completely nonsensical at worst. Sure they make some good strategic moves from time to time, but when it comes to their ace in the hole, it seems like they did not think that one through at all, which I'll refrain from describing as to not spoil anything.<br /><br />Connor also serves as some sort of section leader of the Resistance but has little say as a top decision maker. Which is fine, since this is relatively early in his Resistance career. The problem is that you never really see TRUE leadership from him. Sure, he has a little John Connor radio show where he talks to anyone who will listen about how Skynet will one day be defeated, but this isn't exactly leadership. That's not to say that Connor is incompetent. On the contrary he shows himself to be an excellent fighter and capable of making incredibly smart decisions. It would seem that he is working up to this point, and many already see him as a de facto leader on account of his radio addresses.<br /><br />In fact, the true standout is Kyle Reese (Anton Yelchin) who, as a teenager, is able to keep his cool in difficult situations and inspire those around him with his confidence and poise. It makes perfect sense that he is the father of John Connor, since you can see the man he is growing into and the choices that he makes. Unfortunate then that Connor himself doesn't seem to have the same sort of ability.<br /><br />Fortunately, all the actors in the movie give it their best and provide a real core upon which to build the rest of the film. Bale is consistent as always and really puts everything he has into the character of John Connor. Worthington spends much of the movie yelling insanely, but when he is given the opportunity to settle down for a moment, you can really see his charisma. His confusion about his nature is on full display and he plays it very well.<br /><br />The action scenes are really the big draw to the movie though, since most of the movie is just nonstop action for the sake of action. On a sheer entertainment level, this is where the movie shines through. The Terminators look more real than ever given that most of the movie relies on practical effects and not on CGI, giving the battles more intensity than they otherwise would have. The CGI that IS there is not only effective, but complimentary to the practical action, creating an incredibly believable world that presents the engaging struggle between man and machine.<br /><br />The problem is that most of the action adds nothing to the story. They're entertaining battles to be sure, but they're without purpose. They have such length but the plot developments only happen slightly before and slightly after each battle and even then these are only mildly interesting developments.<br /><br />McG clearly set this up as the first part of a trilogy, but the movie ends so unceremoniously that I find myself completely unconcerned with what will happen next in the Terminator saga. I will still be first in line to see the next one, but it also isn't hotly anticipated.<br /><br />When all is said and done, this is definitely a movie worth seeing in theatres, especially if you're a fan of the Terminator franchise. They make some cool callbacks without going over the top with it, and while much of the plot will leave you scratching your head, there's enough positive here to recommend it as a fun summer popcorn action picture.<br /><br /><br /><b><span style="font-size:130%;">GRADE: B-</span></b>SeannyDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04705739486284594108noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-701819899653881371.post-23855649891553460842009-04-23T00:30:00.001-07:002009-04-23T00:30:09.536-07:00"Fighting" ReviewEvery so often a movie comes along that completely defies your expectations. Sometimes this happens in a positive way. Other times, not so much. Well, I'm happy to report that despite my incredibly low expectations for "Fighting", the end result was much worse than I honestly expected.<br /><br />"Fighting" stars Channing Tatum as Shawn MacArthur, a street vendor of knock off goods in New York City. At least until he defends himself from some people trying to steal his stuff and Harvey Boarden (Terrence Howard) inexplicably sees an underground fighter in him. So when Shawn goes to confront Harvey, Harvey offers him the opportunity to fight, right there on the spot, and Shawn mindbogglingly accepts this offer from a man who coordinated a theft from him just hours earlier.<br /><br />That's essentially all that you need to know about "Fighting." Despite the fact that the title of the movie is "Fighting", there's surprisingly little fighting in it. Nothing in the movie will surprise you in any way except for how paint-by-numbers it all is. Anyone who has seen a movie will be able to telegraph each plot point a mile away.<br /><br />And of course, characterization isn't necessary when you are able to just glide through a plot of this nature. Nope, just stick a few characters with a few stereotypical "from the streets" backstories, and you have yourself a movie. And the acting isn't any better. Howard, who normally excels in his roles, seems to be channeling some sort of high functioning Rain Man in his speech patterns and Tatum just mumbles his lines probably hoping that you don't really hear anything he has to say since the writing is so atrocious.<br /><br />Top it off with an incredibly hackneyed reluctant love interest, Zulay Valez (played by Zulay Henao, too lazy to even change the girl's first name) and there is pretty much nothing redeemable about this movie. And you really have to appreciate the way the line between persistence and stalking is drawn. Wait, it isn't? No, not at all. Shawn follows her around, waiting for her to show up in random places, buys her gifts within moments of getting her to agree to hang out with him and offers to pay for her apartment. (Maybe THAT'S where I'm going wrong in life. I'm not being stalkerish enough with women!)<br /><br />Of course, this review wouldn't be worth much if I didn't mention the randomness. Between the guy who runs up and does a flip off the wall and a man dressed as a human taco who walks past the camera, there are plenty of "What the hell is that?" moments that permeate the entire movie. I don't know if the intent is to confuse you so you don't realize how terrible the movie itself is, but if that is the case, no, it didn't work.<br /><br />I barely even want to mention the fighting itself. There are four fights, all lasting fewer than 5 minutes. A movie called "Fighting" put less than 20 minutes of fights in the whole movie, yet somehow was able to stretch the running time to 1 hour and 45 minutes. And filled that with what? Story? No. None to be had here. Completely unacceptable.<br /><br />"Fighting" has the distinct privelage of being one of the worst movies I've seen in the theater in a long time and would not recommend the movie to anyone. Anyone at all. Seriously. Don't go see it.<br /><br /><b><span style="font-size:130%;">GRADE: D-</span></b>SeannyDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04705739486284594108noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-701819899653881371.post-79241660197205379632009-04-02T01:05:00.000-07:002009-04-02T01:06:17.110-07:00Adventureland Review<img src="file:///C:/Users/SeannyD/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot.jpg" alt="" /><img src="file:///C:/Users/SeannyD/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot-1.jpg" alt="" />Every so often a movie comes along that completely blows away every expectation that you could have had for it. And despite the fact that many of the trailers make it out to be a run of the mill goofy summer job comedy, "Adventureland" has so much heart and realism to it that I'm still thinking about it.<br /><br />James Brennan (Jesse Eisenberg) has just graduated from college in Pennsylvania during 1987 and is planning on pursuing a postgraduate degree at Columbia in New York after a summer traveling through Europe. Unfortunately, the initial plan involving his parents helping him along on this journey had been scrapped after his father gets demoted and they no longer have the financial means to support this. This leads to James getting a job at the summer carnival "Adventureland" where he plans to save up money to afford a place in New York in the fall. It is here that he meets an incredible cast of characters, the most important of whom is Em Lewin (Kristin Stewart) who, despite seeming like she walks around perennially stoned in real life, is incredibly fantastic and alluring here, faults and all.<br /><br />What is most surprising about this movie is how at the core, "Adventureland" is not really about the comedy. Sure, the movie is hilarious and there are plenty of laughs to be had from start to finish, but every laugh is earned. Even the cheap kicked-in-the-nuts gags are realistic because everyone knows a guy like that, a guy who is just so completely immature that only these childish moments give him entertainment. Even Ryan Reynolds, who normally is king of over the top, turns in a subtle performance as adulterous musician Mike Connell.<br /><br />Every character has flaws and makes dumb mistakes, mistakes that every day people make. Whether it be trusting someone you shouldn't with a huge secret or knowing that you're about to make a mistake and you do it anyway, these are things that happen to real people and none of it comes across as forced. Writer/Director Greg Motolla (who directed "Superbad") places every character in such a specific position that the audience can truly feel for them. Some of the decisions are misguided or outright wrong, but you never feel as if the characters who make even the worst decisions are bad people.<br /><br />Other films would have taken the fact James is a virgin in his early 20s and hammered that home, making the loss of his virginity the driving focus of the movie, but it's not. His virginity is just one element of his character. Sure, that's a background focus of his, and he still is a male, but it never overwhelms the plot. In fact, it only becomes an issue when he himself brings it up, showing that many of the things we think are holding us back are just parts of who we are, things that should be neither celebrated nor condemned. Even the wackier characters such as managers Bobby and Paulette (SNL's Bill Hader and Kristen Wiig) are handled in a very regular way.<br /><br />There's also more story than what's just on the surface. Peripheral characters too have their own life issues that are only alluded to but never really explored, yet they don't have to be. They appear to exist to provide our main characters with a more fully realized back story.<br /><br />The soundtrack is also fantastic, with many excellent songs from the 1980s, most of which are poignant and not used for kitsch. All too often 80s movies focus on the over-the-top outfits and tacky songs, but those were just two elements of that era. This movie never takes that route and in fact can't think of one self-referential 80s joke that was made.<br /><br />If there's one complaint to be had is that the pacing is a little odd near the beginning of the movie before it settles into a very natural progression. Towards the start, I could really feel the scene changes and this was slightly jarring. While I don't feel that any significant differences were made between the start and finish, I was brought fully into the characters' world and each step towards that end became more natural.<br /><br />This is a movie about growing up, changing, and just dealing with life and the unexpected things it throws at you. Sometimes it's awesome, sometimes it sucks, but that's just the way life is. In the end, "Adventureland", despite its reality as a hilarious film in its own right, is an incredibly nuanced movie that deserves to be seen by the widest audience possible. A completely heartfelt surprise.<br /><br />GRADE: ASeannyDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04705739486284594108noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-701819899653881371.post-30941844163297700582009-03-19T23:38:00.001-07:002009-03-20T00:06:53.350-07:00I Love You, Man ReviewComedy is a very difficult thing to pull off. The balance between story and comedy is one that seems to be even harder to achieve than some of the most complicated dramas. The problem lies in the fact that comedy is often times so much more subjective than more dramatic elements. Yet, "I Love You, Man" pulls off quite an intricate balance between story and comedy despite the fact that the two often times do not quite work together.<br /><br />After Peter Klaven (Paul Rudd) proposes to his girlfriend Zooey (Rashida Jones), the realization occurs that he has no best man and no real guy friends in general. So after hearing his new fiance and her friends making fun of him, he begins a quest to find a best man to call his own. After a few mishaps, he finally seems to find a friend in Sydney Fife (Jason Segel) and the resulting relationship begins to cause a few problems with his home life.<br /><br />What is most interesting is the way in which the movie follows some of the normal romantic comedy conventions, yet applies them to a completely platonic friendship and it seems to work. While this has surely been done before, director John Hamburg ("Along Came Polly") and stars Rudd and Segel are able to keep you interested and laughing. Interestingly, much of the humor seems to exist in its own reality, separate from the needs of the story. Lately many movies under the Apatow brand name have the humor stem from the story situations themselves, "I Love You, Man" seems to break off into tangents at certain points providing plenty of laughter, but a slight disconnect from the story itself. This is certainly not a bad thing, as the two work together so effortlessly that it doesn't create any problems, but given that the story is serviceable on its own, it was an interesting dynamic to experience.<br /><br />Rudd is absolutely hilarious as the nervous Peter, and some of the funniest moments happen when he literally talks gibberish in an attempt to sound cool. Many of these situations led to a brief moment of silence in the theater everyone tries to figure out what he just said, but the way in which it happens resulted in fits of laughter from just about everyone. And hopefully nobody spoils for you a completely random moment that occurs during a drinking scene near the beginning with Peter, which was possibly the most laugh out loud moment I've had in the theater in a long time. But regardless, the entire cast is excellent from Segel's laid back Sydney to Rashida Jones' Zooey, they all offer something great.<br /><br />If there's one complaint to be had the movie slows up on a lot of the comedy toward the end, which seems to be the case in a lot of comedies. In an attempt to bring the story to its necessary conclusion, more focus is put on story than on laughter. But as the Catalina Wine Mixer taught us in last year's "Step Brothers", sometimes the crowning moment of the story can offer up plenty of laughs all on its own. The movie certainly picks up in the last few minutes, but there's a period of about 15-20 minutes that barely a chuckle was heard. And I like to chuckle.<br /><br />I cannot seem to stress enough how excellent many of the comedies have been of the last couple of years. And "I Love You, Man" is no exception. Again it's a movie that has an R-rating and embraces that without being too raunchy or over the top. It's been a few months since a solid comedy has been released, but this is definitely one to see if you're looking for some great comedy. (No offense, Paul Blart. But let's be honest. You just weren't that funny.)<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" >GRADE: B+</span>SeannyDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04705739486284594108noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-701819899653881371.post-81743294476049012082009-03-18T23:24:00.000-07:002009-03-18T23:58:18.311-07:00Knowing ReviewEvery so often a movie comes along that you feel if handled correctly, it can be something truly excellent and original. There seem to be signs that "Knowing" could have entered that realm, but in the end it is ultimately a movie with interesting ideas that, unfortunately, are not presented well. Without giving anything away, the uncompromising ending seems to be the foundation upon which the entire movie was built, but less attention was paid to the two hours preceding it.<br /><br />"Knowing" stars Nicolas Cage as John Koestler, an astrophysicist at MIT (who apparently gives broad lectures that literally involve him defining the term "randomness", so it must not be that hard a school after all) whose son is the recipient of a message from his school's time capsule. The message, written 50 years earlier by a 3rd grader named Lucinda, ends up documenting every major disaster from the planet's history in a series of numbers. This leads John on a trail to attempt to stop the upcoming disasters listed on the paper.<br /><br />Director Alex Proyas ("I, Robot", "Dark City") attempts to ground the movie in a type of reality, attempting to explain the occurances as a matter of science, but this ultimately rings hollow. Again, if the awareness of an event is achieved, then so does the ability to stop it. But I digress, as the movie is not trying to make that point. In fact, the movie does not seem to make much of a point at all, save for the peculiar ending. Instead, what is shown up on screen is essentially a mystery-thriller in which John makes every effort to prevent these future disasters. The problem with this is that there is essentially nothing he can do about them, giving the entire chase a pointless undercurrent. The action elements are rather impressive and are easily the most entertaining parts of the movie. This unfortunately should be some of the least impressive stuff in a movie that is primarily supposed to be science fiction.<br /><br />Nicolas Cage again plays pretty much the same eccentric character that he always plays, which is not always a bad thing when he is given the right material. Unfortunately all the script requires him to do here is run from one place to the next and scream at people, offering little in the way of character. Sure there's a little subplot regarding his dead wife and his cemented belief in randomness, but it carries such little weight that the entire subplot just seems to serve mostly as filler for the character. The rest of the cast is adequate, but are given so little to do that it seems pointless to even mention them indvidually.<br /><br />The film was not a complete waste of time, as it was certainly an engaging way to spend two hours and does present a few ideas that can make you think a little bit. But these are ideas that can be brought up without spending two hours watching a movie to allow you to reach that point. If only the movie had a little bit more focus on the science fiction aspect of the movie and less on the running around, it could have been one to remember. So while a mildly entertaining movie on its own merits, there is not much to recommend here and I certainly have no problem giving away the ending to you if you just want to save yourself the time and ask me straight away.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" >GRADE: C</span>SeannyDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04705739486284594108noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-701819899653881371.post-42070407687561834172009-01-08T10:39:00.000-08:002009-01-08T11:13:24.934-08:00Gran Torino ReviewWhen looking at Clint Eastwood's cinematic pedigree, one sees a bit of a recurring character. The Dirty Harry, take-no-prisoners, out for vengeance character. Which, to be honest, was what I was expecting coming into "Gran Torino". Interestingly enough, this character, while on the surface appeared to be similar to all those other characters, was much more subtle than all those movies that came before this. If you're looking for "Gran Torino" to be in the same vein as those other movies, you will almost certainly be disappointed. But if you can keep an open mind about what you're witnessing, then the movie can be a thought-provoking film with dynamic characters in its own right.<br /><br />The movie follows Walt Kowalski (Eastwood) as he moves on from the death of his wife shortly before the movie begins. He is completely disconnected from his two boys and their families, a family that comes across as spoiled and ungrateful, despite Walt's overtly bitter attitude towards life in general. In the meantime, a Hmong family moves in next door and the young son Thao (Bee Vang) is recruited by the local Hmong gang to steal Walt's titular Gran Torino.<br /><br />Walt does not take too kindly to this behavior and also happens to be one of the most racist men I have ever seen on film. Yet Eastwood plays it with such humor and lightheartedness that it becomes difficult to be offended. He seems to make it clear that he's less racist and more concerned about hating everybody. I certainly wouldn't be surprised to see a Youtube video at some point that is a compilation of all of his derogatory terms as he runs the gamut of every racist word for an Asian one could think of.<br /><br />In the meantime, Walt is pursued by Father Janovich (Christopher Carley) who made a promise to Walt's passed wife that he would get Walt to go to confession, something Walt has absolutely no interest in doing. Yet confession does not seem to be what Walt needs and as he comes to realize what his life currently is, what he has, and the reality of the world around him, he begins to transform into something else. Only in the final surprising minutes do we see what that specifically is.<br /><br />Eastwood again turns in a solid directorial effort that keeps the movie moving at a brisk pace. The way he conveys the different aspects of Walt's life and his inability to change with the times is nothing short of engaging. And Eastwood is clearly the most competent actor out of the entire bunch. With the exception of Walt's immediate and extended family, the acting was little more than mediocre and sometimes downright atrocious. Countless times I was taken out of the movie by an odd line delivery or the perception that the actor was just reading from a script instead of truly feeling his or her lines. The worst offenders are Father Janovich and Thao's sister, Sue (Ahney Her). I'm sure that it's very difficult to stay in the same league as someone of Eastwood's calibur but their quality was certainly not up to par.<br /><br />Also surprisingly, the movie was absolutely hilarious. Walt's "I don't care" attitude led to some very funny and often times rather poignant moments and it's possible that without that humor, the movie would have suffered quite a bit. It made him more than a grumpy old man and more of a man a person could relate to.<br /><br />I must be clear again: this is no Dirty Harry. In fact, one could argue that it is in fact the opposite of Dirty Harry. But even so, it exists as an excellent film that is a huge leap back to form for Eastwood whose "Changeling" from this past fall had the tendency to linger and seemed to have difficulty presenting a nuanced portrait of that story. This is a thought-provoking movie that has the power to stay with you well after you leave the theatre whose only real fault was a lack of quality acting.<br /><br />And the fact that Clint Eastwood sings a song over the credits. Why he thought that was a good idea is anyone's guess.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" ><br />Grade: B</span>SeannyDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04705739486284594108noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-701819899653881371.post-78054548053165474552008-12-11T05:53:00.001-08:002008-12-11T06:54:14.151-08:00The Day The Earth Stood Still ReviewRemakes aren't all bad. Sometimes they have the ability to expand on an original concept, or approach a particular topic from a different perspective to bring about a new viewpoint. Yet many times, "Why bother?" is an appropriate response, especially for a film so revered as the original "The Day the Earth Stood Still." And unfortunately, this 2008 version with Keanu Reeves and Jennifer Connelly does absolutely nothing to contribute to the legacy of the original.<br /><br />While I have never seen the original version, the reading I have done about the movie suggests that it is a classic that did not need to be remade; that the movie stood on its own as a piece of art. Unfortunately, this did not stop 20th Century Fox, resulting in an interesting visual piece but very little in the way of story and even less in character.<br /><br />For those who aren't familiar, "The Day the Earth Stood Still" is about an alien, Klaatu (Reeves) who is sent to Earth in an attempt to save the planet. And the only person in the world who seems willing to even listen to him is scientist Helen Benson (Connelly) who is also busy tending to a greiving stepson (Jaden Smith). Meanwhile, the military acts in standard movie-military mode, led by the Secretary of Defense (Kathy Bates), trying to sequester the alien and force him to reveal his ultimate plan through force, despite clear indications that there is nothing they can do to contain any threat, perceived or otherwise.<br /><br />Director Scott Derrickson was clearly trying to approach the film in a culturally relevant way in an effort to make a social statement about society. There are references to many current events and actual world leaders are shown on televisions in an effort to ground this movie in a present day reality. The problem is that the screenplay by David Scarpa draws one-dimensional characters whose motivations are driven by plot instead of actual development or growth. Characters who seem absolutely set in their ways do a complete 180 as a result of simple, almost inconsequential, events. This would not even be as terrible if the characters were set up in a realistic manner but most act in a one-note fashion that seems to exist solely to antagonize the aliens, especially the military.<br /><br />The military throws logic completely out the window as they seem content to take on an alien civilization with sheer brute force, despite the fact that their abilities are shown to be near impervious to human weapons and are able to disable them at will. So instead of at least attempting to form some sort of dialogue with the aliens, they continue to act antagonistically by pushing the aliens into a corner when clearly nothing physical can be done to stop them. This attitude is also inexplicably echoed in Jacob (Jaden Smith) who seems to believe that his deceased Army Engineer father would have attempted to kill the aliens were he alive. The attempt is made to make Jacob the conduit for change in this movie but the complete lack of subtlety and the bludgeoning of the audience over the head with simplistic themes undermines any attempt at getting across a coherent message.<br /><br />This wasn't an unmitigated disaster though. On a visual level, the film was sufficiently engaging and there were some truly interesting effects. Strangely, there was a curiosity to find out what would happen next, although there was no concern for any of the characters and often times a mild annoyance at their actions. This is not a slight at the actors though, since all of them, including Keanu Reeves, deliver as convincing performances as they could given the material they had at their disposal. Reeves is believable as an alien, as his often times wooden delivery would suggest anyway. Connelly is always a bright spot in any movie (although would it kill somebody to put her in a comedy? Why is she always playing such sad characters?) and she and the rest of the cast probably prevented this from being the unwatchable film it could have been.<br /><br />As it stands, "The Day the Earth Stood Still" is instead just another unnecessary remake that would appear to add absolutely nothing to the original. With a different screenplay, this could have been an insightful commentary on the direction of humanity and that is really the biggest disappointment of all.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" >GRADE: C</span>-SeannyDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04705739486284594108noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-701819899653881371.post-69069267932973375632008-11-14T07:34:00.000-08:002008-11-14T08:06:41.670-08:00Quantum of Solace ReviewDiscussing the newest James Bond movie, Quantum of Solace, is almost impossible without discussing that which came before it. The fact that this movie picks up literally moments after the first one ended makes it less a sequel and more an extension of the first movie, an extended coda that follows Bond's path in an attempt to exact revenge on those that were responsible for the events of the first movie. As a result, this is less of a movie that stands on its own and more of one that must be watched in conjunction with "Casino Royale" to fully understand its complexities.<br /><br />Unlike "Casino Royale", "Quantum of Solace" is less layered and more straightforward from a character perspective. Instead of watching Bond slowly learn to love, only to have it all stripped away from him, his demeanor changes very little throughout the course of this movie. The plot on the other hand is just as involved as the first, alluding to the way corporations can control things by obtaining natural resources as opposed to with powerful violence. I think the story wants to be a little more political than it actually is, but it was nice to see Bond being brought into the 21st century and given 21st century villains.<br /><br />Given that I've only seen a few Bonds prior to Casino Royale, I'm less inclined to concern myself with who or what Bond is supposed to be, but there was a little hesitance over the way Bond was portrayed in this movie. As I'm sure the comparison is being beaten to death already, I won't go much further than to say Bond has a lot in common with Jason Bourne, only with more style and a little more support. That's not to say this is a bad thing; on the contrary, the fight scenes were extravagant and exciting and there was nary a dull moment throughout the entire 110 minute run time. But there is a certain style about Bond that I believe he should have that, while not completely missing from the film, seemed to be somewhat lacking a bit.<br /><br />The dynamic between Bond and M, though, was probably the most central relationship throughout. Judi Dench plays M with a very specific concern about Bond and trusts him almost implicitly, even though she disagrees with many of his methods and understands that sometimes she has to make hard decisions that are counter to what Bond is trying to accomplish. There was much more of a connection between these two characters than there was between Bond and either one of the more conventional female companions he had. Granted, the fact that he was still so concentrated on Vesper made it almost impossible for him to connect on any level with another female, so this did make sense from a character standpoint.<br /><br />On the other hand, the character of Camille (Olga Kurylenko) had a story that sufficiently dovetailed Bond's but I never felt a real connection with her beyond her physical appearance. The performance was good and she was written well enough, but there just seemed to be something lacking overall despite the fact that her presence does mirror Bond's in such a way that it enhances his story somewhat.<br /><br />Director Marc Forster crafts an intense action movie that truly shows his versatility in what he's able to accomplish. Some complaints have been made about the length of the movie in that it's much too short, but while I would have enjoyed seeing a few more character moments, the movie keeps moving along at a brisk pace with exposition scenes punctuated by exciting action scenes that come together to form a well-balanced, coherent whole.<br /><br />While the movie is certainly entertaining in its own right, I'd go so far to say that if you haven't watched Casino Royale, preferably recently, then so much of the connection will be lost on you. There's a feeling that this is all one giant movie, split into two parts. As it stands, there is certainly a closure that happens with Quantum of Solace that allows the character of Bond to be explored in new, exciting ways in future installments.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">GRADE: B+</span>SeannyDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04705739486284594108noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-701819899653881371.post-77505265900127965042008-10-28T10:43:00.000-07:002008-10-31T09:03:09.000-07:00Zack and Miri Make a Porno ReviewDespite the fervent cult following that Kevin Smith has acquired in his 15 years of movie-making, financial blockbuster success has seemed to truly elude him. But the possibility exists that with "Zack and Miri" he can attain a level that he has not seen before, if only on the goodwill of Seth Rogen fans. This is not to say that the movie is substandard; on the contrary, the movie is a very funny, interesting look at two life-long friends who enter into a venture that will change the dynamic of their relationship forever.<br /><br />Zack (Seth Rogen) and Miri (Elizabeth Banks) are two high school friends who live together in Philidelphia. Their problem is that they never seem to have enough money to pay their bills, yet they have no problem purchasing amenities for themselves on their credit cards. After running into a male porn star (Justin Long) at their 10-year high school reunion, and after having the electricity and water shut off in their apartment, the two decide on a plan to make and market a porno movie and distribute it to pay their bills.<br /><br />The result is one of Kevin Smith's best films to date, but ultimately does not achieve true greatness. The jokes are funny and the cast is top notch (including a hilarious Craig Robinson from the "Office") but it doesn't really do anything new with the genre that hasn't been done before. Yet what it does do it does well. The core of the film is the central relationship between Zack and Miri and what this situation means for them and for their cohabitation.<br /><br />For the most part, this relationship played out pretty naturally throughout the duration of the movie, but one moment in particular that was used as a turning point in the relationship seemed to have a character act in such a way that is counter to his or her goals. This moment was introduced strictly as a way to create conflict and unfortunately it really knocked the movie down a little for me, if only because at this point it entered into the standard romantic-comedy formula.<br /><br />Secondly, Zack and Miri are essentially losers who have done nothing with their lives over the last 10 years. Clearly not idiots, they just choose to be lazy and make horrible financial choices. I've seen other references elsewhere about how this is happening because of the financial state of the country, but it seems clear to me that for the majority of their lives they've just made zero effort. This in turn makes it somewhat difficult to sympathise with their situation at the beginning but it's something that's easily gotten over by the end. Overall, petty complaints that are surrounded by an otherwise solid story.<br /><br />And all of Smith's trademark gross-out jokes are here, including one that I never thought I would see in a movie like this, and probably one of the reasons the NC-17 rating was initially placed on the movie. I believe I can honestly say I've never seen more of a gross-out moment in a mainstream movie than I did in this one.<br /><br />Fortunately though, it wasn't all disgusting dick-and-fart jokes and much of the humor stems from the characters and who they are with fewer jokes for jokes sake. The laughter is pretty consistant, although it wasn't constant. There were plenty of funny movies this year and the fact that this movie is even able to be on par with some of those other ones is a testament to its quality. The actors really sell their characters, including surprising turns from real-life porn star Katie Morgan who has a few scenes of actual acting that she pulls off rather well that help to propel the story forward.<br /><br />On my personal list, I'd rank this movie slightly better than Clerks II and just below Chasing Amy in terms of my favorite Kevin Smith movies. These past few years he's really injected a lot more heart into his films, and I believe that it shows. Hopefully others will see it too this weekend so that he finally achieves a true financial success.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" >GRADE: B</span>SeannyDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04705739486284594108noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-701819899653881371.post-66443916365344913972008-10-13T10:37:00.001-07:002008-10-13T11:05:43.192-07:00Sex Drive ReviewNo question about it, comedies have come back in full force this year. There have been so many excellent comedies that finding laughter and a solid story is ridiculously easy. That's not to say that there haven't been poor comedies lately. In fact, seeing "How To Lose Friends and Alienate People" shortly after viewing "Sex Drive" made me realize just how bad some comedies can be.<br /><br />The premise of "Sex Drive" is a relatively simple one, yet the movie is done with such heart that it comes across as rather fresh. Ian (Josh Zuckerman) is a recent high school graduate who can't seem to get rid of his perceived virginity stigma. He's your stereotypical nice guy, always a friend, never anything more. He bends over backwards to help girls, and he gets stepped on. His best friend Lance (Clark Duke) wouldn't seem from his chubby, spectacled exterior to be a ladies man, yet somehow he pulls it off with relative ease. Despite Lance's efforts to help Ian out, Ian just cannot seem to follow through.<br /><br />In the meantime, Ian has been chatting up "Ms_Tasty" (30 Rock's Katrina Bowden), an online companion to whom he has been presenting himself as a college football player and practicing being a jerk. So after she claims that she'll have sex with him if he drives from Chicago to Knoxville, TN, he packs up his bags and attempts to hit the road with Lance. As it always is in movies such as this, things don't go quite as planned.<br /><br />What really works is that at the center of this movie, the story is overwhelmingly solid. Sure there are plenty of unbelievable moments, but the characters all react in ways that make sense and are internally consistent. At the same time, the wacky situations are tempered by corresponding sweetness that allows you to be pulled further into the story. The actors especially really work to drive it home, especially Ian's brother Rex, played by the hilarious James Marsden. Marsden hasn't really been in many comedies over the years, normally playing the brooding, serious guy who gets his girlfriend stolen from someone else. But here, he really uses everything that he's given and highlights the film anytime he is on screen. Others, such as Ian's best friend Felicia (Amanda Crew), really help to ground the movie by not allowing all the male stuff to get too out of hand.<br /><br />The movie follows all the road movie touchstones, including a run-in with a rather knowledgable Amish man named Ezekiel (Seth Green) who helps them along their journey when they run into car trouble. Overall, there are a few elements of predictability that you can see coming from the get-go, which can be seen as a negative. But fortunately the humor quotient is so high that it renders these issues rather pointless.<br /><br />What is certainly great to see though is story-based comedy that doesn't have gags for the sake of gags but the humor develops from the story. This is the type of teen comedy that will hopefully last for a while and not be the forgettable movie a lot of people are expecting it to be. And if nothing else, see it for the giant donut costume. I sometimes I wish I had one of those. (Okay, all the time.)<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">GRADE: B</span>SeannyDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04705739486284594108noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-701819899653881371.post-37571954734328606292008-09-26T12:23:00.000-07:002008-09-26T12:46:20.463-07:00"HOW much?!"Ah, the glory of working at a movie theater. Nothing sticks out in my mind more than the rare times that I would be asked to work at the box office. And inevitably, the question would come up with every few people, "Did the prices go up?" or "This is ridiculous. Way too much." (As they'd hand over their card, as well.) Sometimes the prices had, sometimes they hadn't. Yet, they continued to purchase tickets.<br /><br />Eventually, though, people stop. Despite the perceived quality of movies being better in 2008 in comparison to 2007, movie attendance is still down 5% according to the Associated Press. But ticket prices continue to rise. What seems to be happening is studios, and by extension individual theaters, are raising prices, and knocking more people out of the ability to see movies. Revenues are similar year-to-year, but attendance is down. Could it be that these rising prices are pricing people out of movies in general? Could it be possible that by keeping prices relatively static, that you would in effect have MORE people coming to see movies? I don't know the answer to that, but if it were me, and I was running the studio, I'd probably want more people to see my movie and have more potential from that customer in the long term, than to get them the one time they go out.<br /><br />Arguments made when the complaint of expensive movie tickets are brought up over how much more of a value going to the movies is as opposed to going to a sporting event or a concert. Well, yeah, obviously. When you go to a sporting event, whether basketball or baseball or football, whatever, every game is going to be unique. There will never be two games that will be played out in exactly the same way. They are playing live in front of your face. This is an experience that cannot be replicated. Therefore, the barrier to entry is going to be much more expensive.<br /><br />Movies on the other hand are unique in their own right. They can inspire, elicit emotional reactions, excite, entertain, all of that. But you can replay those effects over and over again. A movie, while often times a dynamic experience, is a static form of entertainment. No matter how many times you go see The Empire Strikes Back, Darth Vader will always admit to being Luke's father. So of course movies need to be much cheaper. The great thing is that it allows you to see movies again and again. There's always something new to be seen.<br /><br />And let's not forget the potential of having a ruined experience. Loud patrons, kids running around, poor presentation can all bring something a feeling of rushed excitement to a screeching halt. All things that need to be looked at in the future.<br /><br />Sure, home theaters, surround sound systems, and high definition televisions are getting closer to recreating that silver screen adventure, but they aren't quite there yet and probably never will be. Nothing compares to having your entire vision engulfed to the point where you find yourself fully immersed in this world placed in front of you.<br /><br />While movies will probably still continue to go up, along with their delicious counterparts at the concession stand, I hold out hope that one day they will slow up their expedient rises and bring people back to the theater where they can best experience a movie.SeannyDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04705739486284594108noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-701819899653881371.post-8624003466581754312008-09-25T09:38:00.000-07:002008-09-25T09:59:00.142-07:00Eww! Gross!What fascinates me these days is the obsession with box office that so many of the mainstream media and followers of film have. The most recent obsession seems to be with people wanting "The Dark Knight" to take down "Titanic" in US grosses. Except it won't. And even if it surpasses that $600 million mark, that means nothing. Since, according to Box Office Mojo, when adjusted for inflation, "The Dark Knight" would currently only be hovering around $340 million in 1997 dollars, and Titanic itself is only number 6 on that list.<br /><br />The problem with the way film measures success is that the benchmark continuously changes. A platinum selling record is one that sells a million copies. A smash hit television show is in the 10s of millions of viewers. The benchmarks in most other industries is one in units. How many units of this item were sold? And through that, one can figure out a long-term success pattern. But this is not the case for movies. In the many years I've been involved with movies, I have never once seen an amount of tickets sold number. When I have searched them out, I can usually find them, but never are they reported.<br /><br />But people get so attached to these numbers. Dark Knight breaks the Spider-Man record. Great. So what? Does this inherently mean that one is better than the other? Absolutely not. They are completely different movies. I can think of plenty of movies that made very little at the box office that were still incredibly successful overall. The most prescient example that comes to mind is "The Shawshank Redemption." Currently at or near the top of most "Best Ever" lists, it grossed only $28 million total when it was released in 1994.<br /><br />I believe that film fans all around should begin to put these numbers behind us, and pay less attention to them. The only reason I want films to make lots of money is so that other films like it will continue to be made. I'm glad The Dark Knight has made so much money, because it secures the franchise in the minds of most executives and they will continue making more Batman films. Beyond that, there is no care for me. I was certainly disappointed to see Speed Racer make so little money overall, as I would have enjoyed seeing sequels to that movie, but its comparitive success or failure has little bearing on whether or not I enjoyed that movie on its own merits. My appreciation for that movie would not be vindicated by a higher box office gross or massive DVD sales because I continue to love it regardless.<br /><br />And then you have situations like the upcoming "Watchmen." Frankly, it's irrelevant whether or not that movie makes $1 or $1 billion. The movie is made, it cannot be a franchise, and it's done. If it's a good movie (which I expect it will be) then I will certainly be happy to see it succeed if it does. But if it doesn't, and I still enjoy it, it will make little difference to me.<br /><br />All I want is for studios to continue to make good movies or focus on quality again (I'm looking at you, 20th Century Fox). And maybe, somewhere down the road, we can focus on benchmarking through admissions instead of inflated box office numbers.SeannyDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04705739486284594108noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-701819899653881371.post-82453023479322454592008-09-24T12:13:00.000-07:002008-09-24T08:19:22.973-07:00A Summer 2008 RetrospectiveWell, summer is officially over. And as a result, the blockbusters are ushered out and the award movies are brought in.<br /><br />To say that 2008 was a better summer than 2007 would be a vast understatement. Sure, one could look at the numbers that have been released regarding box office and notice that attendance is actually down year-over-year, but that has more to do with franchising than any respectable amount of quality.<br /><br />2007 was sincerely my most anticipated movie summer ever. My favorite franchise of all time, Spider-Man was receiving its third installment, while 5 other movies were given 3-quels that summer and a few other run-of-the-mill sequels as well. My excitement was so high going into last May, only to dash all of my hopes as the weeks went on. Spider-Man 3 was a pretty big disappointment overall. Shrek the Third was horrific. Ocean's 13 was less boring then 12, but still a far cry from the fun of 11. The only sequel that truly appeared to surpass its predecessors was The Bourne Ultimatum. Everything else was mildly entertaining at best.<br /><br />So coming into 2008, I kept my expectations in check. No longer would I allow my expectations for a film overshadow what it is able to deliver. No, this would be a summer where I would attempt to put all those feelings aside and just enjoy movies for what they are.<br /><br />And I did.<br /><br />The summer started out with some serious (and some would say very surprising) quality in Iron Man. The perfect embodiment of the role, Robert Downey, Jr. delivered a believable and exciting turn as Tony Stark that also led to the beginning of a larger Marvel Universe. Having Downey make an appearance in The Incredible Hulk was not only a lot of fun, but helped a lot to tie these universes together.<br /><br />Unfortunately, Hulk did not see the success that Iron Man did, despite many in the internet community seeing it as a welcome upgrade from Ang Lee's 2003 version. Whether or not Universal, and by extension, Marvel Studios, sees it as a success is something unknown to me as its overall box office was not too different from the original.<br /><br />The following week, my hopes were still high, as I experienced one of my favorite movies of the whole summer, Speed Racer. This was surprisingly one of the most divisive movies of the year, in that a very small minority (myself included) absolutely LOVED this movie, while the vast majority of the critical press panned it as juvenile and much too long. I was holding out hopes for a sequel, but that doesn't seem to be in the cards anytime soon, given its $100+ million price tag and lack of box office overall. I still want this movie to succeed on DVD and will be singing the praises to anyone who will listen.<br /><br />Narnia was decent, but nothing great, and it was a good holdover until Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Indy 4 was worth seeing strictly on the basis of the fact that it was Indiana Jones and for the first time in my life I was able to see him adventure on the big screen. Since I was a baby when Temple of Doom came out, and only 5 when Last Crusade was released, this was my first (and possibly only) chance to see and hear the excitement for myself. While the actual story I had some serious issues with, it was definitely still worth checking out.<br /><br /><br />I ended up missing Sex and the City (it wasn't hard for a male to do), but I certainly marveled at the amount of women who went to go see it. I guess never underestimate the potential for a girls' night out.<br /><br />A few animated movies really stood out from the pack this summer. Kung Fu Panda was a surprisingly solid entry from Dreamworks, who normally seems to rely on pop culture jokes at the expense of story. This time around, they really kept their focus on story first, and the movie was helped tremendously by this. And who could forget Wall-E, perhaps my favorite movie of the year thus far? I'm really hoping to see a Best Picture nomination, but that could just be a pipe dream of mine.<br /><br />But what this summer was really great for though was comedies. From Pineapple Express, to Step Brothers, to Tropic Thunder, there were so many quality comedies this year that I found it difficult to contain my laughter when just thinking about them afterward. Less successful, but still entertaining, comedies such as Get Smart and You Don't Mess with the Zohan at least offered a few humorous moments. And it pains me to write even the words "The Love Guru." I'll leave it at that.<br /><br />Overall, this was a different summer. A summer filled with all sorts of different kinds of movies and one that I was able to enjoy much more because I didn't allow myself to get hyped to levels that would only set me up for disappointment. No, I just enjoyed being a movie fan this summer, because it allowed me to spend some good times with friends, having fun discussions, and watching crazy things happen.<br /><br />So, thanks 2008. And we'll just say that my hopes are even LOWER for 2009's summer, since there really isn't much happening there at all. Except for Transformers 2. I love giant robots.SeannyDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04705739486284594108noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-701819899653881371.post-11876465411918098442008-09-20T08:04:00.000-07:002008-09-20T08:22:56.001-07:00Ghost Town ReviewRicky Gervais is easily one of the funniest men on the planet. I have never seen something that he has put effort into that has come out poorly. Unless you count "Night at the Museum" in which he was the museum curator. But he was only in it for a few minutes.<br /><br />Regardless, despite the seemingly tired premise, I was anticipating this movie if only for the chance to see how Gervais fared in carrying a movie all on his own. Fortunately, he succeeds handily in a well constructed movie in its own right.<br /><br />Gervais plays Burtram Pincus, a dentist in New York City who cares nothing else for the lives of others. Content living his own dissatisfied life, he makes no effort to help others in any way. Yet, after a routine colonoscopy goes awry and he dies on the operating table for 7 minutes, he awakes with the ability to see the ghosts that have yet to cross over. One of these ghosts is Frank Herlihy (Greg Kinnear), who convinces Pincus to help break up his widow, Gwen's (Tea Leoni) new engagement with Richard (Billy Campbell).<br /><br />The story seems pretty straightforward from the outset, but writer/director David Koepp provides enough originality to keep you interested. Sure, plenty of the ghost movie cliches are here, but many are delivered with such humor that it becomes rather easy to forgive the lack of originality in these moments. The story also takes a few rather heartfelt turns, but not at the expense of the humor. Underneath it all lies a story of a man who refuses to see the joy that letting other people into his life can bring.<br /><br />When all is said and done, the movie does not exactly come close to greatness, but is an excellent showcase for Gervais' comedic talents and a step up from Koepp's previous directorial effort, Secret Window with Johnny Depp. Overall, the film is just a well-crafted, somewhat unconventional romantic comedy that succeeds in being both engaging and hilarious throughout the duration of its run time.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" >GRADE: B</span>SeannyDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04705739486284594108noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-701819899653881371.post-76188207893285020592008-07-17T08:12:00.001-07:002008-07-17T09:48:48.576-07:00The Dark Knight ReviewFew, if any, movies have been hyped to the degree that The Dark Knight has. After the successful reboot of a series that was languishing in exile after nearly a decade, the deadly serious interpretation of this classic character from Christopher Nolan was just waiting for the sequel everyone knew it was going to get. And after the tragic death of Heath Ledger, things kicked into overdrive with the hyperbolic talk of Oscar nominations and The Joker literally causing Ledger to go insane.<br /><br />Yet, when walking into the theater last night, I attempted to put all of that aside. Forget the reviews, forget the hype, and forget all the talk about Ledger's interpretation of The Joker. Just enjoy the movie for what it is and accept what is up on screen.<br /><br />Fortunately, The Dark Knight delivers, but not in the way that some reviewers or fans would have us all believe. The Dark Knight is in fact an incredibly solid movie, a complex morality tale that finds itself wading in shades of gray, where other movies in this genre often take a strictly black and white approach to evil.<br /><br />The story picks up shortly after the end of Batman Begins. Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) is the new DA, the human face of Gotham who tries desperately to clean up the city in a legal way. He is currently dating Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal, who replaces Katie Holmes), an assistant DA. Meanwhile, The Joker (Heath Ledger) starts a crime wave throughout the city and offers the mob bosses a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to rid the world of Batman for good as Batman continues to do his vigilante thing that he does so well.<br /><br />Much has been said about Ledger's performance as The Joker, and much of it is true. His origins are shrouded in mystery. No one knows anything about him, nor do they have any leads. He is a master of misdirection and offers no real clues as to where he came from. No, he is little more than an insane individual who just relishes in evil. By appearance he seems to be motivated by little else than being Batman's foil, Batman's opposite incarnate. The Joker is equally brilliant as he is mad, hatching incredibly complex plans that often go precisely as he expects them to, regardless of Batman's attempts to stop them. And Ledger plays it with such a ferocity and so calculated that you can just buy it instantly. He is increasingly entertained by carnage and the most disgusting facets of the human experience and that excitement is undoubtedly scary. This is truly the greatest iteration of The Joker to be placed upon screen and frankly, I do not see how it could possibly be duplicated. But whether or not it is Oscar worthy is certainly up for debate. While I would love to see actors nominated for a movie like this, I fear that the only reason the award train is moving so quickly is because of the tragic demise of Ledger. While I certainly cannot think of any other such memorable performances this year, we are only half way through the year and prime awards season does not even start until late fall. So I will reserve my judgment on that for now.<br /><br />Less has been said, however, about Aaron Eckhart's turn as Harvey Dent. This is a man who exhibits true bravery, who is unrelenting in the face of undeniable evil. He truly believes that Gotham can be a better place and does everything in his power to make that the case. Yet, slowly but surely things begin to change. And, without spoiling anything, Dent's transition from upstanding DA to the villain known as Harvey Two-Face is not only believable, but incredibly compelling. You buy his descent into insanity, if insanity is what you want to call it. To devote so much of your life towards a goal, only to see much of that shattered, well, those are certainly valid reasons to lose one's mind. And not only the character, but the Two-Face effects are incredible. With imagery reminiscent of the animated series, whenever Two-Face is on screen you can't help but be mesmerized by the character.<br /><br />But that's not to say that other performances are weak. On the contrary, everyone in the entire film delivers solid performances. From Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) to Lt. Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman) to even smaller players like the mayor of Gotham (Nestor Carbonell), everyone comes through with compelling conviction.<br /><br />Bruce Wayne in particular is tormented. While he has become the symbol that Gotham needs, Gotham needs more than he can give. And not only that, he's inspiring people both positively and negatively and doesn't know whether or not it is worth it to continue his journey down this path. There is not a clear cut answer that he can take. If he quits, then things could end up getting worse, but if he continues, then things, again, could also end up getting worse. There doesn't seem to be an easy way out of all of this. But the one strong point, essentially Bruce's moral compass, is Alfred (Michael Caine). Alfred understands what Bruce provides for this city, and Caine plays him with such a history that you understand where he is coming from with the advice that he gives. It is obvious Alfred is more than just a butler and the concern he has for Bruce and for the city delves deep for him.<br /><br />The complexities of this story and the force with which The Joker delivers on many of the anarchic promises he makes place many of the individuals in this movie in impossible situations. Decisions need to be made for the greater good, but without losing one's soul. Sure, Batman could easily shoot The Joker in the head and be done with it, but that's not what he does. He needs to stay true to himself and resisting that temptation to become the thing he hates the most is a struggle, and it becomes a struggle for all characters with a solid moral center in this movie. The way Nolan explores these themes is not only effective but also a welcome change from a lot of the lighter fare often released during the summer months. Strip away the costumes and the comic book history and at its core, The Dark Knight is a human drama based in the reality we see around us today. How do you fight evil without losing yourself in the process? And are humans as disgusting as The Joker interprets them to be? Questions that do not have easy answers and questions that are explored in many interesting ways in this movie.<br /><br />Yet, interestingly enough, on a strictly entertainment level, the film doesn't deliver as much as it could. The first hour and a half felt like nearly three hours. I was surprised when I had realized that there was still another hour to go. I was engaged, but not fully entertained by what was placed before me. I found myself zoning out in some parts, but I think much of that is because it goes against your expectations on what a "Batman" movie should be. By taking a different route and only occasionally going the more predictable route (which is pretty close to never), sometimes it does affect the base entertainment value of the movie. Yet, the last hour essentially grabs on and doesn't let up until its over. And what made this even more interesting was the way that the movie took turns that I didn't exactly expect. Not "plot twists" exactly in the Sixth Sense way, but just going in unexpected directions. And as a result, I find myself a little conflicted about where it leaves the characters going into a third movie.<br /><br />I can easily recommend this movie to just about anyone. The performances alone are worth the price of admission but there is also so much more to it as well. And one thing is for sure, this seems to be a movie that will continue to add layers upon each viewing, so on that note, I can't wait to go see it in IMAX.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" >GRADE: A</span>SeannyDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04705739486284594108noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-701819899653881371.post-58998625914517074722008-07-01T05:42:00.000-07:002008-09-24T08:22:22.434-07:00Hancock ReviewWill Smith is currently the most bankable star in Hollywood, and with good reason. The man never gives a less-than-entertaining performance. Everything he does, he seemingly does with such conviction that it becomes very easy to accept whatever role he is playing. Smith's charisma just emanates off the screen and it's difficult to think of one time where he, personally, has failed in his attempt.<br /><br />No, the problem is never Will. The problem lies with something else, and that's precisely the issue that Hancock has. Hancock is a tonally inconsistent mishmash of a movie that presents a number of really great ideas but never actually follows through on any of them.<br /><br />The story is simple enough. Superhero Hancock (Smith) is drunk and disorderly, but still is committed to stopping bad guys, collateral damage be damned. He doesn't seem to care about the financial toll he takes on his heroics, but is apparently still inspired to attempt heroics in general. When PR executive Ray Embrey (Jason Bateman) is saved by Hancock, Ray makes it his duty to turn around the public's perception of Hancock and make him a true hero for the ages through a series of PR stunts.<br /><br />A premise such as this is ripe with possibilities. Many people disagree with me, but I've always thought that one of the most fascinating superhero stories would be if Superman just got fed up with trying to help people and stopped giving a damn or attempted to take things into his own hands regarding the world power (in a more dictatorial role than in Superman IV, in which he asks, and everyone enthusiastically complies, in getting rid of all nuclear weapons). Instead, what Hancock delivers is a watered down version of a similar premise that attempts to cram a number of different ideas into a 92 minute run time while giving them very little time to breathe.<br /><br />That's not to say there isn't some exquisite imagery in a large portion of the movie, because there certainly is. The way director Peter Berg films this movie is slightly reminiscent of the pseudo-documentary style he employs in "Friday Night Lights", which does ground this movie in a sense of realism. His biggest problems are two-fold. First, the tone switches in such a jarring way that it can sometimes pull you out of the movie. When you're expecting certain themes to be explored, only to have them be inexplicably dropped and another is picked up, the movie isn't helped by this. Of course, this could be rectified by a few extra transitional scenes that would exist to string the movie along a more solid focus. Secondly, the way he telegraphs a plot twist is much too obvious. The lingering shots in a scene that doesn't require lingering shots draws you out of the experience and makes you contemplate the nature of these shots instead of allowing the movie to unfold in a more naturalistic way. The twist certainly should have been alluded to in some way, but it was much too obvious from the outset.<br /><br />John Powell also turns in a questionable score. I've heard his music before, and none of it was this inconsistant. This is certainly not a score I'm going to be seeking out anytime in the future.<br /><br />If it feels like I'm being too negative on this movie, it shouldn't. I just find it frustrating when you see the skeleton of what could be an amazing superhero movie, only to be let down. What's so great about Hancock was the way that you could essentially create any story for him. There aren't any comic books or TV shows or old movies based upon this character; no, he was a completely unique character with his own mythology. You can go in with no preconceptions at all about who Hancock is or what he is. A true blank slate. Yet, with the exception of a few small monologues, we never really delve into that history. Why does Hancock choose to save people at all? He obviously has some sort of moral compass, a moral center that allows him to see right from wrong on a base level, but beyond the loneliness, what makes him who he is? What drives him at all? I don't necessarily feel that an origin story is necessary, but answers to these questions would have made the movie all the better for it. I can't really get into any more without getting into spoilers, so I suppose I'll stop with those questions here.<br /><br />On a strictly entertainment level though, Hancock does deliver. Watching Will Smith tear through the streets of LA with a vague idea of what he's planning on doing does have an inherent entertainment value to it all. The banter between Smith and Jason Bateman is hilarious and they both have their own styles of humor that add immensely to the film. There were plenty of truly funny moments delivered by both characters, yet in very unique ways. Bateman once again plays the straight man and he succeeds just about every time. (Where's that Arrested Development movie, anyway?!) Charlize Theron is somewhat of a weaker point in this movie, but it has nothing to do with her performance, since not only is she playing attractive again (FINALLY it seems!) but you can tell she's actually putting effort into this role, depsite its "type" of movie.<br /><br />Overall, this is a movie that gets by because of the star power of Will Smith. Giving this role to a weaker, less charasmatic actor could have doomed the movie from having any entertainment value at all. But fortunately this was not the case. The movie was absolutely worth seeing, it was just unfortunate that a structure of what could have been is laid out there, but never truly taken advantage of. I find it difficult to really qualify this movie, but I do think it falls somewhere along a continuum, one that doesn't really have a clear cut answer. So I give it a:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" >GRADE: B-</span>SeannyDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04705739486284594108noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-701819899653881371.post-28806688806270580052008-06-26T23:05:00.000-07:002008-06-26T23:31:16.244-07:00Wall-E ReviewI think it's safe to say that Wall-E is, without hyperbole, one of the single greatest films I have ever had the opportunity to witness. Frame by frame, scene by scene, I cannot think of one element that I disliked or felt out of place. Even things that were presented rather uniquely, specifically the way the humans were presented, was shown in such a way that it truly seemed like a natural extension of human progress.<br /><br />And what is so interesting about all of this is that the movie is simply about holding hands. The central crux of the movie upon which all else is realized is one robot's dream of holding the hand of someone else. That's it. You wouldn't think that it goes deeper than that. Yet, the resulting depth is one that should resonate with any human being regardless of age.<br /><br />Wall-E is a robot placed on Earth to clean up all the garbage that was left behind after humanity took off on a space cruise, planning to return in 5 years. Wall-E gets through his day with a sense of enthusiasm and excitement rarely seen in any individual human. He's happy to be alive and does his job with the gusto expected of him. A gusto that has apparently served him rather well over the last 700 years. His only friend is a cockroach who exudes more personality than most characters these days. He spends his evenings relaxing in what he calls home, a giant mobile vehicle that is no longer in use, which he has decorated with the various trinkets he's found during his clean up sessions. And he ends his day by watching a video he's found of "Hello, Dolly" and fantasizing about being able to have a connection like that with another individual. Watching him long for this action, this ability to hold the hand of another, is an incredible sight to behold. The innocence of Wall-E, coupled with his unflinching optimism, makes him one of the most endearing characters ever placed upon the silver screen.<br /><br />And Wall-E's life changes unexpectedly when a probe robot named EVE shows up and could potentially give Wall-E what he's looking for. The changes he goes through after her arrival are hilarious and subsequently heartbreaking. To feel for these characters, despite their perceived inability to speak, is a testament to Pixar and the phenomenal job they have done to create this world that goes beyond expectations.<br /><br />It's also a testament to the sound design of Ben Burtt, who again creates such memorable sounds in a piece of film history. While Wall-E and EVE speak in languages we don't understand, the way they are able to emote through the sounds they make and through the audible interactions with the rest of the world is nothing short of breathtaking. Adding to the wonderful sound is Thomas Newman's pitch perfect score that heightens the experience greatly while taking nothing away from it.<br /><br />Honestly, it becomes difficult to fathom anyone who would possibly dislike this movie. They may not agree that it's one of the best ever, but one would have to be a truly cynical person to actively dislike this movie. I can't say at this time whether it will become one of my favorites. I don't think that something needs to be a favorite in order to be praised as an exquisite piece of film making, but it's certainly possible it could be. It's certainly something I want to see again and I urge everyone who reads this to make time. Trust me. It's worth it.<br /><br />Pixar again knocks another one out of the park, and frankly, it's difficult to understand how they can make it look so easy when every other film studio surely puts out its share of garbage. This is movie making at its finest and an example set for all others. Here we are, nine films into their existence and only one film falls short of greatness and that's Cars. Cars was still an incredibly watchable film, but just not up to the same sort of quality other Pixars movies are. Regardless, I'd still give them a 9 for 9 in terms of solid movies, and an 8 for 9 for excellent movies. Hopefully someone will come along and copy their business model so well so that we never have to suffer through another big budget awful movie ever again. A pipe dream, I know, but a dream I will continue to have. Thank you Pixar.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" >GRADE: A+</span>SeannyDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04705739486284594108noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-701819899653881371.post-86197945505531993052008-06-26T19:26:00.000-07:002008-06-26T19:55:53.789-07:00Wanted ReviewThere are times when you go into a movie and don't know what to expect, and come out pleasantly surprised and rather excited over what you've just seen. Wanted is that type of movie. The fact is, that if the actors in this did their job, there was no way that it could be any less than entertaining. All the pieces were there. Angelina Jolie, check. James McAvoy, who has proven himself a few times over to be a solid actor, check. And the always dependable Morgan Freeman, who actually utters the line "Shoot this motherfucker!" in the way that only he can, check. These are not elements that add up to a lack of entertainment on a base level. And the result was so much more.<br /><br />James McAvoy plays Wesley Gibson, a corporate employee who hates his life and is suddenly drawn into the world of international assassins. The story goes that Cross, one of the greatest assassins has gone rogue and begun to pick off members of "The Fraternity", a group of assassins led by Sloan (Morgan Freeman). After Fox (Angelina Jolie) saves Wesley from an attempted assassination by Cross, he begins a training regiment that's torture at best and attempted murder at worst. Yet, this is all to help him control his latent powers; powers that allow him to curve bullets, and a power that apparently his father, who was killed by Cross days earlier, possessed. (All seemingly in an effort to force me to use variations of the word "assassin" more times than I've ever done in the past.)<br /><br />The biggest issue I had with the movie, strangely enough the same issue I had with Kung Fu Panda, was the nature by which Wesley is drawn into this new life. He hates his life, yet does nothing to change it. The changes are forced upon him. He's not kept by a sense of honor or duty to that which he currently belongs, he's just afraid. The only thing that makes him special is the fact that his father was such a great assassin. This has less to do with him, and more about his genes and I always find it hard to get behind characters who are forced into circumstances beyond their control because of birthright and not by individual choice.<br /><br />Fortunately, this leads into Wesley taking more of a stand for himself later on in the movie with the knowledge of these new powers, but the initial jumping off point was enough to give me pause.<br /><br />And the small matter of the way "fate" chooses the targets is a little silly, but I suppose you can judge for yourself on that one.<br /><br />Beyond that, there wasn't much NOT to like about this movie. An incredible, often downright hilarious visual display that does not hold back at all. Director Timur Bekmambetov puts all his cards on the table and embraces the R-rating to the best of his ability. Bullets fly into (and out of) people with an intensity often only saved for the likes of "Saving Private Ryan". There's an element of "What if Jim from The Office was recruited by Angelina Jolie to assassinate people"?<br /><br />There's a certain "Matrix" element to it, but drops the pretense of that trilogy to become its own animal. Yet, the story hints at an interesting "Is the grass really greener?" perspective late in the movie, but never really delves into it. While certainly not a deal-breaker by any stretch of the imagination, I think a little more could have been served by taking a closer look at the duality between a "normal" life and an "exciting" life.<br /><br />Wanted is a movie you just don't see that often anymore. It is a film that revels in what it is, and makes no apologies for it either. An R-rated, all-out action movie that takes special precision with the stunts and effects and draws you into a world where you can truly believe that people can curve bullets. Obviously, the plot is not going to win any awards, but it's definitely an above-average showing that is leaps and bounds above a lot that is called "action movies" these days.<br /><br /><br />Would this be as successful with different leads? Probably not. The chemistry between the three main characters is what really brings much of this to life. Being unfamiliar with the comic book, I can't say that I think this would be better or worse if they stuck to the original storyline. But what does end up showing up on screen is something that floored me in a way I wasn't expected. Hopefully this movie will become a success and the studios will look more closely at the potential for R-rated action blockbusters utilizing actors with a more serious pedigree. I sure as hell would love to see it and I'm glad that Wanted was the movie to make me feel that way.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">Grade: A-</span>SeannyDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04705739486284594108noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-701819899653881371.post-73698303215388155612008-05-30T06:14:00.000-07:002008-05-30T06:50:29.707-07:00Lost Season Finale: So Where Did It Go Again?After the mindblowing finale of Season 3, a finale that caused me to lose sleep as my brain was working overdrive, I kept more conservative expectations going into the Season 4 finale. Since really, how could Season 4 even come close to matching the complete "game changer" of a finale last year?<br /><br />And, fortunately or unfortunately, I was correct. This did not blow my mind in the same way that last year's did and to attempt to compare the two is truly an exercise in futility.<br /><br />The reason for this is abundantly clear: last year the question was centrally focused on "What Does This Mean?" We didn't know whether the flash-forwards were the last point in the series, whether this was only ONE possible future or a number of different possibilities, how the show was going to be structured in Season 4, what the meaning of the word "present" is. All of these speculations caused people to have months upon months of wondering until we finally got our definitive answer in the form of "The Beginning of the End."<br /><br />This year, the question is more straight forward. Instead of "What Does This Mean?" it's more of a "What Happens Next?" My personal belief, and this could turn out to be 100% wrong as 100% of my predictions have been in the past, is that off-island is now the present. The crux of next year will be Jack getting the group back together which will finally culminate in them arriving back to the island. In the meantime, our flashbacks will show what led Locke to end up in that coffin. Therefore, in next year's season finale we will presumably see, in flashback, what killed Locke.<br /><br />Unfortunately, I feel that Michael was rather wasted this year and particularly in this finale. Was he really fully redeemed to the point where it was worth it to finally kill him off? What purpose did he serve staring at the C4 instead of running upstairs with Jin? As it stands, he apparently never even made amends with his son, which was one of the primary reasons for his introduction in Season 1. Granted, as is always the case with Lost, just because you're dead doesn't necessarily mean you're off the show. And Christian Shepherd could certainly attest to that. Speaking of the old Dr. Shepherd, his appearance on the freighter was particularly interesting.<br /><br />As for Jin, I would stake a week's pay on his being alive. The purpose that his "death" serves is to send Sun into the spiral of vengeance that she appears to be taking in attempting to conspire with Widmore. My concern though is that Sun will turn into her father, making a reunion with Jin somewhat bittersweet. While it will be great to see them together again, in what direction will Sun have gone that might make us root against her somewhat? Jack explicitly stated that "Sun blames me for Jin's death." (Which is slightly inaccurate, since it was kind of Lapidus who refused to go back to the boat, too.)<br /><br />Season 5 by necessity seems as if it will be a completely different animal if the driving force is returning to the island. Of course, that in and of itself, raises some questions. When Ben says "everyone" has to go back, does that mean Lapidus and Desmond? Aaron? Taking a toddler on a cross country trip is hard enough, try bringing one along to find a mystical island.<br /><br />Speaking of Desmond, I would have to say that his reunion with Penny was quite possibly the highlight of the finale. To think that this dynamic wasn't even part of the show until the very last episode of Season 2 is very difficult to believe since it resonates so much more than any of the other love stories on the island. The Jack/Sawyer/Kate triangle has been done to death and certainly doesn't seem to be nearing a TRUE resolution anytime soon.<br /><br />And who would have thought even a year ago that they were going to TELEPORT THE ISLAND. Which is kind of a downer for Faraday and his band of merry meat socks floatin' away on the ocean. Yet, I'm sure we haven't seen the last of him. How far we've come from "Where are we going to find water?" to "How exactly does one move an entire isalnd?" The curious thing is where exactly did it go? And how can it get found again? Once again...more questions.<br /><br />While I'm certainly looking forward to the Season 5 premiere, it's not the same sort of anticipation that I had last year, and really, how could it? Even so, Lost still excels at being one of the most quality shows on television and I certainly cannot wait until February to see what direction we will be taken next.SeannyDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04705739486284594108noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-701819899653881371.post-67904199867744522352008-05-22T05:53:00.000-07:002008-05-22T06:48:35.995-07:00Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull ReviewI must admit to the fact that I have never seen Indiana Jones on the big screen until now. Born in 1984, the year that Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom was released, the only opportunity I would have had would have been The Last Crusade five years later. And it wasn't exactly my parent's predilection at the time to take a 5 year old to a PG-13 movie.<br /><br />Yet, that's not to say that I wasn't fond of Indy growing up. In fact, I was a HUGE fan of Temple of Doom, since it was on all the time when I was younger. Strangely, I didn't even end up seeing Raiders of the Lost Ark until my teen years because I was biased against the movie. First, there was the fact that it didn't have "Indiana Jones and the" in front of it. Secondly, I thought they were talking about Noah's Ark. And I didn't want to see a movie about Noah's Ark. (I ended up seeing one years later called "Evan Almighty." And it was crap.)<br /><br />But throughout the years, I have become a bigger and bigger fan of Indiana Jones. Because really, what creature with a Y chromosome wouldn't want to be him? I certainly can't think of any.<br /><br />Which is what makes this review so difficult to write. There is so much great about "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" but at the same time there is also so much that takes away from it.<br /><br />Make no mistake about it, Indiana Jones is back. His wit, his abilities, his tenacity are all on full display for the world to see and being given the opportunity to experience this character on a 100 foot screen was rather thrilling.<br /><br />The problems exist mainly regarding the plot. So many points in the movie, the momentum would stop dead in its tracks in order to explain what was happening and why. This overly complicated plot regarding what may or may not be aliens was distracting and didn't serve the movie very well. Maybe I'm misremembering, but the previous movies didn't have such convoluted plots. Although, I suppose the familiarity with the previous plots could have to do with the numerous times I've seen the movies throughout the years. Or at least when it was exposition time in the earlier films, it didn't feel so forced and unnatural.<br /><br />Especially with the introduction of Mutt Williams (Shia LaBeouf). While I understand the reasons for Mutt's presence, the fact he is even there seems rather strange. He only serves to reintroduce Marion to the story who, while great to see return, seems like she was shoehorned into the story for little reason other than to see Marion back and to provide Indy with a sidekick. I don't have any issue with Shia LaBeouf on the whole, and have enjoyed him in other movies like "Disturbia", but here he feels out of place. Also a scene with him in the jungle with some monkeys is literally laugh-out-loud ludicrous. I mean, I know this is Indiana Jones and all, but that's just another moment when I'm immediately drawn out of the movie. And I'm not even going to get started with how dumb the monkey-men or spider-men were and what the hell they were even doing in this movie.<br /><br />And as a last negative, the big finale and the events leading up to it do not fully seem to make much sense. The events that take place at the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull are ambiguous at best and nonsensical at worst. Maybe the whys and hows of it all will be better explained upon future viewings, but the results of the actions of the characters seem to be at odds with what the Crystal Skulls were apparently supposed to stand for.<br /><br />If it seems I'm being overly negative, I'm not. The action is very cool and, with signature Spielberg style, is thoroughly entertaining and never boring. There were moments in this film that despite knowing that Indiana is going to survive, I felt real dread over what could potentially happen to him. The opening scene in Area 51 especially really felt like a return to form for the old archeologist. When the "Raider's March" kicks into high gear as Indy is doing his thing, you can't help but be filled with a childlike glee at the entire experience on screen. Even just that would have been enough to justify going to see this movie, but fortunately there was much more.<br /><br />The character moments, when they weren't sitting around being conduits for exposition, were great. In fact, a huge complaint I have is that there was too much time explaining the plot and not enough time for character. More bickering between Marion and Indy would have been great, as would more reactions to various plot twists that exist throughout the movie. Certain moments seem to be accepted far too easily and there's no real struggle in that acceptance when one might expect there would be.<br /><br />Ben Burtt's sound design is once again on full display with the over the top punches and whipcracks that seem to be unique to Indiana Jones. The sound effects are especially great and draw you in even more. But John Williams' new score seems to be a bit of a mixed bag. Much like the movie, it is sufficient but nowhere near the greatness of either the Raiders score or my personal favorite, The Last Crusade. I enjoy the new themes that were written but none seem to lend themselves to the emotional gravitas that existed in prior incarnations. The old themes were great as ever, especially the little nods here and there to the previous films, and I could certainly listen to those over and over again.<br /><br />Make no mistake about it: this is a fun movie that's worth seeing more than once, if just to see Indiana Jones back in action one more time. The problem is that while it is in the same vein as its predecessors, the script is along a different track that prevents it from achieving true greatness. And if the rumors are true that they're setting up Shia LaBeouf for his own series, then I'll be incredibly annoyed by this. I can't say that I wouldn't see it (I see pretty much everything), but I think Harrison Ford IS Indiana Jones, and to attempt to replace him would be a tragedy.<br /><br />Some people might be making the case that in today's movie-going environment, Indiana Jones has no place. But I would certainly argue with that. Indiana Jones is the everyman. You feel like you could put on that fedora and whip and become him, exploring the outer reaches of the world and getting into all sorts of adventures. Despite a few small missteps, Indy has most certainly returned and I have to say that I'm rather happy about it.<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">GRADE: B</span></strong>SeannyDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04705739486284594108noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-701819899653881371.post-65572770860699093462008-05-16T21:56:00.001-07:002008-05-16T22:40:51.659-07:00Movies in the 21st CenturyThe world of cinema has entered a totally new world in these last few years, particularly since the dawn of the internet. Now, I personally haven't been a fan of movies, at least like I am now, for my entire life. In fact, working at a movie theater for six years probably had quite a bit to do with my exponential interest in the workings of the world of the silver screen. But growing up in this time certainly has many pros and cons. Unfortunately, I will be looking at this issue through my admittedly narrow experience, given that I am only 24 years old and rarely experienced movies in the same way that many of those did before my time. So any input from those who have different perspectives would be highly appreciated.<br /><br /> The multiplex is now the preferred method of cinema delivery. Gone are the days of Drive-Ins and small, independent theaters with only one or two screens. Any less than 10 screens is seen to be exceedingly small and is rather rare these days. The intimate experience of going to the movies is now being somewhat diluted by this overwhelming sensory overload. The memories that people have of going to the movies is assuredly different than it must have been in the past.<br /><br /> This, unfortunately, leads to an increasing lack of control on the part of theater management. How is it possible to rodeo dozens of teenagers who seem to be everywhere at once? People who are disrupting the movie for others are becoming insanely difficult to track down and proof of wrongdoing on the part of the perpetrators can be nearly impossible to come by. Couple this with skyrocketing prices (a topic that will be exploited in a future entry) and one can only see why attendance is dropping so dramatically. Box office gurus continue to tout financial numbers like they are all that matter. "$100 Million in its first weekend! $300 million overall!" Yes, but how many people actually went to see these movies? How many people were you able to reach with them? These LEGITIMATE questions appear to be lost in the shuffle of the overwhelming "more is more" policy that Hollywood, and by extension theater exhibitors, seem to have these days.<br /><br /> That policy also extends to the marketing of movies. The way trailers are cut today, I cannot fathom them being cut the same way 20-30 years ago. With so many competing forms of entertainment out there ranging from just web browsing to video games, there seems to be the attitude that so much needs to be shown from the movies to get people interested. The downside is that it lessens the impact of the movie itself. Last year, essentially the entire plot of Spider-Man 3 was given away before the credits even began to roll. Multiple trailers, an 8-minute sequence given out a month before opening, TV spots, all led to a digestible version of the movie to the point where one did not even have to go see it to understand what was going to happen. I understand that anticipation needs to be built, but sometimes you give away too much. So many movies are guilty of this these days, I don't even know where I'd begin to start. (I guess I started with Spider-Man 3, a sub-par Spider-Man movie and a slightly above average action movie, and this is coming from a HUGE Spider-Man fan.)<br /><br /><br /> Of course, not all is bad in this new world of cinema. When an event movie arrives, you are pretty much guaranteed to be able to go to the theater and catch it within a day or so. Gone are the days when people would have to line up seemingly weeks in advance in order to catch a glimpse of the new Star Wars movie. The saturation of theaters has gotten to a point where that isn't necessary. A Star Wars-caliber movie would have a showing almost every half-hour to avoid totally selling out. Granted, some may argue that this lessens the communal nature of movie-going but I think all would agree that it's nice to be able to see what you want when you want. The downside is that it gives crap movies almost an equal chance at success, therefore unintentionally raising the perceived quality of said movies. This could be a symptom throughout movie history though, since I have not researched the success of bad movies in the past.<br /><br /> The internet is also turning into a cesspool of leaks and spoilers and prejudgments on non-finished products. A piece of concept art could be released about a project and suddenly the internet comes out and jumps all over it. This in turn gives the impression that the entire world is against whatever it might be, when in fact I would argue that a tiny percentage of the movie-going public is active on the internet. But with the instant nature of the internet, the ending of a movie could get out, and suddenly it's available to anyone with a search engine. People could come across is accidentally and have the whole experience ruined for them. Granted, I'm sure that is a rare situation, but the fact is that it exists and it can be rather harmful.<br /><br /> On the other hand, the internet has so many wonderful things these days. The ubiquity of internet video and therefore trailers has allowed anyone to be able to find out about the newest movies. No longer do people have to wait in line for a movie they didn't want to see just to find out if a trailer to an anticipated movie will be on it. Just log on and check it out yourself. And for free. The access is unprecedented and I'm sure allows for some movies that wouldn't otherwise be seen to be given a chance at success that it otherwise would not have had.<br /><br /><br /><br /> Yet, when all is said and done, would I rather live now or then? If you take away DVDs and home theaters and the financial issues, and judge movie theaters on their merits between now and then alone, it becomes a difficult decision. Ultimately, I would probably say now because of the ability to see movies on my own schedule, but certain upsides to movie experiences from the past certainly hold water. The thing is, I think we can get to a place now where it becomes more enjoyable for everyone. It will just take a little hard work and some dedication. It's too bad I'm not in a position to help make that happen. Yet.SeannyDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04705739486284594108noreply@blogger.com0