8 Pieces of Gum Movie Reviews

Waiting for "Superman"

2012-01-05T14:57:00.003-06:00

Documentaries are the way a movie buff can cheat and say they are watching a movie, only to be entertained and educated at the same time. Now are all documentaries truly showing you the honest truth? They are supposed to be. Most of the time, it's about a passion project. Watch this from this point of view, get behind the scenes of this, get the whole story. Others are more of an eye-opening nature. Fix this, improve that, save those.

Waiting for "Superman" is a documentary that will definitely cause to you wonder what it is you truly value in life, and how to get it.

The film is based on the education system in the United States. Its history from the so-called good ole days in the 40s and 50s to today's system. It shows you the point of view of 4 families who are wanting better education for their children in 4 different environments. Davis Guggenheim, an award winning documentary director, takes you through their lives and into the heart of the matter.

Or should I say, the wallet of the matter.

Look, without ranting, most people that possess common sense and some intelligence will probably admit to you that government spending is out of control. If you watch any 24 hour news network during any administration, you'll probably want to swallow some sort of sharp instrument.

This film points to a few of the culprits behind why America is falling to the bottom of the education ranks in the world. Without giving the entire documentary away and taking anything from this film, just a few of the hitters are politics and lousy teachers.

Now before anyone starts preaching to me that "No teachers are lousy" and that they have their "hearts in the right place", that's all fine and dandy. But (if and) when I have children, I want a top teacher. Just like your sports team wants a top prospect. Just like you want the top EMT to show up at your house when you're going through a medical emergency. Just like you want the top mechanic to work on your car. After all, you're paying for that teacher out of your taxes.

This film sucks you in, and time flies while doing so. You can argue with it, you can try to reason against it, but in the end, everyone on this planet loves the underdog story. The "little engine that could" path to greatness. And by and large, I'd wager that most parents who care about their children all want the same thing: For their children to have a better life than they did. "Superman" does this on all levels.

If you have ever had a kid, sent a kid to school, seen a kid in your life, then you need to give this film almost 2 hours of your life, because it might just change the way you see the education system. I know it did for me, and I'm currently kid-less. A solid and well deserving 7 Pieces of Gum. I want to know how these kids turn out 1 year, 2 years, 5 years from now. Mr. Guggenheim, don't let me down!

Possibly important info

Film info, Official site
Rated PG

-D

Captain America

2012-01-05T07:19:00.006-06:00

Another day, another comic book movie. Will they ever end? How many obscure characters can we bring to life on screen?

To be fair, it's not so much of the obscure character as it is the story surrounding them. Good writers, good directors, and good actors can bring an obscure character to life more than just a big comic book name and a revival of a brand. See the return of the "Man of Steel" for a good idea of what bad writing and a poor choice of Lois Lane will do for a franchise.

Captain America: The First Avenger takes the shielded man in the red, white, and blue outfit and interweaves a plot between World War II and other Marvel franchises (for an upcoming mega-movie due in May 2012).

Chris Evans takes the lead character of Steve Rogers, a skinny weakling of a man who has fantastic morals but is missing pretty much the entire physical aspect. Many times denied entry by the military, he finally catches a break when a doctor notices his resilience and gives him a chance at an experimental project. Standing in his way is a very "by the book" military officer played by one of my favorites in Tommy Lee Jones. Assisting in both the love interest and a liaison to the military is Hayley Atwell, who looks lovely in this film.

So, without giving too much away, let's just say that in order to go from scrawny Steve to strapping Steve, he wins the tryout for the experiment.

Now, what's a better Hollywood archetype than good .vs. evil? Add Nazis for more flavor! I mean really, who in their right might actually roots for the Nazis? Morons do, but that's another blog on another site. And if you need a bad guy, there's a guy out there who plays a good one and that's none other than Hugo Weaving (who in his current picture is sporting a fantastic beard).

So you've got the basic characters, and since Nazis are involved you know that they have to die. But the almost "dime a dozen" comic book movies all have a few issues: Character development, good bad guy, plot. You know, the basics of any good movie.

Character development: You get to see a scrawny kid with good morals turn into a stud who's good at defeating bad guys, but only after a slight inter-character battle between his new role as "War Bond Vending Machine".
Good bad guy: Hugo has experience playing the bad guy in another trilogy and he's not the brainless superhero from other comic book films.
Plot: How can you go wrong when you get to kill some Nazis during World War II? Well, you can't really. Always a good plot point.

Overall, it's a good film compared to the gigantic waste of another film of the green variety this past summer season. Would I watch it again? Sure. Buy it? Debatable that's for sure. I won't take it off the table or turn it away if it was a gift to me. I'm actually sitting here saying to myself, 5 or 6, 5 or 6. Without opening up my previous reviews, I'll give it a solid 5 Pieces of Gum.

Possibly important info:

Film info, Official site
Rated PG-13 for onscreen violence. Nazis will die, and maybe a few choice words here and there. Mostly the violence.

-D

Winter is Here - 2012 Version

2012-01-04T14:23:00.002-06:00

The NFL Playoffs are starting up this weekend. College basketball is in full swing. The Christmas movie season is officially over, so we get what I call the "Hollywood Leftovers". Have there been good films to grace the silver screen during the January-April timeframe? Yes. They are few and far between, but they are there.

Here are the films I'm looking forward to in 2012 (just the first half):

February

Safe House. Feb 10. Denzel, Ryan Reynolds, Robert Patrick, Vera Farmiga. Loaded cast and what looks to be a standard issue Hollywood plot.
Wanderlust. Feb 24. Jennifer Aniston and Paul Rudd in a comedy about an uptown couple who goes back to nature with hippies.

March

Jeff Who Lives at Home. March 2. Jason Segel and Ed Helms in which the two brothers team up to track his possibly cheating wife.
John Carter. March 9. Pixar's first live action film that was almost the FIRST animated feature film ever.

May

The Avengers. May 4. Yeah I don't have to explain this one.
Men in Black 3. May 25. Looking forward to another good comedy from Tommy Lee and Will. Add Josh Bronson as a young Agent K and you may have a great movie.

June

Prometheus. June 8. Ridley Scott. Rumors of LV426 (Alien, Aliens). Probably the film I'm most looking forward to this summer.

I'll stop there for the time being. This should be enough to wet your palette for the time being.

Best Worst Movie

2012-01-04T13:11:00.005-06:00

It must be a documentary kind of day today, since I'm reviewing my second one of the day. This one definitely moved me in a different direction, as I've seen a lot of what I would classify as "bad films" in my day. Some of these bad films cost millions of dollars to produce, stars big name celebrities with good size directors. Others are just unintentionally bad, without the big stars and big funding. They are made by people who really want to make a good movie and say with some pride that their work and effort has been rewarded.

Enter Troll 2. Voted as the worst movie ever made.

And what does the worst movie ever need? A great documentary appropriately titled Best Worst Movie.

So the child star from the Troll film is the director of this latest documentary in which it goes to the house of the male lead, George Hardy. He's a dentist and very active and happy person living comfortably in Alabama. He's involved in his community, a very positive person, and actually relished the adventure that was Troll 2. He tells his patients, he co-workers, anyone that will listen.

The documentary director ends up rounding up the cast, both major and minor characters and even the original Troll 2 director together for a reunion tour. The original film starts to draw a cult classic, similar to other "terrible movies that are so bad they are good". The crew takes a tour around the country, showing theatres sold out for showings of this movie, with engaging discussions with the crew and the fans. The cast tells their story, and the director gets a chance to tell his as well. It's humanizing to a high degree to see something that people were proud to make, only to have it voted as the 'worst movie ever'. The director obviously sees it as a success, and has kept that view of it in his mind.

With the film being terrible and the documentary being amazing, it draws in the pride that you would hold if you worked hard on something only to have your mom tell you that she walked out of your movie halfway through it.

Overall, I really enjoyed the documentary, and yes, I will be needing to watch Troll 2 at some point this year. Seven Pieces of Gum.

Possibly important info:

Film info, Official site
Rated (in my opinion) R for some language. Not much, but probably enough choice words to draw the R rating. No sex or nudity. Just the a few choice words, and probably the one word that draws the R. I'd probably call it a 'soft R' if it was up to me.

-D

Dust to Glory [SS]

2012-01-04T12:44:00.003-06:00

Who doesn't enjoy a good documentary? Especially one that might remotely be associated with a sport that you enjoy?

Dust to Glory is based on the Baja 1000, a crazy 1000 mile off-road race in which different classes of vehicles are pitted against one another and every other driver for a crazy endurance race in which vehicles are just a subject to breakdown as the drivers.

Now I've heard of offroad racing. I'm more familiar with the more popular asphalt sports such as F1, Indy Car and NASCAR. But I will say that this documentary drew me into this world to the point that I was considering find a old VW Beetle to just try it out.

Do you need to watch this? It won't change your life if you're not a fan of racing to some degree. It might make you a fan of offroad racing. Or it might want you to invest in my possibly remote quest to run a VW Beetle thru the Mexican desert. I'd give it 5 Pieces of Gum.

Possibly important info:

Film info, Official site
Rated PG for some on-road action.

-D

Cowboys and Aliens

2011-08-01T11:10:00.006-05:00

Indiana Jones. James Bond.

If you team up both of these guys, I think it's pretty obvious that the enemy, no matter who it is, doesn't have a chance. Harrison Ford and Daniel Craig get teamed up in what I think is a very unique story, and Jon Favreau at the helm.

What could possibly go wrong?

Cowboys and Aliens takes the sci-fi back to the 'wild wild west', but this time it's actually aliens and not some scientist with too many toys. Set in a small town having a bit of an economic challenge, Bond...err Craig's character wakes up in the desert and has no idea what's going on or where he is. All he knows is that he's got a very nifty bracelet on his wrist and it's very resistant to rocks.

Obviously, if you've got an ounce of common sense, you've got the feeling from both the title and the previews that, just maybe, a few aliens will show up. Chances are strong that the aliens just might have been responsible for that bracelet.

Look, I can go on and on on this movie. I admit to setting the bar very high for this film. Ford, Craig, good director that I've liked, good eye candy in Olivia Wilde. Wilde's character has what I would call almost a lid on her performance. Bottled up to some degree.

Direction is fine, but I just didn't buy the story or the hatred between the two main characters. It just felt forced, and maybe that's a time-constraint issue in terms of important scenes being cut. Overall, it's just an average film. If you get a chance to see it and you've got nothing else to do, it's worth a single view. Don't go out of your way, however, to watch it. A hit or miss 4 Pieces of Gum.

Possibly important info:

Film info, Official site
Rated PG-13 for violence, language, and a brief scene that implies nudity but none is shown.

-D

Bad Teacher

2011-06-30T08:40:00.002-05:00

Bad Teacher.

It's not hard to sum up this movie in a single word, and I'll even use a word from the title of this film: Bad.

Cameron Diaz, Justin Timberlake, and Jason Segel all make an appearance in this film, which I didn't finish. I made it about 30 minutes into this at the theater before walking out. For a comedy, it's supposed to be funny. This was just weak. I don't know who to blame for this farce, and I don't care. It's terrible. Avoid this film at all costs.

1 Piece of Gum. I didn't finish the film, and if I do finish this movie in my life, it's because I was paid to watch it. By either the actors, directors, or writers.

Possibly important info:

Avoid this film at all costs
Rated R for language and nudity. This all happened in the first 30 minutes.

-D

Green Lantern [SS]

2011-06-24T09:32:00.002-05:00

Green Lantern [SS]

Another in the line of the 'lesser known' comic book characters. Ryan Reynolds plays the lead as the reckless but hot pilot who ends up being selected to be Earth's savior. Blake Lively plays his love interest and wing(wo)man in her father's aviation company. She also does a fantastic job as eye candy. Peter Sarsgaard takes up the role as the evil earthly villain, doing the work of his much larger puppetmaster that can apparently destroy entire civilizations in a days work.

Ryan feels boxed in, like they had him on a leash and didn't let him loose. Blame writers or directors, because I know what Ryan can do when you literally box him in. Blake did a fine job with what she was given, and looked fantastic doing so. Peter did what he could, but they staff split the enemy. Look, I know Vader and the Emperor were 2 separate enemies, but they were a part of the Empire (which spanned galaxies). So it still felt like you were fighting the Empire. This movie felt like they were trying to split the evil between 2 characters, and did a poor job of it. No, I can't recommend a better job, but I've seen it done before.

I saw this film in 2D. Which means I'm comparing it to almost all other 2D films ever made, and stacking this up against all other comic book action films made in the past 10 years. This falls drastically short. The graphics were just good, but weren't mind blowing. So much potential, but don't pay for it in theaters. If you have to see it, wait till it appears on disc. 3 Pieces of Gum, one for each of the main characters.

Possibly important info:

Film info, Official site
Rated PG-13 for violence.

-D

X-Men: First Class

2011-06-13T13:32:00.005-05:00

When at first the sequels and story arcs narrow to a single character and the box office revenues drop, you must go the other direction: Prequels.

And who doesn't love a good back story? Or a back rub for that matter? Well, it really depends on two key aspects: Good writing and good acting. While prequels are less common than sequels, it's nice to have the origin of a story or even early history to pull a movie out of for all to enjoy. X-Men: First Class just happens to have both good writing and good acting.

The setup for this film is simple: The story of how mutants first came to the forefront of this franchise and the world. Similar to the first movie, it opens with a young man named Erik Lehnsherr navigating his way thru a Nazi death camp, played brilliantly by Michael Fassbender. James McAvoy gets the task of trying to convey the wisdom and intelligence of one (very upright) Charles Xavier. Charles wakes up in the middle of the night and happens to find a variation of his mother standing in his kitchen, and discovers a shapeshifter (Jennifer Lawrence) in a young girl named Raven. While this is all interesting and exciting, these are still just 3 people out of an entire planet who seem to be all alone. 'Seem to be' are the key words to this magic.

So here we are, 1962, and the world is about to be plunged into the closest nuclear winter we could possibly imagine. The United States and the Soviet Union are locked in a stalemate of the cold war, and the US has just setup a few missile sites dangerously close to the Russian border. For those who are unfamiliar with history, this is an actual event that really took place.

(Altered history seems to be a hot topic in Hollywood, as they can take an actual event and change a few things and create an entire story based up on this change. Books also seem to be enjoying it as well. Any why not, it's easy to relate to something that really did happen and put a different spin on it.)

Now I've already told you how much I enjoy a good story. This one has a good story. It's also got enough action to keep the pace moving, and enough of a story so that you want some characters to win and others to fail. Kevin Bacon plays the pretentious bad guy, and does a noble job in that. You definitely want him to fail, but understand his line of reasoning. Plus it's a great setup for additional films in the Marvel franchise. I know the opening weekend was considered 'soft' (read: not the many millions they hoped for), but this film was better than the other film, X-Men Origins. Granted while I gave that film a lot of credit for just being in the Marvel universe, it wasn't nearly the story that this one was. I give this film 6 Pieces of Gum.

Possibly important info:

Film info, Official site
Rated PG-13 for violence and adult language.

-D

The Hangover II

2011-05-30T08:33:00.003-05:00

One of the biggest surprises of 2009 was this little movie called The Hangover. So what does Hollywood do when lightning strikes? Well it creates a sequel to see if it can strike twice of course! But when it comes to comedies, in my opinion it's very hard to succeed as a comedy sequel than any other type. Action films can just continue on their merry way by changing the background, comic book movies can introduce a new villain, scary movies can just change the cast to be killed, but comedies need to actually have writers.

So when I saw the trailer for The Hangover II, I found myself very concerned and very anxious. Concerned because comedies are difficult; anxious because the first one was great! But would it be great? Or would it be severely disappointing?

Well, allow me to extrapolate on that very thought.

First things first, you have to set your level of expectation. Granted, the people that edit movies to make amazing 2 minute trailers with incredible voiceover or soundtracks definitely know how to sell the product better than the filmmakers themselves. But with a comedy, you've got to show the audience a few jokes or possibly funny scenes but use fast cuts so you don't truly get an idea of when it will be in the film or how it all makes sense. With this franchise, that's easy to do because the entire plot is trying to figure out, along with the cast, exactly what went down last night.

Second, as with any comedy you see in a movie theater on opening night or weekend, you've got to know that thanks to people who just can't shut up during the film, you're probably going to miss that possibly witty follow-up joke, or the action in the background that is hysterical but people miss it because they are laughing at the previous joke. So lower you expectation level if you're smart. Setting the bar too high and the film may fall exceedingly short.

So let's setup the film: Ed Helms is getting married overseas and of course, he's just got to have a bachelor party (against his wishes, for obvious reasons). Bradley Cooper and Zach Galifianakis, along with Justin Bartha, all pick up the international plane ticket to see their friend start the next chapter of his life.

Look, I could go on and on about the rest of the return cast from the first one, but I'm pressed for time and can't keep my own eyes open so lets get right to the point: This is a funny movie. Maybe not as funny as the first, but it's telling the same story again in a different city with different events that bring them all closer together. Is it funny? Yes. Is it earth-shattering? No. Are there some quotes that you might here down the road from a movie buff like me? Leaning towards yes on a couple. Do they show you what happened in the end like the ending of the first film? Yep.

Listen up movie fan, if you liked the first one, chances are very strong you're going to at least really enjoy the second one. If this genre ain't your cup of tea, well I strongly urge you to consider other selections when you pick out the movie you want to watch. I liked this one, and there were a few generally LOL (which means "laugh out loud", so stop using this liberally unless you can really say to every social network response that you are indeed laughing out loud) moments in this film, but I think I enjoyed the first one more than the second. I'm not ripping at this film. A firm 6 Pieces of Gum for the sequel. May rate it higher after a second, private viewing at home.

Possibly important info:

Film info, Official site
Rated R for language, nudity, drug use, and what I would call comedic violence.

-D

Bridesmaids

2011-05-30T07:09:00.003-05:00

Let me start out by saying that when it comes to female dominated movies, I'm not the typical audience the moneygrubbers in Hollywood are targeting. So when I hear about a movie titled Bridesmaids, well let me be honest and say that I wasn't exactly circling my Friday night and planning an exciting evening. So the wife and I head out to our local theater and slide over my complimentary passes for this film, use a couple of coupons to save a month's salary on a popcorn and soda, and find our seats in the theater just as the previews are rolling.

And then I was more than pleasantly surprised.

Kristen Wiig stars and wrote this movie of a best friend to a newly engaged Maya Rudolph and the friendship that has bonded them since childhood. Kristen is on the downside of life having lost her boyfriend and her business thanks to the economy, while Maya has just had her future beau who's more than financially set pop the question.

So naturally, Maya asks Kristen to be her maid of honor. But what does an economically- challenged-down-on-her-luck maid of honor do for an entire group of people, one of them is her best friend who's not exactly hurting for cash? Maybe compete with a beauty in Rose Byrne who lives among the elite.

Now when it comes to female comedies, they are not going to have the same hijinks that normally appeal to guys in terms of stuff like maybe The Hangover would. Of course, that was before I saw this film. There's definitely 1 scene in particular that is tailored to the guys in the audience that the women will also laugh at. Of course it doesn't hurt to have a guy like Chris O'Dowd as the love interest (fans of the British comedy The IT Crowd know him). And a scene stealer in Melissa McCarthy is enjoyable in every scene.

Almost all movies follow a formula, and a great majority of those are terrible. This is one formula comedy that takes you from love to heartbreak, from victory to self-sabotage, and from a flight to Vegas to muscle relaxers and alcohol. And it does it all while you pulling for Kristen's character to turn her life around and stop destroying her own life. Destruction is her specialty to some degree, and it's amazing what the human being will do sometimes to prevent itself from achieving success. It's funny, for starters, to both men and women. My wife cried at a few scenes because of flashbacks to her own childhood best friend and the good memories she has.

If you want to laugh and enjoy a comedy (as a guy) from the other side of the coin, it's worth a view. If you want a good film, it's worth a view. There is one scene in particular that will live as one of those "Can you believe that ___________ did __________ in that __________?!!?!?!" and for that reason alone, I'm going to give it a solid 7 Pieces of Gum. I sat the bar very low and this film blew it out of the water.

Possibly important info:

Film info, Official site
Rated R for language and some sexual content (no nudity)

-D

Salt [SS]

2011-04-29T23:16:00.003-05:00

As with the theme of my other "short sticks" reviews, this is something that I really didn't put much anticipation into. I've heard from my friends that Salt wasn't exactly a blockbuster, but it does have the pretty much go-to femme fatale in Angelina Jolie. It also has a great character actor in Liev Schreiber, another personal favorite of mine.

In keeping with the short stick theme, I'll say that the plot of the film was a bit questionable to say the least. The ending completely did not accomplish anything but leave the door wide open for a sequel, but the first movie stunk entirely. I don't know if a sequel is in order at all. I can't recommend the first movie to anyone, and even if it was in your queue to watch, please don't.

While any performance, regardless of the story, can really carry a film...well you have to cross the finish line at some point. This movie, while full of action sequences, never gets across the line. Heck it never even makes it on the back straight. Let's stick with the racing analogy and say it simply crashes out in turn 2. Avoid this film. 3 Pieces of Gum.

Possibly important info:

Film info, Official site
Rated PG-13 for a plethora of violent scenes and death.

-D

Nothing But the Truth

2011-04-29T21:35:00.005-05:00

With the recent drama of First Amendment rights version National Security thanks to a very popular "leak" site (that shall remain unlinked - I don't want to be associated with them at this time), the question of who is right and who is wrong can be very dangerous territory. So, while the wife is recovering from a small outpatient surgery, I decided to queue up a film starring one of my favorite pieces of eye-candy Kate Beckinsale. The film, Nothing But The Truth, actually made me want to get involved in either journalism or justice.

Kate plays the role of Rachel Armstrong, a reporter for a newspaper, gets a 'leak' about a CIA operation gone wrong, and basically this would threaten to bring down the presidential administration. When the story is released, a prosecutor in the form of Matt Dillon roles into town to clean up the mess and find the leak. Vera Farmiga ends up being the target of the investigation, as she may or may not be a CIA employee.

Helping round out the cast is Angela Bassett as the editor of the paper Kate works for, David Schwimmer as the husband, and Alan Alda as the attorney they call in for support.

Now, the plot goes as follows: Paper is published, all heck breaks loose, and the government needs to know more than anything who the source is for 'national security'. When Kate refuses to name her source, the judge throws her in jail for contempt, and this starts the process of asking yourself "How far would you go for you story / principle / job?".

Well, I don't know how far I would go. I really had to question myself on how long I could stay in jail to honor my word. After all, it costs so much to go to jail and give up your family and your life. And, of course, to give up your source, and in effect, their life.

The film, while stuck in the queue for a while, turned out to be a pleasant surprise. A good film in which the performances of everyone were within limits, with the highlight being Beckinsale and Alda. Overall, a solid 6 Pieces of Gum, as I did not see the source coming. Not quite a Keyser Soze moment but I definitely had my focus moved from First Amendment rights to national security and back and forth a few times. A really good movie that mingles politics and journalism, and the delicate balance between the two.

Possibly important info

Film info, Official site
Rated R for language, some mild violence, and a lovemaking scene where nothing can be seen.

-D

The Lincoln Lawyer

2011-04-14T08:14:00.005-05:00

Let me start out this by saying I didn't expect much from this film. I'm not the biggest fan of the lead actor Matthew McConaughey, mainly because I think he's been typecast as the lead in rom-coms that have less rom and less com than they should. So coming in, let's all agree that I set the bar very low for this film. Having said that, onto the review.

The Lincoln Lawyer is a book adaptation that is not a comic book and no, it's not a sequel to the Washington Lawyer or a prequel to The Clinton Lawyer. Let's just say I don't think I'll be reviewing the latter as it probably will contain a cigar and a dress and I don't want the mental image beyond that. Anyway, it's about a lawyer who has just about as much street sense as he does legal sense, and uses both to his maximum advantage.

Matty plays the lead character, a lawyer who just happens to run his office from the back of his Lincoln. His ex-wife, a prosecutor played by Marisa Tomei, still gets along with him because they share more than just a failed marriage but a daughter. Working as a PI for Matthew is one of my favorite character actors William H Macy. Matty and Macy have been working together on a lot of cases when Ryan Phillippe is accused of beating a woman very severely. Matty takes the case and begins to work it when something just doesn't add up to him.

Without digging too far into the plot, I'm going to say that my wife wanted to see this movie more than I did. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy Marisa Tomei as much as the next guy, but I've never been that impressed with Matty's previous performances. My wife keeps bringing up another legal movie made 15 years ago that he was good in. But, if you're giving a good performance every 15 years, you might as well be a comet. I think Matthew did a good job in what I would consider his best performance since that previous legal drama, and carried the film on his back.

What I wish the film had was a climax. To me, it never felt like the rollercoaster ever went over the top of the big hill at the beginning. We kept getting closer and closer and closer, and then the film was over. Predictably, I might add. And this is what gets me: So many films are predictable. Guy fights with girl, girl fights with guy, and at the end the guy and girl hook up. This film was predictable to a degree, with the final plot twist being almost plastered on a billboard (to me).

With that being said, it's a good film. It's not a great film, but it's worth a single viewing. Again, with the climax of the film being so anti-climatic, I can't give this film too high a rating. Like I said, watch it once, and with a good performance by Matthew himself, it's worth 5 Pieces of Gum.

Possibly important info:

Film info, Official site
Rated R for some language, some violence, and a love-making scene but nobody parts can be seen.

-D

Summer 2011 - NFL Lockout Edition

2011-04-13T12:21:00.004-05:00

With the NFL lockout going a strong 30+ days now, I figure I'll have a lot more time to see movies on Sundays in the Fall. However, I'm still going to need to figure out what I want to watch this Spring/Summer of 2011 as well.

April 2011

Scream 4. For those who struggled with English, I'm surprised you made it this far. The fourth film from Wes Craven should be a fun one, as Scream 1 and 2 weren't terrible at all. We'll ignore Scream 3 because it was terrible. Just like Spiderman 3.

May 2011

Thor. Who doesn't love Norse gods with a giant hammer? It's literally hammer time! (Get out your parachute pants!) Good actors including a few Academy Award winners. Please don't suck.
Pirates of the Caribbean 4. Yes! Another film with Jack Sparrow. May not be amazing but it'll make a metric ton of cash. Bonus points for Penelope Cruz.
The Hangover 2. How do you followup one of (if not) the most successful rated R comedies of all time? A sequel of course. Should be a good one.
Kung Fu Panda 2. Notice a trend with the sequels? If it's not a sequel or a comic book movie, it's not coming out this summer. Good original, please don't stink.

June

X-Men: First Class. A sequel to a prequel! Or is it a prequel to a sequel? Who cares - it's a another comic book movie! Please do not stink like Wolverine.
Super 8. From the guy who builds amazing trailers himself and the guy who tells the rest of the world what is amazing comes a movie about something involving an old camera.
Green Lantern. Whaddya know - another comic book movie. Ryan Reynolds straps on the ring to save the universe.
Cars 2. Standard Pixar summer release that will clean house. I didn't like the original as much as other films, but still its going to be great. It's Pixar.

July

Transformers 3. Former cartoon? Check. Sequel? Check. Replacing talentless eye candy? Check. Still has Shia? Unfortunate check. Focus on the robots and in the name of all things holy more Optimus Prime!
Harry Potter Part 2 of a Sequel. The franchise that will finally die. The budding young actress who's now over the legal limit. A leading actor who bares all and dies yet somehow pulls a Jesus...
Captain America. Comic book? Check. Shields up Captain (I finally get to use that line!)!
Cowboys and Aliens. Western with sci-fi? Daniel Craig with a wrist cannon? You had me at hello.

If you're a fan of sequels or comic books, you're in for a fantastic summer. If not, well, fear not because we're almost out of quality comic books to rip off. Sequels on the other hand, will never die, like that sweater your grandmother got you that you never wear and the moths never eat.

Wasting Away [SS]

2011-04-13T08:36:00.002-05:00

I love zombie movies. Well, scratch that - I love movies. I really love zombie movies. Pile on top of that my undying (double pun intended) love for cheesy scary movies and you've usually got a recipe for a good time.

Usually...

Wasting Away is a movie that appeared on my movie subscription service (that if they decided to fund my little endeavor they would be named and have a nice link to their subscription sign-up page) about zombies, but from the perspective of the terrorizers themselves. It stars a lot of people of thespians that, at the time of the film, were just developing into their careers. Others are B-Listers who most struggling actors would envy their careers. Unfortunately, all the envy in the world cannot save this film.

The story itself is an odd twist - I'm going to show you the world through a zombie's eyes. And its an interpretation that I was anxiously waiting to see, for obvious reasons. However, the story never came together for me. For one, it was obviously cheesy, and I enjoyed the heck out of that. Two, the cinematography for some scenes was 'scrunched' for the lack of a better word. Everything felt compressed to me. Three, the dialog was pressed upon you like a cheap suit. It didn't give and the impression seemed like they couldn't vary off the script. Four, a complete lack of violence for a zombie movie. These are the walking dead - I should see more dead and less walking!

Overall, as previously stated, a great idea and I could see someone running with a better version of the story down the road, but I'd recommend you save 81 minutes of your life. I'll give it 2 Pieces of Gum.

Possibly important info

Film info, Official site
Rated R for language and some random violence.

-D

True Grit

2011-02-11T20:57:00.005-06:00

The Western. The genre that Hollywood has tried to declare dead to the public for the past 20 years. Yet time and time again, the public has stated that they will spend their hard earned money to watch a good film, regardless of the genre.

True Grit is a remake of a film by the same name from 1969 staring the Duke himself, John Wayne. However, this interpretation is by a pair of my favorite directors, Joel and Ethan Cohen. It also reunites the pair with Jeff Bridges, who will live in infamy simply as "The Dude". Bridges reprises the role of Rooster Cogburn, a US Marshall whose reputation for playing jury and executioner precedes himself. He's also a big fan of the bottle, and it shows as he keeps himself in a perpetual state of intoxication for the better part of the film. But, he's good with the six shooter, and has a knack for putting two and two together.

However the biggest challenge for any Cohen brothers production is that they're very dialog driven. And to find a young girl who can handle it posed quite a challenge, as they had to filter through a reported 10,000+ young ladies to find the right one, and it would appear they did. Hailee Steinfeld puts on a performance that earned her a Best Supporting Actress nomination by the Oscars. Portraying Mattie Ross as the daughter of a slain father by a possible drifter in Josh Brolin's Tom Chaney. Chaney murdered Ross' father in an effort to skip town and get back with his gang. Add in a bit of flavor in the form of Matt Damon's Texas Ranger with the single name LaBoeuf.

So you've got a couple of stud main characters, a pair of very talented directors and story tellers, and an interpretation of a Western classic that's up for a few Oscars including Director, Actor, Cinematography and Picture. The shots are setup in a dramatic fashion, with the sky and scenery taking charge of some shots, showing off the wide open expanse of the unknown. The environment helps tell the story with the unforgiving weather and rough terrain. Obviously it's meant to imply that this is no place for a young girl to be trying to track down a murderer.

Bridges and Steinfeld sell the characters very well, with a spotlight on Steinfeld. The dialog that she delivers is mesmerizing in the fact that she either holds her own or prevails against the rough riders in this film simply by outsmarting them. However, her mouth definitely can get you into trouble when you give up 80+lbs and years of firearm experience to a gang. It definitely presents a unique situation, one that the Cohens highlight extensively. So you've got a great film, a great cast, great dialog, all packaged into a possibly award-winning combination. Worth a great 7 Pieces of Gum.

Possibly important info:

Film info, Official site
Rated PG-13 for some language and violence.

-D

Dead Snow [SS]

2011-02-11T04:13:00.007-06:00

As it's no surprise to anyone I know or anyone who reads this, I really enjoy a good horror movie. Not the films that would fall into the 'torture-porn' category, in which their main goal is to gross you out or make you feel so uncomfortable that it's just beyond common sense. The ones that give you a good scare sometimes, make you laugh sometimes, and have a good enough (read: mediocre) story to keep you interested without the characters being played down to full blown morons.

I'd seen the cover of this DVD in my local electronics superstore (one that does not pay me to mention them here, but you can change that with a quick email), and found it interesting. Now it doesn't take much to get me interested in a scary movie. Reading the back cover, it had all the things that I thought would make it worth 90 minutes of my life.

Dead Snow checklist:

Group of young students - Check
Isolated area - Check
Little to no cell service - Check
English as a primary language - ........
A few anticipation moments - Check
A few scares - Check
Zombies - Check
Nazis - Check
Nazi zombies - Check check

Bonus points for not stooping to the formulaic scary movie "must show women topless" as a pointless plot story.

This film contains zero people who speak English, so it's all subtitled. Good back story about an 'evil' Nazi squad stationed in a country that didn't want to let go of their iron fist on the town. Is it a fantastic film to watch? No, I wouldn't say fantastic, but compared to the literal crap that Hollywood seems to think is a "good scary movie" today that they pump out to us every fall, it's not bad. In fact, I'd recommend it over some American franchises. I'd give it 5 Pieces of Gum and say if you like the genre, watch it.

Possibly important info:

Film info, Official site
Rated R for some (written) language if you don't speak the native language to Norway. A scene of sex but no nudity, and some graphic Nazi zombie violence.

-D

Short Sticks

2011-02-11T04:05:00.002-06:00

My wife was kind enough to point out to me that I've been slacking on movie reviews. How generous of her...

In the spirit of getting back into the swing of things during award season, and because there literally isn't enough time in the day to review the thousands of movies that I've seen and will be seeing over my life, I've decided to add another flavor to the 8 Pieces of Gum collection: Short Sticks

What is it?
These reviews will be quick hitters, for films that don't always need or require a full 60-90 minutes to review.

Why?
A good review (to write) takes me anywhere from 60-90 minutes for full creativity, link building, etc. Some movies aren't even that long.

How do you determine what gets a full review and what gets a [SS] review?
The amount of time I have to dedicate to actually doing reviews. I still have 300+ films in my own collection to review, so expect to see a plethora of [SS] reviews coming out.

You'll see the designation [SS] for a Short Stick review. At some point in time, I might elaborate on a [SS] review (read: getting paid to do this), but for now I'm so far behind on my list it's not even funny.

-D

Black Swan

2010-12-27T08:29:00.007-06:00

Okay let's go ahead and get this stated up front so there is zero confusion or interpretations: I've never seen a ballet. I've never really wanted to see a ballet. No, it's not for the whole "ballets are for pansies" or whatever possible slang term you want to interject there (and ones I've probably used). It's the fact that I'm lazy and I'm cheap and I've never really had the desire to get dressed up in my Sunday best (or in some cases, the best a rental place can offer - I really need to buy a tuxedo) and spend an evening in class.

Let me also go ahead and affirm that I truly admire the time, attention to detail, and physical strength it takes to be a ballet dancer. You can thank the director, Darren Aronofsky, for that. Let me explain in a few paragraphs.

First you need a brilliant actress who has played everything from the underage 'Lolita' type next door to an assassin's apprentice to a queen in a galaxy a long time ago, and toss in a wrist-cutting teenager desperate for attention. It would also help that she's done ballet for 10 years. Beauty and intelligence are also a requirement. Natalie Portman exceeds all the criteria for this role as the lead in Black Swan. Natalie portrays Nina Sayers, who appears to be a very technical ballerina who might be in her early 20s physically, but would appear to be stuck in that 8-12 year old mental state when it comes to her sexuality and individuality. You see her act awkward in social situations, living with her overbearing mother played by Barbara Hershey, and sleeping in a room full of stuffed animals. Obviously a lot of red flags when it comes to dating.

The story takes center stage around a revamped production of a popular ballet in which the ballet's director, Vincent Cassell, is recasting the ballet's previous centerpiece (played by the very sneaky yet still very seductive Winona Ryder) and is mixing it up by having the lead play both good and evil roles in the ballet production. With all the pressure now squarely on one set of shoulders for both roles, whoever is lucky enough to get cast as the lead will have the full attention of anyone in the business. Of course, the same is true with competition, as everyone has you squarely in their sights.

Possible competition of course shows up in the form of an almost alter-ego in Mila Kunis, who plays the new addition from the west coast. She's passionate, she's almost dangerous, she's sexy. Check that - she is dangerous. Because she's passionate. Because she's sexy. Because she's real. She shows up as a fresh dancer who may not be as technical as Natalie, but she makes up for it with her passion and her ability to improvise while on the stage. This is about as Jekyll and Hyde as it gets in terms of their personalities and their reflections on the screen. One dresses in white, the other in black. One is a free spirit, and one is a bird in desperate need of being freed.

I think...

This is definitely not your typical ballet movie. Like Aronofsky's previous film, The Wrestler (which I have yet to review - it never ends), there is a lot of attention to detail on the minutia of it all: The taping of their toes, how their shoes are constructed and de-constructed, the repetitive nature of their moves, the accuracy of it all, etc etc etc. Again, as the non-ballet guy that I am, I had to take a step back and realize that this is more physical than I ever previously imagined.

What also defines the "not your typical ballet movie" (if there is one) is the fact that maybe this is all a figment of Natalie's imagination. Maybe Mila's character does exist. Maybe she doesn't.

Let me know when your mind racks that one up. Cue up the soundtrack to Inception now...

As the alter-ego incarnate, real or imagined, Mila is a reflection of who Natalie may want to be. Maybe Mila's dark side is what Natalie is trying to avoid. Who knows.

The story is strong. The cinematography is precise. The small cues to determine if it's real or imagined are sometimes painfully obvious and other times granule in size. Is she making this up? Is she seeing something that isn't there? And oh my what happened in the end of the film? I mean someone explain it to me!

And yes, there is a makeout scene with Natalie and Mila. I know you waited the whole time just to read that sentence. 7 Pieces of Gum. I give it 7 because of the aforementioned story, cinematography, performances, etc. I don't give it anymore because simply I can't decide on whether or not I want to ever watch it again. Yes I'm a snob. It's my job to to decide if I'm going to try and get you to spend your time on films, whether you're seeing them at the theatre, on disc, streaming, boxing it or flixing it. I say it's worth an honest shot if you're a movie snob. Whether I watch it again is another story.

Possibly important info:

Film info, Official site
Rated R for language and strong sexual situations.

-D

Tron: Legacy

2010-12-21T06:41:00.005-06:00

It's 1982. Yours truly has been wandering around this blue marble for 2 years. Maybe wandering is not the appropriate term - call it a controlled journey around the house and yard. Anyway, fast forward a few years in which I could actually form memories and I can distinctly recall an amazing video game that had a story, discs that could destroy people, lightcycles, and I could watch it on my TV.

That just happened to be a movie named Tron...and a very good video game back in the day.

So imagine my surprise a few years back when I saw this teaser for a film that involved a guy dressed in what appeared to be all black but glowing highlights mount up a lightcycle for a test spin around the grid. If you want, you can add in the sound effect of a "gasp for air" as well as "goosebumps" and a grin from ear to ear.

Tron: Legacy picks up almost 3 decades from the predecessor and the original still holds a special place in my heart. The story today is that Sam, played by Garrett Hedlund, gets some information from a special guy who just happened to play Tron in the original series (Bruce Boxleitner) that is related to his father, Flynn. Jeff Bridges reprises the role of Kevin Flynn, the technological tsar of the 80s who vanished into a video game/computer world.

Olivia Wilde takes a break from her diseased, medical world in House to play Quorra, a particularly attractive program in the grid. We also get to see what I can only speculate to some degree is a future of movie production in the younger computer generated version of Jeff Bridges from 25 years ago. While in most scenes it's almost disturbing to see how realistic it looks, in others the jawline and mouth movements confirm that the technology to recreate another human being is still a few years off of being fully developed. I don't know whether that excites me or scares me. Check back in 2015 for more on that topic.

Michael Sheen also shows up as a nice surprise, playing a quirky Castor who just might have a good hookup inside the grid.

So let's get right down to the nitty gritty of this film. Two words: Mind blowing, awe inspiring, nerd-gasm "Special effects". Okay, so that's two words with a few adjectives, but still it works. Beautiful lightcycles that can move in more than just the very strict linear motions from the past. Flying vehicles that leave the same lighted barrier wall. Tanks that didn't get used enough.

Technology aside, I chose not to see the movie in 3D. Simply put - I've been watching TV and movies in 2D my entire life and I don't see a reason to change now. Call me a purist if you like, but this is not like going from black-and-white to color. This isn't like going from standard definition to HD. This is not like going from stereo sound to 5.1+ audio. This is adding a literal third dimension to film, and I'm not for it. I did have a few friends that enjoyed some of the 3D scenes, and I'm not knocking them or those scenes. I just didn't want to spend the extra dough for a few scenes in 3D. The graphics were amazing. The music had that techno "Ran it thru the mixer a few times" feeling to it, which was appropriate. The audio effects were great.

What was a let down (and this should come to no surprise to anyone that knows me) is that I build up movies way too much and set the bar way too high, only to have most of them fall short. This was no exception. While the film was strong in some areas, the story was not one of them. My wife, a rookie to Tron, walked in and had no real idea how the world worked or the story from the first film. Heck even I spaced out from time to time from the story. Don't get me wrong - you put Olivia Wilda in that suit and have her looking like she did, or even one of the sirens and that will keep my attention for a bit, but sometimes the story felt forced and sparse at the same time. While I appreciate new franchises (or ones sitting in limbo for almost 30 years) to try and reach out to the new fans, don't try and force what happened in the predecessor down our throats in 2 minutes or less.

Overall, I enjoyed Tron, and I'll probably buy it because I'm a nerd. I'll slap it a respectable 5 Pieces of Gum.

Possibly important info

Film info, Official site
Rated PG for some lightcycle on lightcycle on lightcycle on lightcycle on lightcycle action.

-D

Due Date

2010-11-15T09:16:00.007-06:00

Rated R comedies have made a bit of a comeback since the taboo of the 'R' rating. Todd Phillips seems to have made a living doing the 'R' comedy. Due Date is his latest in the fray. His predecessor, The Hangover, was loved by both critics (and this one) and audiences alike, and soared into box office history as the highest grossing 'R' rated comedy ever (at time of posting).

Robert Downey, Jr and Zach Galifianakis star as the unlikely comedic pair that ends up getting forcibly removed from a cross-country flight and forced to hike it on what little cash the two can put together. Downey's onscreen wife, Michelle Monaghan, is about to pop out their first child together and is days away from having the C-section. So, it's a fairly simple plot. Get from point A to point B before C-section is completed.

What could possibly go wrong?

Let's start with Downey, who apparently in his past has had issues with anger in the past. Successful guy of course who lives a fairly good life. Also a sarcastic, quick-witted son-of-a-gun.

Galifianakis is the other end of the spectrum. Playing a similar character to that which garnered him success, he's a bit dense, lovable, but definitely not playing with a full deck of cards. His goal for traveling to the west coast is simple: Be an actor.

So now we've got some key players in place, and the plot already laid out. What could possibly go wrong? Without spoiling anything that was not shown in the previews, there's a car crash involved and a truck in which may have shown Zach getting airborne over a ditch. There's a lot more involved, including a few "Oh wow" moments.

Comedies are hard to judge, especially this one with just your 2 main characters along for the ride. It really depends on both the writers and the actors. The situations the actors find themselves in, and the way the actors perceive them are the two single biggest things to making a successful comedy. You need to have outrageous situations in which maybe only the lovable dork can get into, and other situations in which the lovable dork can get you out of. And vice versa for the successful anger-management straight arrow. So what kind of comedy can you expect from this film?

I'd say enough to rent it at least. While it's a funny movie, it's not the funniest movie I've ever seen. Does it have a few good redeeming moments? Of course it does. Do I get to see a former boxing legend knock out some pasty white dude? No, but it's not a bad movie. When comparing it to the other comedies of past, I'm going to give it a very deserving 5 Pieces of Gum. Both the stars do a great job, but some of the stuff just was either too over the top or not involved enough.

Possibly important info:

Film info, Official site
Rated R for language.

-D

Paranormal Activity 2

2010-11-15T08:04:00.002-06:00

They say lightning doesn't strike the same place twice. Well I haven't been tracking lightning strikes since the dawn of man, but I can say this: For the first time in a long time, I've finally seen a sequel to an excellent horror movie that has lived up to most of the hype from the original.

Paranormal Activity 2, obviously a sequel to the original, picks up the scares, screams, and eye-watering, heart-pounding, did-that-just-happen goodness of the original. The original, of course, had the $15,000 budget, then clearing over $193,000,000 worldwide, making it probably the biggest return on investment in Hollywood since another fright-flick involved a witch and a project.

Now, I have to try to and explain the interwoven storyline between the original and the sequel. If you've seen the original, the sequel makes pretty good sense. In the sequel, you meet another family with ties to the original and it's all weaved together in such form that the stories actually overlap to some degree. Without seeing the original and how the writers of the sequel setup this film, I would fall significantly short in trying to describe in words how the two are connected. I know - I tried with my wife and even she got confused. I think I might have needed a storyboard...

Okay, so you're interested. But in the original they have a single camera because of an enthusiast who wanted to see something on film. Have no fear, as the writers have figured this one as well. Let's take a guy that's got a plethora of money, and have his house get ransacked. Install some motion activated cameras, ones with just a wee bit of night-vision, and tah-dah! You've got the basic ingredients for success. As with the original, you've got a cast of no-names to give the impression of authenticity. You've got the "things that go bump in the night" aspect of the approach, as well as the "less is more" method to showing you the system. It's also a roller coaster ride in terms of building suspense. It starts out at a slow but steady pace and builds both momentum and tension as the movie trudges along. Initially you might think it's slow, compared to the cheap tricks a lot of the crap scary movies put out today when it comes to tricky camera angles and the music changing both levels and styles. Also there's no blood and guts, and more importantly not a lot of language and zero nudity/sex scenes. When I say not a lot of language, I mean it's not a Quentin Tarentino film.

Now, when it comes to measuring a sequel to an original, it's tough to judge one independent of the other. The original set a very high bar for being both a shoestring budget with enormous scare-value . The sequel had a budget 200 times that of the original ($3,000,000 compared to $15,000), and has already made it all back on the opening weekend and then some. With all that being said, let's look at the story a bit. You've got Dad remarrying another woman and having a baby with the new wife. Daughter from the original marriage is present, older, probably between the ages of 13-15. You've also got man's best friend in the form of a dog, and even a housekeeper. Add a demonic presence to this mix and you've got yourself a night to remember (unfortunately - I can't forget the film).

I've got one problem with this film, more than I can remember from the original, and no I'm not going to watch the original again to confirm this. I don't remember the original making my head hurt looking for the smallest of details. In this sequel, you're given a few camera angles (front door, poolside, kitchen, living room, inside front door, and baby's room) in which they are played thru in sequence, usually a few seconds at a time. Of course, since there's no soundtrack of music to be played, your mind has to visually scan every angle, looking for the smallest of details. Was that light on previously? Those hanging pans weren't moving were they? Any of the toys on the floor move? My brain was working triple time trying to pluck every detail like I'd have to draw it from scratch later for a test. While I know the point of the process (to get you involved and focused), I think it might have been just a bit overboard (to me) in having to show me all those scenes again for the nights in question.

Overall, I enjoyed (not really) the film and would recommend it to anyone who enjoys a good scary movie. If you hate being dragged to these films or you're a light sleeper, avoid this and the original at all costs. I cannot stress the fact that his film gave me the creeps and I've had a few replays of this in my mind in the past few nights. A solid 7 Pieces of Gum, and it would have been a perfect 8 but the mind-numbing brain scanning wasn't fun for me.

Possibly important info:

Film info, Official site
Rated R for intense scenes, elevated heart rates, nights of insomnia. And some language.

-D

Fall 2010 Dirty Preview

2010-11-04T12:03:00.006-05:00

So I'm on my lunch break at work, so I've got just some precious 30 minutes to write up something immaculate and eloquent enough to get you excited about my Fall preview.

Editor's fake edit - I skip October because it's mainly just a plethora of scary movies, and while I love me some scary movies, most of them are just flat terrible. And no, I haven't seen Paranormal Activity 2 yet. Speaking of that, let me K-dawg and see if he would like to spend the evening with me as my man-date for scary movies.

November
Due Date - Comedy by the same director as The Hangover. Robert Downey Jr, Zach Galifianakis. Rated R. If the preview don't give away all the funny parts of this movie, it should be interesting.

Megamind - Animated comedy for kids and adults alike with the voices of Will Ferrell, Tina Fey, Brad Pitt, and more. Should be a good one as well

Editor's fake edit update: Huzzah! Man-date scheduled for Saturday night!

Unstoppable - Denzel Washington, Chris Pine, and an apparent train that is completely, well, unstoppable. If it's indeed unstoppable, I'll save you the cash because you'll know the main two leads die in this one. If they stop it, I call it false advertising.

Harry Potter Part ___?- Never seen any of these or read the books, but apparently a plethora of people will be lining up to see Harry pull his best Jesus/Lord of the Rings/Star Wars plot twists out.

Love and Other Drugs - Anne Hathaway and Jake Gyllenhaal star in a movie about Viagra and love. Bonus points for Anne Hathaway.

December
The Tourist - Johnny Depp & Angelina Jolie appear on screen. If their chemistry is good, does this mean Brad and Jennifer Aniston are getting back together?

Tron: Legacy - I'm getting goose bumps just thinking about this one. However thanks to a flood in Nashville, I'll be travelling to Atlanta to watch this one in IMAX. Hey Opry Mills / Regal Cinemas, get your act together and get my IMAX back up and running!

True Grit - Cohen brothers, Jeff Bridges, Matt Damon, Josh Brolin all hookup in a remake of a Western classic. Previews give me a reason to say "and the Oscar goes to....". Seriously mad props to the guy/gal who put together that trailer.

Little Fockers - Play on words aside, the first film was the best of the original 2, and the second just ran some more of the original jokes into the ground. Just call it "Buy Me A Yacht You Fockers". That's just my opinion and I could be wrong, but I have no doubts I'll be expected to watch this one.

This should get you to January 2011. Plus, you've got some excellent DVDs to buy/rent such as Toy Story 3, The Expendables, Inception, and Despicable Me.

Until I get time to review more films....

-D

Wall Street - Money Never Sleeps

2010-10-06T13:15:00.005-05:00

I know a few things that don't sleep. Vegas. New York. Guys playing video games. Money. Evil.

Now a plethora of people quote this wrong: Money is the root of all evil. When it's actually "The love of money is the root of all evil." So money is not evil.

But it still doesn't sleep. But when used in the wrong purpose, it can really screw up a global economy. Allow me to explain.

So you've got this guy named Gordon Gecko, who was once quoted as saying "Greed is good", and at the time he was right to a degree. The constant push to have more can be a driver for innovation, but then the whole "Pride comes before the fall" thing plays its hand. So Gecko heads to jail for insider trading. But apparently he isn't going to get the same treatment as Bernie Madoff or Martha Stewart.

Michael Douglas reprises the role that won him an Academy Award for Best Actor of Gecko for this Oliver Stone sequel, who also directed the original. However instead of a young Fox we get another enterprising eco-friendly moneyplayer in Shia LaBeouf (who just happens to have an affinity for motorcycles, similar to Fox). We also have a centralized focus of power in terms of Josh Brolin, fresh off his other Oliver Stone film about a former President. Brolin happens to be head of another investment company, one that rivals LeBeouf's employer, ran by Frank Langella. Carey Mulligan takes on the complicated task of playing both a love interest of LeBeouf as well as the focus of Gecko's attention as his estranged daughter.

Reviewing sequels is a tricky business, especially when you return the main character in a similar role. Sci-Fi movies have a much broader horizon in terms of storyline, but when it boils down to economics in the "real world", you have to look at both stories both independently and together. This is not so much of a sequel as it is a 'continuation' with a few plot twists from our current economic situation. This film has less of a focus on Gecko and more on Moore (LeBeouf's character). The drama surrounding Moore and Gecko's daughter. The drama surrounding the relationship between Langella and LeBeouf. The drama between LeBeouf and Brolin later in the film.

But, if "Greed is good", then so is having a lot more focus on the guy that spouts that line. I mean, the Academy gave this guy the biggest honor for this role, and we can't get him more screentime in the continuation? I mean, the entire reason I used a free pass for this film was to see me some captivating Gecko action. It starts out that way, but in my opinion (because this is a review after all) there needs to be more Gecko and less LeBeouf. That's nothing personal against LeBeouf. I got a fever, and the only prescription is more Gecko. In terms of the film being appropriate for the time, I'd say its a resounding yes. Especially for people like me, who literally cannot afford to study economics to understand exactly how people are able to buy multiple houses on 1 income, betting on whether or not a business will succeed or fail, and my favorite - information manipulation. However far down the rabbit hole our current generation is taking the economy, however big the business are that are "too big to fail", however much crap whatever administration (Democrat or Republican) is handing out, just know that there are movies like this that are designed to take you out of your existence and place you in their hands for 2 hours in order to take your ease off of your own problems. Then you get out and you realize it wasn't all a dream. 5 Pieces of Gum. Solid score for a film that needs a few handfuls more of Gecko.

Possibly important info:

Film info, Official site
Rated PG-13 for some language.

-D

The Town

2010-10-04T12:46:00.003-05:00

Bank robberies. Drugs. FBI. Guns. Family.

No it's not a mafia movie. No, it's not The Departed. But it's not bad. In fact, it's pretty good. Allow me to explain.

The Town is directed by its lead actor, Ben Affleck. Ben picks up writing this screenplay in much the same way that earned him an Oscar for a little movie about a smart guy who didn't want to overachieve. Now, the town in question is located in Massachusetts, and it's even got "town" in its name: Charlestown. I believe Charles founded it...

Aside from cheesy jokes, you get to see Jeremy Renner back in action from The Hurt Locker as a close friend to Ben's character. In fact, the 2 are so close, they actually have 2 other friends who all work with them holding up banks and armored cars. While I know its just a movie, the four amigos take their game very seriously, doing enough research to baffle some authorities and search engines. In the opening scene, you get introduced to Rebecca Hall's Claire, who gets politely asked to tag along with them crew in their escape.

So what do 4 bad guys need in order to pull of this caper? Well they need someone to get them the jobs. Enter Pete Postlethwaite, who shined in one of my favorites The Usual Suspects, as Fergie, the florist who just happens to have a knack for collecting dangerous work. You also need a father figure who may have wrecked a childhood of our lead actor, and it's a short screen for Chris Cooper. And you need an anchor in the form of a former love interest. Blake Lively gets all "drugged up" for this one in terms of a flirt who likes a bit of the illegal side of medication. Yes, she's still attractive as the girl on the other side of the tracks. I know I'm missing something. Of course - you need a mad man in the form of Jon Hamm, who plays your standard issue FBI agent who just hates to lose. I mean, really - don't we all hate to lose?

Anyway - flash forward to the story now that you've got a good understanding of the cast. Bank robbery goes wrong when someone decides to take a hostage as insurance. Someone then decides to get rid of said hostage, but obviously tacking on a Murder I charge carries a bit of lengthy sentence compared to armed robbery, especially since no shots are fired. Come to find out, the victim lives in the same area as the robbers, and the thought of passing her in the street is too much to handle. Enter plot.

Speaking of the plot, the movie is very well done. In what I would consider a very weak year for films overall (save Inception), I'd say this is a shoe-in for a Best Picture nod by the Academy. The story is believable, the characters seem real enough for me, and you (should) genuinely be rooting for the story to have an outcome that you see fit. The action is honest enough, and the slippery-when-wet role that Hamm takes as the FBI lead definitely makes you seriously consider the fact that he will get his man (or in this case, men). The gunplay is honest, and the action is tight and compact in the downtown areas of Charlestown/Boston. Granted, it is in my nature to compare this film to The Departed, and that's not fair to this film. But here's another Boston criminal film in which you've got some good actors, a good story, and a good set of performances. The two are not in the same league, but they are in different years, and that's a good thing for The Town. Overall, I'd give it 6 Pieces of Gum. Worth a watch for sure if you're into the crime movies, especially if the story is rich enough not to be forced down your throat.

Possibly important info:

Film info, Official site
Rated R for language and violence, and scenes depicting sexual situations but everything is covered by either good camera work, sheets, or non-sexual body parts.

-D

The Expendables

2010-08-26T18:30:00.004-05:00

So what do you write about a movie with pretty much every action star of the last 20 years crammed into one film?

No idea - but asking the casting agent would be a great start...

So there's this film called The Expendables. About guys who are...wait for it...expendable. Yeah I just went there. So I'm going to do something I've never done in a review before: I'm going to give you a bullet point (double pun!) cast list and their most famous action roles. In italics, their role in the film.

Sylvester Stallone. Director. Writer. Rocky. Rambo. Tango. Dredd. Okay forget Dredd. But let's just say that for a minute or 2, this guy had the late 70s, all the 80s, and some of the early 90s in his pocket for action films. The latest revamps of his most famous roles aside, he was almost a requirement for about a 20 year run. Plays Barney Ross in this film, the leader of this group of guys that is called upon to fix problems that cannot be associated with any government agency.
Jason Statham. Lock, Stock and 2 Smoking Snatch while in the Transport of Crank for The Bank Job. Maybe not the safest use of the words "smoking" and "snatch" used back to back, but it drives the point home. Pretty much a go-to guy for an action flick in the last decade since the Lock. Stars as Lee Christmas, a man whose heart is open in this film, yet stays focused to the task at hand.
Jet Li. A Lethal Weapon that Romeo must Kiss the Dragon before the Cradle is Fearless in War against The Mummy. Plays a guy named Ying Yang, a small bundle of a pun since he's the quiet one but just happens to be more than 2 handfuls of destruction in hand to hand combat.
Dolph Lundgren. He's Universally known as The Swede who'll make ya bleed, and yes, he will "break you". Guys like this scare me. Almost turned down for the role of Ivan Drago in Rocky IV because he was too tall (6'5"), and he was offered a full ride to MIT. And he's got a few black belts in karate. Takes the role of the possibly twisted Gunner Jensen as your troubled one.
Randy Couture. Five. Time. UFC. Light-Heavy/Heavyweight. Champion. If he asks you to jump, you say "How high Mr. Couture?". A smaller role, but still in the film in the big scenes as Toll Road. Yes, the name is cool.
Terry Crews. Six year veteran of the NFL. Played President Camacho in Idiocracy. Provides enough comic relief to keep the body count in some sort of check. Another fantastic name of Hale Ceasar and packs an amazing AA-12.
Eric Roberts. A bad guy extraordinaire. He also works a ton, so if you start saying he's not good at what he does, check the man's worth ethic and see the roles he's played. There's not a struggling actor/waiter out there who wouldn't trade their apron for his resume'. Takes the role as former member of the CIA James Munroe.
Steve Austin. This man is Stone Cold and Condemned. Plays a quiet type simply named Paine.
Mickey Rourke. Yeah. An actor since the 80s who actually tried boxing out and had a comeback of all comebacks and loves little dogs. Tattoo artist and lover of the women, and of course, the one character who tries to get your heartstrings named Tool.
Bruce Willis. John McClane. That's enough for me. Cameo as Mr. Church.
Arnold Schwarzenegger. Conan the Terminator, who as a Commando, took out a Predator, then started Running Man, and that was a Total Recall to the second Terminator, and that's no True Lie. Well, he was also the Last Action Hero, Erased the End of Days on the Sixth Day with some Collateral Damage only to make another Terminator in 80 Days. Cameo as Trench.

So yeah.

I think there was a story here somewhere. I can't remember through the credits of this film. Yeah, it was about a small group of guys trying to do the right thing by stopping a very large group of questionably dumb bad guys in an all-out war.

Look, if you're going to this film expecting some Oscar worthy performances, I can stop you right now and just say that it ain't happening. If you raise your expectations to "I want to see an 80s-early 90s action film that'll entertain me for 2 hours", then I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

I'm going to give it 6 Pieces of Gum. A great way to end the summer, and I really would like to see more films like this out there. And, I do want to know who is going to be the action star of the next 10-15 years, because you know these guys are getting older. Where is my Rambo, Terminator, McClane of the the next decade? Where is my guy I can look to for entertainment - not crazy stories, but just flat out good times with some over the top action? I await your arrival good sir...

Possibly important info:

Film info, Official site
Rated R for language and graphic violence and a high body count. No nudity, however.

-D

Dinner for Schmucks

2010-08-08T14:38:00.004-05:00

Movie remakes are not uncommon. It's also not uncommon for the US market to get a film from overseas and remake the film with American actors and a tweaked story. That's exactly what Dinner for Schmucks is: an American remake.

Now, before you take that as a slap in the face to this movie's credit, you must understand I judge comedies very harshly. It's beyond unfair, as I've got a few comedies that no matter how many times I watch them, I still laugh and quote them on a daily basis ("It's an entirely different kind of flying, altogether.") I also have a thing about watching comedies on the opening night, simply because you can't catch all the jokes (which is not the comedy's fault). So, with all that being said, onto the review.

Paul Rudd plays your straight-laced by the books company man, who's trying to get a promotion, the corner office, and the increased pay to keep this 'cute artsy type' Stephanie Szostak happy at home. After a good meeting with the management team, he gets invited to their secret club: A dinner in which you bring the most 'interesting' (read: loser) person to a party, in which 1/2 the guests think it really is a get-together in a fancy home with a full staff, and the other 1/2 get to mock them. Rudd, against his girlfriend's 'who turns him down in marriage a few times' wishes, agrees to go but you can sort of tell that his conscience is getting the best of him. That is, until he runs into Steve Carell.

And I mean literally runs into him. With his Porsche.

Anywho, you get the drift. Carell plays the part of the uber-dork with the heart of gold. This guy is so oblivious to the world around him, that he doesn't really know how goofy he is until later. He also seems to have a fascination with taking dead mice and using his amazing skills in taxidermy and modelling to put them into some of history's significant events.

Aside from those three, Jermaine Clement plays a role as an alpha-male in art, who definitely makes you question his sanity as well. Or maybe it's because art is all in the eye of the beholder, and my beholding is a bit suspect. Zach Galifianakis also plays a role as Carell's coworker, which proves to be a bigger storyline towards the end of the film. And, personally, I think the movie should of involved a lot more of him. But, I can't change the film. I would have seriously enjoyed a lot more of Ron Livingston, who plays an office worker alongside Rudd.

Okay, so now we come to the part in which I tell you what I think. Well, the film itself is way above and beyond what I thought of another similar comedy this summer in which a few stars headlined what I thought would be a winner. I laughed a lot more, and squirmed a bit in my seat during a few scenes because it was just uncomfortable to witness. A few moments in which I stated to myself "Are you kidding me?" because it didn't seem like any human could be that stupid, but it wasn't completely outside the realm of possibility. I didn't laugh as much as other films, and I didn't walk out the theatre thinking this was THE comedy of 2010. But, it wasn't terrible, and for that reason alone it's worth a single viewing, in the format of your choice. All in all, I'll slide it 5 Pieces of Gum.

Possibly important info

Film info, Official site
Rated PG-13 for some language and innuendos.

-D

Predator / Predators (Original / Sequel)

2010-07-18T08:57:00.007-05:00

I love the 80s. I love when VH1 does the shows specifically about the decade itself. I love 80s movies, and I quote them more than I probably should. Heck when you start off the decade with (arguably) two of the greatest comedies ever made (Airplane and Caddyshack), it's bound to produce some good films.

One of those was Predator, starring two future state governors. Arnold Schwarzeneggar leads a pretty fierce group of special ops members into a Central American jungle to rescue a diplomat who could have desperately used Google Maps. The future California governor is accompanied by the future governor of Minnesota in Jesse 'The Body' Ventura. Bill Duke plays Mac, who's name you'll be used to hearing as the movie rolls on. And what 80s action movie would be complete without Carl Weathers playing the role of a CIA spook?

So the basic jist is this - go in and get this diplomat to safety right? I mean, what could go wrong?

Well first, the CIA has never been an organization that feels it should be 100% honest and forthright with information. Plus, what fun would it be to watch the best special ops guys in the world go up against some jungle guerrillas? Well, the movie would be over in 20-30 minutes.

So what do you need to rectify a 30 minute movie? Well, you need these guys to fight something that takes another 60 minutes to kill. And that something is singular. Just one. One.... (wait for it) .... predator.

The Predator is a trophy hunter to say the least. He likes to hunt, but he only hunts things that can fight back. Except he's bigger, loves trees, can cloak himself by bending light and projecting what you see behind him to the front of him. And yes, our government is working on this very type of concealment. He's also got a laser cannon mounted on his shoulder that appears to lock onto it's own targets when he deems necessary. So he's bigger, stronger, can climb trees, can go almost invisible, and has a laser cannon. What other advantages does he have? Oh, he can see the Infrared spectrum (aka your heat signature). Plus he seems to have mastered the technique of ripping your spine and skull out in a single pull.

Neat huh?

So how does one kill something that hunts humans for sport?

Well, if it bleeds....(hyper-green ooze)

This movie has it all. Great one liners, enough constant action to keep the you glued to the screen, good soundtrack, and of course, great fight scenes. The Predator is quick to learn new tactics, never making the same mistake twice. He's as cunning as he is noble, ignoring the civilian since she poses no challenge to him. A must have for anyone who considers him/herself an action movie fan. A very worthy 6 Pieces of Gum.

Possibly important info:

Film info
Rated R for language and graphic violence.

<><><><><><><><><><><>

So how do you take a film that gives you 6 solid pieces of gum and make a sequel/refresh of the franchise? Well, we had such fantastic (sarcasm) films such as Predator 2 and the AVP/AVPR film duo that really didn't do either franchise justice. Unleashing a hunter in a concrete jungle in the second film and giving us "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" of the other series just doesn't quite do it justice.

So we go to some fresh blood and take a new spin on this franchise (while trying to ditch the AVP series). Predators is about the hunters bring the game to a "preserve" of their own. You take some of the best Earth has to offer in terms of military, mercernaries, mafia et al and drop them square into a jungle in which you can hunt them without having to worry about interference. So you drop in Adrien Brody, Topher Grace, Walton Goggins, and every one's favorite Mexican Danny Trejo. And what film is complete without a female character who might put 2 in your skull before you know it: Alice Braga.

So you drop these 5 off with a few more people on a planet in which they have no chance of escape, toss in a trio of Predators, and bake for 107 minutes (with credits).

Well, you just try to continue in the story as best you can. Laurence Fishburne picks up your Col. Kurtz role as the guy who just maybe crossed that line between genius and insane. Well I think he forgot where the line was and couldn't find it now if he tried. He gives them some advice on how to survive, and then he gives himself some advice on not giving others advice. If he would have started knitting a sweater that wasn't there, it would be been completely appropriate.

All you have to do now is let nature run its course. The rag-tag bunch of humans versus not only themselves to some degree but against the Triplets of Terror in the Predators. Similar to the first film, it starts out a bit slow but works up to a faster pace as the clock ticks down towards the closing credits. If you can let your imagination wander far enough to believe that Topher Grace belongs in this club of killers, mobsters, and mercenaries, then you're perfect for this movie. If not, your brain may never make it out of first gear on this film.

My advice: If you're a die-hard action movie fan, see it. If you can wait for the rental or PPV, do that then. If you miss it, it's no big deal. Catch the original first and foremost before catching this one, as there are a few references back to the first one. A very respectable 4 Pieces of Gum for this one. When you judge it directly against the original, it loses some luster.

Possibly important info:

Film info, Official site
Rated R for language and graphic violence.

-D

Inception

2010-07-18T07:41:00.003-05:00

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. Trust me on this one. Also, the whole Peter Parker "With great power comes great responsibility", and in the case of Christopher Nolan, "With great film history comes greater expectations".

So, there's this film called Inception about the idea (double pun) that you can hop into someones subconscious and steal their secrets. Well, you can, unless you've paid a security consultant to actually teach your subconscious to defend itself. But that's the movie and trust me on this one, you don't want me to spoil anything here. So if I'm vague, I apologize, but you'll thank me later when you watch it twice.

And yes, I said twice. Heck it may take you more than that. Who knows...

Anyway, back to the review. Leonardo DiCaprio takes the lead in this film as Cobb, a troubled, slightly mysterious security consultant named Cobb who has a knack for your dreams. In more ways than one it would appear. Joseph Gordon-Levitt stands at his side as more than his sidekick as an expert in his own right. Together these two step into the battlefield of your mind to take away what you're so desperately trying to hide. For more complicated jobs, they need assistance with such characters as Tom Hardy, who peppers in his own brand of comedy in the story as almost a James Bond character. Dileep Rao, who's acting career has been fast tracked thanks to Avatar, picks up yet another role as a chemist who just happens to make sedatives designed to keep you way, way under. Ellen Page steps in as an architect, who has a knack for building your basic dream sequence. Oh, and what Nolan film would be complete without Michael Caine playing some advisory role?

Now, the story goes like this: Ken Watanabe, owner and operator of a company who wants to stay in business, needs to get his rival Cillian Murphy (from other Nolan films Batman Begins / The Dark Knight) to dismantle his empire so his monopoly doesn't jeopardize global operations. Not too hard right? Just make him want to break up his dying father's company.

Well, see here's the catch: Planting an idea is infinitely more complicated than stealing an idea. After all, you think of your own ideas. What does it take for someone else to think of an idea for you, and to make it stick in your mind?

Well, you've got over 145 minutes to figure that one out.

Disclaimer to movie theatre owners: I'm sorry for this next line but it's the truth.

If you're going to watch this film, don't bother getting any snacks that require you to take your eyes off the screen. And visit the restroom prior to the previews starting or before pressing play at home. Turn your phones off, make sure the kids are not there and other than the end of the world, stay focused on the screen at all times. This film requires you to be drawn in to understand it, and it requires some bit of common sense to understand. There are levels in this film. A quick and possibly unfair example as to what kind of understanding you need to have for this film: Think of that guy who can spin multiple plates on multiple sticks - you need to stay focused on all of them to keep them all up lest one of them falls. Same principle here - you need to keep your eyes on the screen and your rear in the seat. Candy and popcorn are fine, but if you drop a piece, let it hit the ground. I'd rather you leave with a buttery stain on your shirt than to wonder how much of the story you missed looking for that loose, butter (flavored, it's not real butter) kernel.

Now, I watch a lot of movies. It's like a hobby of mine. I also haven't paid for a lot of movies in the past 6+ years either. (Disclaimer - I've got a friend who works for a major movie theatre and he gives me untorn sheets of tickets, I used to work at a movie theatre, and now I've got friends that work there. This is all legal, so back off you Hollywood lawyers because I'm also a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment) I will be picking this one up, and probably on BluRay since I've yet to invest in the player. The visuals are precisely laid out, well enough to be a dream but not far enough out there like some science-fiction movie. The action sequences are clean, not that seizure-inducing 'Let's play hot potato with the camera around a fight' that is some films now, a la the last Bourne film. Even the audio track is great when it is needed, which is rare. This is not a film that needs the latest crap that people call music today to be over applied. In this case, less is more. Everyone out there has a favorite list, a top 10 or whatnot that you have.

Thanks to Mr. Nolan, I have to shuffle my Top 10 list around. I might give away this 8 Pieces of Gum to some movies that are entertaining, but I enjoy a great story more than anything else. To me, it's harder to write a movie with a great story than anything else. Actors come and go, and even an A-Lister can give you a B-performance when the story is not what it should be, or when the director is horrible (McG) or prefers a stick of C4 to hiring a better script writer (Bay). Now I unfairly raise my expectations up when I see certain names. Nolan's name is one of them. I raise it again when I see a trailer than piques my interest. This trailer did that. I advise you to check this film out on the big screen, and if your 'bigger screen' did not get flooded this past May, pony up the extra cash to see it there.

Possibly important info

Film info, Official site
Rated PG-13 for some violence and action pretty much throughout the film. Stealing dreams is a risky business.

-D

The Fourth Kind

2010-07-06T09:47:00.004-05:00

As a fan of horror/science fiction movies, I have some sick pride about watching movies that are meant to get you to jump out of your seat, to make your skin crawl, your date/girlfriend/wife clawing your arm at even the hint of something about to happen. I've watched a lot of bad ones, and just a few good ones. What usually makes a good horror movie is not the amount of blood or gore, but the amount of times your goosebumps grown goosebumps. Or the number of times you jump out of your chair. Or when you really, even as an aficionado, can predict what is going to happen next.

So when I see this film titled The Fourth Kind, I immediately thought of a similar film named Paranormal Activity. Both out in 2009, both using either home footage for either the film or segments, both having unexplained phenomenon, both equally messing you up.

According to the film (and the polarizing reviews from the public, either you absolutely loved it or absolutely hated it), this is based on the story of a doctor who has been filming people having trouble sleeping and finds out its all relative. I used the word based here because the director does a good job selling the idea that this is a true story with archival footage. Of course, the residents of Nome, Alaska blasts the opening of this film immediately when they show a picturesque shot of the beautiful Alaska frontier, when Nome is pretty much a flat, barren landscape.

Any who, back to the movie. Which is exactly what it is - a movie. While I highly enjoy documentaries and the like, a film mixed with archival footage next to real footage is a brilliant idea.

Almost too brilliant.

Seriously I was drawn into this movie and the way the split screen worked, was brilliant. The audio was even mixed into the appropriate channels, with the left screen playing only out the left speaker and vice versa. The video reenactments of the video enactments gave it a flair of madness, as your emotions are tied to both the actor replaying the "archival footage", which does nothing short of intensifying the "archival footage" to another level. The "archival footage" in question does get a bit creepy, and it'll definitely make you question your sanity (if you get engrossed in the film, if not you'll just be overly annoyed - again, this is a polarizing film).

While I was drawn into this film, one thing I did not understand was the simple fact that the police in Alaska must be some of the biggest goobers ever. At least, in the film they were. None of the police interaction made sense, and I've seen other small town police officers in film portrayed in the "I'm not a complete inbred redneck who's lost most of IQ points because my mom is also my sister" fashion. The logic that the police force used pulled me farther away from the story, and acted less as a plot point and more as a "Nobody can be this stupid" point. That aspect drew me away from the film, and it put haze over the remainder of the film.

In closing, if you let this film get under your skin, and just let yourself get engrossed in the movie, this film has the potential to really make you paranoid about being up late at night. Especially if you live in an area where white owls frequent. I'm going to give it a whopping 6 Pieces of Gum, simply because A) I let the film creep in and creep me out, and B) It would have gotten more if the opening scene didn't look like I implied Kansas looked like Key West.

Possibly important info

Film info, Official site
Rated PG-13 for some language and possible terror scenes.

-D

Grown Ups

2010-07-06T07:26:00.004-05:00

It's been something of a lackluster summer season so far, with half of the year over and less than a handful of movies I'd consider purchasing for home enjoyment. Even a few of those are dangerously close to being picked up for a single dollar for a night just to relive rather than shelling out the $15+ to have and to hold, in sickness and in health, as long as we both shall live.

This might just be one to use that spare change on in a few months, and save your weekend night for a better film.

Grown Ups follows around what appears to be a comedy all-star (or at least SNL all star) team in Adam Sandler, Chris Rock, Kevin James, Rob Schneider, and David Spade. These five men started out together as five young boys who played together on a basketball team, and have the unfortunate reunion at their coach's funeral. James being the only non-SNL alum on the cast fit right into this mix of comedians for this summer-friendly comedy. So how much comedy gold can one mine up in this mountain of potential laughter?

Well my guess is that they came up a few lodes short.

Lets start with the fact that you inherently raise the bar a few levels when you throw this much talent together for a film. You either come up with a fantastic film (maybe The Departed of comedy) or you end up getting a film where everyone phones it in. I'm not going to say they all phoned it in on this one, but the story felt forced into your lap and the 'tension' between the intra-family drama also could have been better served with a butter knife than the sledgehammer in its delivery. Sandler and his trophy wife Salma Hayek (who still looks fabulous on the southern side of 45) have a bit of work tension in the fact that they are both successes in their respective fields, and both spend so much time on work that their kids are beyond spoiled brats. James and his wife Maria Bello have a 48-month old who still enjoys getting the milk straight from the source (a fact that would have been funnier if it wasn't in the preview). Rock and his bride Maya Rudolph have the neo-family thing going, with Rock being the stay at home dad and Rudolph bringing home the bacon. Schneider marries someone old enough to be his mother, and Spade plays the swinging bachelor who still just might be 21. So you've got yourself a good slate in which to work for comedic effect.

Stealing a line from one of the most popular TV shows of all time: "It's not you, it's me." Maybe that's the case, but I didn't find this film to be that funny. Granted, I cannot separate this film in terms of the genre from previous comedies in terms of even The Hangover or even Zombieland. This movie has a good cast, a good premise, but maybe it's just my age (29), my advanced sense of humor (if you've never seen Arrested Development you're missing the single greatest layered comedy of all time in just 3 all-too-short seasons), or the fact that I think comedy today has changed from the slapstick past to the current sarcastic or uncomfortable comedy. Regardless of the effect, the slapstick comedy can still be effective when done properly with the right writers. Maybe I missed it, but in a theatre that was literally at capacity for the 7pm show on a Friday, I only know that the lady behind me thought this movie was the holy grail of comedy. Hey, whatever floats your boat. However, this one sunk mine. I want to give a shoutout to the friend that hooked me up with free tickets so I wouldn't have to pay for this, and I'm glad I didn't. I didn't laugh, and as a comedy that's your only job. I didn't get into the characters that much and I didn't really care if it all ended up nicely wrapped in a bow at the end or not. I believe the grip was just a bit too tight on the actors, and therefore they couldn't really let loose. Blame the writers or blame the director, but the someone has to answer for this lackluster comedy with such high expectations. Overall, 3 Pieces of Gum.

Possibly important info:

Film info, Official site
Rated PG-13 for some language, some sexual references, adult humor, and alcohol references.

-D

Toy Story 3

2010-06-27T12:15:00.003-05:00

In 2010, Hollywood is fresh out of original ideas. If you haven't been keeping track, we're getting remakes of movies less than 10 years old, scary movie refreshes, sci-fi series being turned into yet another movie series, and the comic book world is literally being taken from colorful frames to the silver screen. Most people despise sequels, taking the Mel Brooks Spaceballs approach of the sequel when he coined the subtitle "The Search for More Money." How right he was in I would say a good 2/3 of the movie franchises out there.

But when it comes to a production company who (in all instances except 2 in my eyes) does nothing but produce excellent films, sequels are placed on an even higher standard than the original. Pixar has the Midas touch. And they delivered once again in Toy Story 3.

Here is where I normally say something along the lines of "Yadda yadda yadda Tom Hanks Tim Allen blah blah blah" for a few paragraphs, praising the cast that Pixar seems to summon at will for all their movies. While I could do that, I could just summarize it all by saying "The voice casting is great."

Now, with the "great voice cast" aside, I can spend more of my lunch hour at work actually reviewing the movie. The one thing Pixar has a knack for doing is relating to both children and adults at the same time. They can have what I call 'kid-humor' in terms of on-screen gags with visuals, and then slide in a joke or reference to something that the older audience will get and will not have to explain to the kids. They also have a sixth sense in plugging into my only child brain in terms of my imagination. Everyone has that one (or in this case, 2 toys) that they remember carrying around everywhere they went, creating an emotional attachment that if you left it somewhere, you couldn't go to sleep or function as a kid because some part of your soul is missing. Parents understand this concept to the nth degree, when they cannot find the toy and their child is letting them have it verbally, piercing the eardrums and raising your anxiety simultaneously.

The story gets into all that, with Andy going off to college and his sister taking over his room. For anyone that has a sibling, you may have gone thru this. My parents blitzkrieged mine shortly after I made the transition. So he's got a difficult task at hand: What to do with all these items he's invested years of his life with at this crossroads of leaving the nest and starting life as an 'adult'. Unless your heart is a complete block of ice, I doubt most people reading this just up and tossed out their prized possessions. You probably had the same experience - toss the ones you don't care about and maybe, just maybe one day give your kids what you so valued (just to watch them toss 'em out instead for being 'old', but I digress). So begins our journey towards college.

Of course, fate has to intervene, or the story would just fall flat here. How all that transpires, Pixar will gladly explain to you for a small fee (or large, depending if you want to watch it IMAX or not). We see our stars get the daycare treatment, which is something every parent can appreciate if you've ever bought a child a toy and watched it take the abuse that is widely regarded as illegal by the Geneva Conventions. Then again, I actually had that solid metal Tonka truck that you could stand in the back as a kid, not these plastic knockoffs today that would probably crack under the abuse that I gave my metal one.

Needless to say, drama ensues.

I hate ruining movies, and I realize that sometimes my reviews a bit vague and might even flat out stink, but here's what I know - I know I don't ruin big moments for you (the viewer), I don't give away key plot points or spoil mystery guests, and I try to give you just a bit of the experience I had while watching it. You might shed tears, you will definitely reflect, and you'll definitely appreciate the time and effort for Pixar to pick this franchise back up over 10 years from the 2nd film. Overall, as to be expected from Pixar, I give it a good 8 Pieces of Gum.

Possibly important info:

Film info, Official site
Rated G - This means you can take everyone to see it.

-D

The A-Team

2010-06-12T22:36:00.003-05:00

Go ahead. You can start humming the theme song. Or you can start the voiceover that started every episode. I did, and it's fun. Plus it's kind of catchy, and it does tend to stick in your head for long periods of time. But it's better than this. Anyway, now that I've officially ruined your day (or made your day, depending on how you look at that clip if you clicked on it), let's get onto the review of yet another Hollywood original: The A-Team.

You got it right boys and girls, Hollywood is refreshing another 1980s TV series into a film. However there are a few changes from the TV to the movie. First, they aren't in Vietnam anymore. Can't refresh a franchise when you skip a few wars and lose all the cool technology that we have today. Now they are coming off the Iraq war. Second, you've got exactly four fresh faces to replace the TV crew. That's probably a good thing, and that's no insult to the original cast and crew. You and I both know that I don't need Mr. T knocking on my door. Replacing good ole BA Baracus is the MMA star Quinton 'Rampage' Jackson. Jackson does hold his own among this star-studded cast in this refresh, especially considering the fact that all 3 of his co-stars have had huge successes in the last year. Liam Neeson takes over the role of the mastermind extraordinaire Hannibal. Definitely drawing from his success on Taken, Neeson did very well in making the leader of this group his own. Providing the eye candy for the ladies as Face is Bradley Cooper, who most of the human race saw and pieced together what happened in Vegas in The Hangover. But the gem is the craziest of them all - Murdock, who is brilliantly played by Sharlto Copley, and I hope you thoroughly enjoyed him in District 9 as much as I did.

And just for the record, I find it entirely satisfying that I am finally able to start referencing my own reviews for actor's previous works.

So you've got a running time of around the 2 hour mark, you've got a film that is really more of just an amusement park ride than anything else. You're going to see over-the-top action sequences, amazing plans that make the leadership of BP jealous for solving any complicated problem, and enough comedy to warrant an outtake reel on the DVD release. To be honest, as of June 12, 2010, this is the best movie I've seen this year. Not that that is saying much because it seems that Hollywood has forgotten how to make summer blockbusters this year. Editing has a bit of that 'if we do enough crazy camera angles and cut it close enough it looks like crap is happening so fast that you can't watch it' sometimes, but sticks close enough to the main action so you can follow what is going on. There's enough of an explanation for you casual viewers to understand these complicated but flawless plans. The story is enough for even non-fans of the show (the 2 females that went with me both didn't watch the show) and enjoy it and follow the action.

Overall I really enjoyed the movie, and I'm actually hoping for a sequel. If you take it at face value for what it is, and set your expectations accordingly, then you'll enjoy it. I might regret it one day for now and we'll see what score I give it when I watch it again, but I think it's worth 7 Pieces of Gum.

Possibly important info:

Film info, Official site
Rated PG-13 for violence and language.

-D

The Road [SS]

2010-06-01T12:13:00.003-05:00

Apocalyptic movies tend to alienate people. Well, to be honest, a lot of movies tend to alienate people. I have to admit I was probably in the small percentage of the population who thought Avatar was just another basic love story. Maybe I was wrong, but what I do know is that Zombieland did a great job in the apocalypse theme. Granted, comedies are a much better way to view such a disturbing genre, but if it works, it works.

The Road is another in the long line of many and what is sure more to come. Viggo Mortensen plays the role of "father" in this father/son survival tale. Like most traditional families, the "mother" is played by Charlize Theron, who we see very little of in the film. As previously stated, this is the father/son survival tale. It's very heavy on the whole survival aspect in terms of showing you just how unforgiving most all apocalypse scenarios are, with hints of cannibalism and the general degrading of morals to some degree. Shows how tough the future is going to be when whatever happens in this film (which is never explained - kudos to the writer and director). This is not a very encouraging film, as it's very dark and probably not going to be a film you yank off the shelf to watch one night. After the initial viewing, I think it probably stays on the shelf. I'd recommend seeing it once, and after that its your discretion. However, the one viewing is good with 6 Pieces of Gum.

Possibly important info:

Film info, Official site
Rated R for language and violence.

-D

The Messenger

2010-05-24T11:03:00.004-05:00

War movies during a war tend to be very polarizing. Either they are amazing or they are completely horrible. A lot may depend on your stance on the war, your open-mindedness of the movie viewer, or the viewpoint of the film. What we have here in The Messenger is the view from the people who have to deliver the bad news to the family. The bad news, just so we're all clear, is that their loved one has been killed.

Woody Harrelson and Ben Foster take leads in this film that has no music on top of the scenes. Harrelson plays the veteran of the squad who must teach a freshly injured-but-recovering Foster the ropes of how to deliver such painful information. The rookie, since his time served in the military is too short for re-deployment and his recovery is still a work in progress, is given this assignment to keep him occupied for the next few months. The veteran has made the military his career.

So you've got your setup. Seasoned vet teaching a rookie the ropes. Delicate and emotional information. Wartime film. What could go wrong?

Well, in my opinion (as this is my blog) - Quite a bit.

First time director Oren Moverman does some good in this film. His use of no soundtrack allows you, the viewer, the ability to sink in every sound and breath and teardrop from the family receiving the information. He also uses a lot of long sequences, single shot, single camera takes to draw you into the scene, to place you there, since a lot of life (at least mine) is shot from just a single point of view without do-overs (I do wish I had a few of them).

However the one big issue, and the main reason for me judging this film the way I will in a few moments, is the fact that I don't really get to have that "over the edge" emotional moment. Yes, I get to see a few different reactions to the news from a few different families. But not one of them can close the deal for me. Take this with the effect that the movie itself doesn't really close the deal either. Look, I know that the entire premise for this film is to give horrible news to families, and give them some sort of honorable closure. But by the end of the film, I don't have my closure on what I'm supposed to expect from the main characters. Foster gets involved with a recent widow (creepy) and Harrelson is just a guy with a lot of pent-up aggression and emotion. While those long takes and no soundtrack drew me in, it also created the double-edged sword effect of making me want something the film couldn't offer me - an ending.

Yes I'm aware their jobs (delivering the news) is not going to end. But I wanted to see these 2, who played off each other as the mouthing-off rookie to the veteran, grow in some way beyond what was shoved in my face. For that reason, and for that reason, alone, I'm giving this film 4 Pieces of Gum. Harrelson did great, and the long scenes are fantastic, but you've gotta at least try to wrap it up, even with a little bow on top for your audience.

Possibly important info:

Film info, Official site
Rated R for language, nudity, some violence.

-D

Legion

2010-05-17T12:50:00.003-05:00

Well here goes yet another effort into what a quasi-apocalypse can look like. Angels with an attitude. Fellas that were not in the mood. I mean really, angels in the Bible have varying job descriptions, but all in all you really don't want to cross paths with one (in terms of being on the wrong side of the fence). Legion takes a (loose) look at what might happen if, let's say, God was just sick and tired of the human race.

With the head angel Michael, Paul Bettany delivers a very emotionally dry performance in which he basically tells God that he cannot carry out the task of eliminating the human race. Afterall, a single angel in the Old Testament went on a killing spree that Hitler would envy when (translation varies) 185,000 Assyrians bit the dust overnight. That's quite an impressive day's work. So what does an out-of-work angel do? Why, slice off those famous wings and take a stroll down mortal street. And where, pray tell, does a newly mortal immortal go for a good time? Try the middle of nowhere.

Dennis Quaid owns the shop/diner in the middle of nowhere, and plays the singular role of the "dream killer / reality-setter-in person". He drinks, he's divorced, and just a ball of fun at parties. Okay, so he's not. And what does every shop/diner need? Well, a very wise cook of course who knows the Bible. Someone call Charles S. Dutton! So we've got enough guys now, well, wait - we need a young stud who can (if he lives) help lead this new generation into the future. Lucas Black steps up into the role of hopeless romantic who loves a woman who doesn't love him.

Now the ladies. First, we need ourselves a pregnant woman, who might or might not be carrying the key to freedom. Adrianne Palicki goes blond and throws on that body-suit that just screams "About to pop!". Now we need an older woman, who can look elegant and seductive, yet royally pissed at the same time. Of course, you call Kate Walsh, fresh off that smaller screen success.

Wait a second! I forgot the token black guy! No, not Charles S. Dutton, but a younger black guy who may or may not be a thug. I mean, Star Trek killed off the redshirts in droves, and now a typical Hollywood feature sees the brothers and sisters of the darker skin usually not living till the credits roll. Tyrese Gibson hops into the Escalade (to thug or not to thug), pulls out his (what I can tell) to be his .45, and quickly assumes that role.

Now you're probably asking yourself: D - why did you go into so much detail about these characters? I didn't really. This is as much detail as you get into the movie. Because the character development is very low on the totem pole. This is another one of those movies in which I didn't care if the main characters all took the redshirt route or not. The only cool thing about this movie was the portrayal of the angels, in which basically their wings were bullet-deflecting pieces of awesome. Yet this same angel, who (stick with me thru the second paragraph) can slice and dice an entire Assyrian army in one night yet can't knock off a pregnant woman? So there goes your story line and your plot.

Look, I spent a single dollar on renting this film, and wish I had both it and my time back. The performances are equal to the story, which is bad. I suggest staying away from this unless you have a real interest in either the story, any one of the characters, or angels. I'm going to slap a very deserving 2 Pieces of Gum on this one and give it 2 for the fact that they tried.

Possibly important info

Film info, Official site
Rated R for language and violence.

-D

Iron Man 2

2010-05-08T00:56:00.004-05:00

I find it strange that I'm reviewing the sequel before the original, but that's the way it goes when you have a job, a wife, and other responsibilities that come before doing a blog about movies that is more about a passion for the films than paying the mortgage. Whatever the case, here I am now on opening night reviewing the first Summer blockbuster of 2010: Iron Man 2.

For those that have been living under a rock the past 2 years, Iron Man opened up the 2008 Summer season with low expectations. Needless to say, it blew both the audience away and the critics as well, resurrecting the career of one Robert Downey Jr similar to that of a phoenix or religious figure. Directed by Jon Favreau, the first film struck a chord to audiences that this was just a man with all the toys in the world, but beneath the suit is just a regular guy (aka not someone with super powers just sans the suit - see Batman).

The sequel picks up immediately following the original, with the news cast stating that he (Tony Stark) is Iron Man. But with the lack of a true villain in the first film (nothing wrong with Jeff Bridges' interpretation or anything, but he wasn't the true center of evil, just a businessman with bad ethics), we have to have some sort of head to hang this hat on. I mean, the bar is set pretty high thanks to The Dark Knight in terms of second film bad guys (that other 2008 summer blockbuster). Favreau turns to none other than another phoenix in Mickey Rourke, who apparently defines the term "hardcore method actor". Rourke opens the film off, showing his determination and his genius in terms of wanting to rid the world of Stark and....well, just watch the film.

Gwyneth Paltrow returns as Pepper, the trusted assistant (more than just a friend?) that keeps the billionaire playboy Stark in line. But you're going to see some new faces on the silver screen. Scarlett Johansson steps up into the comic book universe, and a personal favorite thanks to a brilliant (in my opinion) turn in Galaxy Quest, Sam Rockwell. Taking the place of a departed cast member (for whatever reason I have no idea nor do I want to know) is Don Cheadle, who picks up the reins as Rhodey. And what film is complete without an "after the credits" appearance by a now black man Nick Fury played by Samuel L Jackson?

Look, as in any sequel to an extremely successful entry, the bar is set extremely high. Add on top of that the entire film industry's measuring stick for Summer success, and then raise it higher thanks to teasers and trailers put out by the studio, and dash in some unrealistically high fan-base expectations. I can think of only a handful of films that have even come remarkably close to this bar or surpassed it. Will this film do it? I think time and box office revenue will tell. I enjoyed Rourke's dark portrayal of Whiplash. I mean, the man went to Russian prisons to get inspiration, and got Russian prison tattoos on his body (temporary) just to make it look more legit. He even spoke Russian in the film. He was dark (not as demented as The Joker, but that performance was epic!), he was focused, and he was intelligent. My concern is when you get 2 really intelligent people in a room together, it can have the same setup as putting 2 great defensive football teams on the field: If you like touchdowns and offense, you're going to have a bad day.

Overall, this film digs deeper into the whole "I'm the reason why we have world peace" thing and what sort of effect it can have on your mind. I think if you're not from another planet (literally Superman) then you're probably going to need a hand at some point. After all, it can be lonely at the top. The quick wit of Stark is still on display, as well as the comedy and action sequences. Overall I'd say it's a pretty decent way to fire off the Summer season. I'd say see it, and stay after the credits. A very solid 6 Pieces of Gum, and yes I'm comparing it to the first film, so back off.

Possibly important info:

Film info, Official site
Rated PG-13 for mild language and some intense action scenes.

-D

The Backup Plan

2010-04-25T00:07:00.002-05:00

Ah yes, the factory out in Hollywood has churned out yet another formulaic female film. The "chick flick", as most people observe, is a film that is written expressly for the female gender. While it may have humor that the male species may enjoy, this is what you call the "date movie" as it is safe play for any date. No slasher film, no intense scary scenes, no gore or extreme violence, and no nudity and/or sexual scenes.

While none of aforementioned items would improve the quality of this film, there's still a lot wrong with this movie. The Backup Plan stars Jennifer Lopez, who can't decide whether she wants to sing or act full time, as a successful single woman (How this is possible only Stephen Hawking can explain) who is just desperate to fill the void in her life by introducing someone else to drive me crazy in traffic to this world. Alex O'Loughlin plays the romantic interest that is required by this formula to be introduce at the most inopportune time.

From this point, I'm going to be vague because, well, the movie itself is kind of vague. Point to out those prospective screen writers: Write clear character histories! Do we know how Jennifer Lopez stayed single? It has to be a clear conscious decision for a woman of her magnitude of both wealth (in the film) and her looks (in and out of the film) that I can only imagine that the red-blooded straight male would have to be killed to not date her. You can't make this woman look homely. Strike one for the writers.

Strike two is this: The relationship feels forced. Look I'm all about some divine intervention, and you can call it fate or chance if you like. But I live in a decent sized city, and the odds of me running into a strange woman twice in what I can only assume is a matter of days blows my mind. Alex plays the part I would play - close this deal. I mean, you gotta lock that down.

Here's the 3rd strike: I didn't think this movie was all that funny. My wife enjoyed it, so you've got that for your "fair and balanced" reporting. But she's not writing this review. I am. I laughed only at the scenes that involved one of my favorites in Anthony Anderson, who is listed only as "Playground Dad". The scenes that attempt to be humorous feel forced and at times, over the top. A scene in which a woman is giving birth is playing to all the cliches out there that this is a very rough, traumatic, painful experience that no man could ever understand or comprehend. While that maybe true, you can look at all kinds of videos online that show smooth, scream-free women producing children into this world.

Look, if you're wanting to take the lady in your life to see a movie, wait for a better one than this, or pickup another film. Jennifer and Alex do what they can, and they really do appear to be giving this film at least some of their "A" game, but poor writing is what it is. Putting A-1 on a turd is still just an A-1 covered turd. I'm going to give it 2 Pieces of Gum, with the catch that females may enjoy this movie more than I ever will. But don't say I didn't warn you.

Possibly important info:

Film info, Official site
Rated PG-13 for sexual content and some language. It's a movie about a woman getting pregnant - what do you expect?

-D

Public Enemies

2010-04-13T13:13:00.004-05:00

I'll tell you what this world needs: More epic gangster films. Big names. Big story. Big directors. A touch of history. Yep, this is the recipe for success. Well, it worked for The Departed, so why wouldn't it work here?

Public Enemies is a tale of faithful criminal, who appears to have won the hearts of the American public in a time of desperation. John Dillinger, played by one of Hollywood's hottest and most eccentric actors in Johnny Depp, is a bank robber who only takes what the federal government insures, and leaves customers and their money to leave a legacy of "one man fighting THE man". And in the other corner, playing the G-man with the plan Melvin Purvis, is Christian Bale, still fighting crime, but this time without the cape.

Add in a spice of director Michael Mann, which he did one of my all time favorites (Heat), and you've got yourself a cast and crew. Now all you need is the story.

And this is where I kind of stopped caring. Depp and Bale both portray their respective characters on screen very well, but I think the movie forced the "Love the bad guy - please let him win!" down my throat a little too much. It also makes Bale out to be a strong leader, but the efforts of the other G-men around him look borderline stupid. Granted, this may be historically accurate, but it just lends to the "Bad guy wins because Good is dumb" rule from Spaceballs. This clocks in at over 2 hours in length, and I think it could have shaved an easy 30-45 minutes off of the run time and probably been a much better film. Rarely do I see this level of talent both in front and behind the lens combine to under perform to this degree.

My first reaction to this movie is "Starpower". My reaction after I see this movie is ".....". After picking this up from a colored box at a fast food place, I decided that I should stick with my gut and the reaction after the film, taking the actors and characters and story that I saw, and not spotting it any points, and give it 4 Pieces of Gum. I didn't feel it during this movie, and at times caught myself spacing out during it. Remember, this is my opinion and should not take away from yours. Use this for what you will.

Possibly important info:

Film info, Official site
Rated R for violence and language.

-D

Date Night

2010-04-13T12:29:00.003-05:00

The problem for married couples can sometimes be routine. Get up, take care of the kids, fix everyone breakfast/lunch/dinner, and once they are in bed, you just might get yourself some free time. At least, this is the routine for our leading couple in Date Night.

A comic pairing of former Second City alums in Steve Carell and Tina Fey probably pairs 2 of the best comics performing on the small screen today. While both have their shows on the same network, it took the big screen in order to pair them up for this comedy about the routine. However, nothing routine happens on their night to break out of their rut.

Director Shawn Levy (of recent NATM2 fame) takes this cast and gives them the standard issue Hollywood plot: Married couple in a routine for years needs something to break out of it, and they decide to forgo their usually habits and head to a ritzy restaurant in the city and steal the reservation of a couple and then it all goes downhill from there.

Okay, so you've got your plot, and your characters lined up. Now for the story. So far, you've got 2 comics at the top of their game, a director with recent success in family comedies, and a standard issue generic Hollywood plot. Now, you just need the comedy. Can Carell and Fey deliver the goods? I'm going to say yes.

The story starts out with your star couple seeing another one of their married friends going their separate ways: Mark Ruffalo and Kristen Wiig. This sets in motion their need to break free of their routine, and be more than just roommates. After heading out to the restaurant in which it appears you need an act of Congress to get a reservation, they snake a table when the other couple fails to appear. Enter in your bad guys Jimmi Simpson and Common. Also throw into the mix Mark Wahlberg, James Franco, Mila Kunis, and even Ray Liotta. Not a bad little crew. All of these characters play into the story and plot, and all work their characters in very well. Hard to dig up much more than this before I start spoiling subplots and running jokes.

Bottom line: You're going to see a comedy by adults, for adults, without the full adult rating. There are some jokes that only adults will get, comedy for all in terms of slapstick, and a few lines thrown at you pretty fast so stay on your toes and in your seat. Overall, I'll give this film a solid 5 Pieces of Gum. My wife loved it more than me and might object to just 5 pieces, but in terms of outstanding comedies, I'm still measuring them all against The Hangover. Date Night is a solid entry into this year's movie calendar, and will probably enjoy good success once it leaves the theater.

Possibly important info:

Film info, Official site
Rated PG-13 for some language, sexual references, a drug reference.

-D

Clash of the Titans (2010)

2010-04-03T14:30:00.004-05:00

Mythology. Titans. Gods. Man. Gods having sex with man, creating half-gods/half-man spawns. The battle of good .vs. evil, light .vs dark, yadda yadda yadda.

Clash of the Titans, an almost identical remake bearing the same title in 1981, is another (in my opinion) direct result of the writer's strike of 07-08. What is my reasoning? Well, this is about the time it takes to get a script together, cast, editing etc until you get the film released into theaters. This also explains why an extremely popular wizard franchise had their film moved from Christmas 2009 to Summer 2010, because they are seriously worried that this summer just my stink for movie studios. In my opinion, they are right.

Let's start with the simple fact that I haven't seen the original. If this movie is as much of a remake as I've read on other sites and magazines, I count that as a huge blessing. I actually forgot to call a friend of mine to come see this with me on opening night, and I will tell him that he owes me for not making him watch this crap.

In case you can't tell by my obvious writing, I'm not going to give this film my highest regards. Sam Worthington, formerly of Avatar, stars as the main character Perseus, the half-man/half-god offspring of the horndog named Zeus, which the movie will tell you all about mythology. Zeus is played by the amazing Liam Neeson, and he's one of the 2 good performances for this movie. The other is played by the brother of Zeus, Hades, giving a very dark yet quick performance by Ralph Fiennes. You've got a love interest/guide in Io, played by the Gemma Arterton (the latest "Bond girl").

Okay, so I've got your main characters out of the way. Let's get to the story.

Imagine watching a 3 hour movie, but fast forward on 2x speed on your DVD player about every 5 minutes for 1 minute at a time. That's what this movie feels like. One minute, our star Perseus is a baby, the next, he's 12, and the next, he's 25-ish. Then, a very big plot point happens, and you've got 10 days until the climax of the film. Minutes later, you're 3 days off. Time passes, and you're on the day it all hits the fan. The story feels crammed down your throat, with no character development whatsoever. Once again, not seeing the original, I could care less whether Perseus lives or dies, or any other character for that matter.

The special effects might have been awesome, but I saw the 2D version. Thank God for that, because I just would have paid more money for watching the 3D version and been even more upset. I know the manager at the theater I went to see this film, and I told him that he owed me a good movie. This is not that movie. Do not waste your money to see this, and I wouldn't even drop a single dollar to rent this from a colored box at your local fast food chain. It's bad, and I'm sorry that I wasted both time and money on this. Louis Leterrier owes me $10.50. I give this movie 2 Pieces of Gum. One for the comic relief of the guy who's name I don't know, and the other for some half-way decent CGI. Overall, avoid it.

Possibly important info:

Film info, Official site
Rated PG-13 for violence.

-D

2012

2010-03-29T21:36:00.002-05:00

Ah the inevitable disaster epic. Nothing like a literal earth shattering movie just to make you feel all.....

What? You're expecting warm and fuzzy?

So you get the movie 2012. A movie literally about the destruction of the earth by the sun's energy. Who better to make this movie than Roland Emmerich, who's been involved with the following films: Independence Day, Godzilla, The Day After Tomorrow, & 10,000 B.C. This guy seems to have ample experience in destroying either the entire world or major cities.

Of course, what's the one thing most of these movies really have none of? If you said "Paper thin plot, character, and story development" then you're absolutely correct.

Let's start with the positive of this movie: A special effects budget that would probably bail Arkansas out of debt. Amanda Peet looking very fine. John Cusack playing the hero role. Woody Harrelson playing the nature freak.

And that's the positives.

Let's start with the negatives. Okay, I'm a fan of over the top special effects, and it appears blatantly clear that Emmerich is as well. There's nothing wrong with this. See Avatar. What I don't understand is the complete lack of character development. Here's my example, and this pretty much sums up the entire movie: I watch a good portion of the state of California fall into what appears to be a very large crack in the earth, and in that good portion of the state is probably at least 50,000 people. I can't care about any of those people who just died, their families, their kids. But I'm supposed to care about a single character and his chance to prove to his kids that he's worth something?

Sorry Emmerich - I don't buy it one bit.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you're going to see a lot of "Lets kill around 6,000,000,000 people" and attempt to draw you closer to the main characters because.....

Sorry, I can't figure that one out either. This movie has no story arc, no character development worth mentioning, and you're supposed to look at the screen going "Oh wow did they really just fly under a subway? Too cool!". I didn't buy it, I didn't buy this movie, and I wouldn't recommend buying this movie. If you're completely bored and want to drop a single dollar on it, well the only good thing is that it's over 2 hours 20 minutes long. So at least you'll be leaving your dull life for 2+ hours only to return wondering "Boy am I glad I didn't buy this."

3 Pieces of Gum. One for each actor listed in the positive comments.

Possibly important info:

Film info, Official site
Rated PG-13 for some language and of course, lots and lots and lots of death.

-D

Hot Tub Time Machine

2010-03-27T15:19:00.003-05:00

Who didn't love the 80s? Some of the best movies and movie franchises shined in the 80s. That music, that hair, those outfits. Let's face it, the 80s were awesome. So why not take advantage of that awesome soundtrack and Reaganomics and see what happens?

Hot Tub Time Machine happens. John Cusack, Craig Robinson, Clark Duke, and Rob Corddry star in this comedy about 4 guys who happen to be doing some male bonding in a hot tub that just happens to be a time machine. Four guys, three of them friends and 2 of them related all travel back in time to 1986, with a lot of questions about how they would look, what interactions would take place, yes the whole "linear timeline" that a lot of movies and TV shows have tried to keep intact.

However, what happens this go round is not exactly the same exact plan as the first try. In fact, they seem to be doing the exact opposite of what other "back in time" movies try to do. Instead of trying to preserve the timeline, the friends appear to be throwing caution to the wind. However, for the young one of the bunch, his entire life is in peril. Will he be born? Why does he keep phasing in and out of time? Will the other 3 care about facing some decisions in their past to help him stay in their future?

Well, that's why you watch it. Look, this movie doesn't go into a lot of the depth in other "time travel" movies. They appear to everyone else as their younger selves, which explains why you don't have stand-ins for the entire film. The whole "butterfly effect/chaos theory" is touched on, but it's a comedy - if they wanted to have a serious discussion about the ramifications of their actions, it would be a drama. Just make me laugh. And it did.

Mad props to the director for pulling a few actors who helped define the era in terms of comedic genius Chevy Chase and a favorite of mine, Crispin Glover. Running jokes with the latter throughout the movie.

Look, this film is definitely worth a look. Some have compared it to The Hangover and said it's better. While I don't see eye to eye with those critics, it probably is the best comedy of 2010 to this point. Granted, we're close to just being 4 months into the year, but this is worth a watch. I caught the first show on Saturday, so the theatre was almost empty (Mostly true for Rated R comedies), so I didn't have to experience the whole "Oh man that was so funny" and other annoying things other people do at comedies. I was able to catch all the jokes, and that made it a better experience for me. I think it's worth a solid 5 Pieces of Gum, and while I did laugh at some of the scenes, the constant language was just thrown in for filler instead of actual joke content. I would have not hesitated to give it 6 if it weren't for the language.

Possibly important info:

Film info, Official site
Rated R for language, nudity (women's frontal, men's rear), a pair of sexual acts and implied sexual acts, drug and alcohol use. If you take your kids under 17 to see this, you're a moron.

-D

Precious

2010-03-22T22:29:00.003-05:00

Ah yes - nothing like the underdog story. In this case, the underdog has packed on a few pounds, and a few kids. In this story, the underdog is truly Precious.

The story of an overweight, illiterate, pregnant teenager in Harlem is definitely one of a challenging nature. On one side, you're looking at how tough life can be for someone who literally hasn't caught a break her entire life. The other shows you that sometimes, even though you can try to make your own breaks, sometimes you just don't. Just because you go to class doesn't mean you pay attention.

Gabourey Sidibe plays the lead character of Precious, and plays it very well. Not bad for a rookie. Granted, her plight is something that not everyone can pull off. In about half of the scenes, she shows a "could care less if the world ended tomorrow" look, and in others you can start to see some of the hope that is within. While I'm not taking anything away from her whatsoever, this is truly a case of when you get a great, edgy story that is well written for the screen and you surround a new actress with "one part raw talent" of Paula Patton and "one part life on the edge of insanity" in Mo'Nique, then you're liable to come up with a very good onscreen performance.

Look, Mo'Nique flat steals some of the scenes she's in, which is why she deserved the award for Best Supporting Actress in 2010's Oscars. Some of the scenes are powerfilled rage, others a void of caring, and the finale is one of pity and self-deprecation that cannot really be described.

Another scene stealer is one you may recognize if it wasn't for the "lets take the diva out of her element" - Mariah Carey. Someone else sneaks in playing a male nurse, in which I didn't recognize but my fantastic wife called out immediately "That's Lenny Kravitz!!!!!!" So I had to have a talk with my wife and get her a bottle of water because she finds him unbelievably attractive. And yes, I was in the room. Pray for me, oh people of the internets!

What you're going to view may be a bit tense for those with sensitive hearts, and those who have been abused by parents (physically, sexually, psychologically). This is definitely a film that needs to be seen just on the onscreen elements alone being very well meshed together by fresh Lee Daniels.

While I don't think I'll be throwing this in the DVD player again just for something to watch when I'm bored, I do think it's worth a rental and definitely worth $1. I'm going to give it 5 Pieces of Gum. Watch it once, because it's worth the one viewing. Make sure the kids are out of the house.

Possibly important info:

Film info, Official site
Rated R for graphic language, child abuse and sexual assault.

-D

District 9

2010-03-09T11:35:00.004-06:00

Wow its amazing how many films I didn't review in 2009, that I saw in 2009, but are coming back at me full force in my review of 2009 and preview of 2010.

District 9 is one of those films that slipped thru a crack in my mind but shouldn't have. I shouldn't treat a movie so original as poorly as I did.

Directed by an unknown starring unknowns. Filled with mystery and intrigue and a look at ourselves on the silver screen, District 9 is a movie about an alien race who happens to have literally stalled on Earth. Obviously nobody taught them how to pop the clutch. Anyway, as their spacecraft entered our atmosphere, it stopped over Johannesburg, South Africa, which has seen its fair share of racism.

You're going to get inside the camp in which this new alien species now resides. You're going to look at a civilization forced to live like second class citizens (let me know if I can stop the tangents to actual issues in the world present and past) and in a culture in which their voices are not heard and frankly not cared about whatsoever. Typically, the government (which one) wants their technology, people are profiting by crime inside this quarantine zone, and I bet you there's going to be some "research", like the Nazis did on the Jews in the Second World War (in which some of our medical knowledge is based upon the horrors committed on the Jews).

You're also going to get a look at ourselves. What might we do if an alien species actually needed our help, but landed over a country that isn't exactly in the Top 10 best countries in the world? How do you finance an entire species that doesn't pay taxes but expects protection and food? How do you police them, maintaining your own race's security and comfort while keeping the lines clearly drawn in the sand?

All fantastic questions. Loved this movie! The camerawork was great, mixing in steadycams with overhead shots from news choppers, to the ever-growing love of the chase cam over terrain. The acting is believable, and the story is almost too real for some. Might get a little motion sick to some, similar to levels in the Bourne trilogy. Still, a great movie to watch if you want to consider a real life answer to a sci-fi question. For me, this gets 7 Pieces of Gum. Love the fact that it's not star-driven and relies on what humans already know, what we are already comfortable with, and what we probably would do if this ever occurred.

Possibly important info:

Film info, Official site
Rated R for language and graphic violence.

-D

Inglourious Basterds

2010-03-09T10:37:00.004-06:00

Ah yes, the profitable realm of the Second World War. The epitome of good and evil, light and dark, east and west.

It also has the potential to make an epic ton of money for movie studios when you make a good film that can accurately portray the events that transpired during this 6 year conflict.

Or, you can have a boatload of fun if you decide to tweak the results just a bit. . .

Quentin Tarantino directs and writes this colorful, altered version of history in a way that no one else can. Inglourious Basterds, wrong in spelling but right in so many other ways, is the story of a team of Jewish Nazi hunters (something my high school guidance counselor failed to mention) who are roaming the European countryside just flat scalping Nazis. Literally. I can't make that up.

Brad Pitt leads this team of Jew rebels in a southern redneck sort of way. Heck just the way he says "Nah-zee" is worth the price of admission alone. In his clan of Nazi slayers (speaking to all you Wolfenstein players out there), you've got a pretty unique assortment of players including Eli Roth. But, these are just one part of a bigger story.

You see, there's this Nazi played by an "unknown in the States but recognized in Europe" named Christoph Waltz. In fact, it was played so well that Mr. Waltz received an Oscar for his portrayal of Col. Hans Landa, aka "The Jew Hunter". When he's in the scene you're watching, you don't want to take your eyes off him but you're concerned with all life around him at the same time. Every eyebrow raise or cheek muscle that pulls a smile is done to perfection. His eyes can simultaneously mesmerize you and make you uncomfortable in your seat.

Another newcomer to American cinema is Melanie Laurent, who plays a cinema owner in Paris. While I could give away who she is and her grand scheme in the movie, well, that just wouldn't be nice of me. However she plays her part well, and I love the scene in which she gets all dolled up in her red dress (for film reasons you immature readers). More eye candy in this film in the film of Diane Kruger, who plays the attractive German film star. Hey she's got the last name and attractive down, so I'm down with that.

So, in closing, if I am indeed closing this review, if you're a fan of QT's films you'll like this. Heck my wife, who would not be inviting Mr. Tarantino to any parties we're having in the next century, even enjoyed this movie. Good scenes, still dialog driven (most of QT's films are), and interesting choices in soundtrack. I'm going to give it a good ole 7 Pieces of Gum.

Possibly important info:

Film info, Official site
Rated R for language and violence. Scalping of Nazis and Jews being killed. Welcome to World War II

-D

2010 - Thoughts, Reflections, Previews

2010-03-09T10:31:00.008-06:00

Okay so the Oscars are over.

Time for the next round. Time for the next year of escapism.

2009 saw me scared out of my mind thanks to a $15,000 budget in Paranormal Activity. I was also amazed at the jobs some people in this world have to perform thanks to nutjobs in The Hurt Locker. I was also amazed at how Mike Tyson still has it, and how yet nobody has explained the chicken in The Hangover. I also had the most fun ever on an opening night in a theatre watching the midnight showing of Zombieland that was sold out with 2 great friends. I enjoyed a small historical re-write thanks to some Inglourious Basterds. I even sat and started the first hour of Avatar in 2009. I saw an alien race stall over South Africa in District 9, and got an intriguing look at what could happen to us.

So what does 2010 have in store for us?

Granted this is a very basic look at some of the movies coming out this year, since the year doesn't really start until the first weekend of May anyway. Well, for movies at least. Blockbusters. The summer box office season.

I'll go by the months to start.

March has us looking at She's Out of My League, Repo Men, and Hot Tub Time Machine. Not holding my breath on any of these, especially with The Hangover still so fresh in my mind, so take them at face value. They are also being released before the summer months. None of these are family friendly, so if you drag your kids to see a 20-something movie about dating a hot woman, or people removing organs because you can't pay your bill, or 4 guys in a hot tub going back in time, well you're not going to be on my list for "Parent of the Year".

April sees us remaking films and sequels. Clash of the Titans, Date Night, Death at a Funeral, The Losers, Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps, and A Nightmare on Elm Street. Clash is a remake of a 1981 movie with the same name involving humans and the gods from Greek mythology going to war. Date Night looks to be a PG-13 comedy with Steve Carell and my geeky goddess of comedy, Tina Fey, on a date night with seriously mistaken identity. Death at a Funeral is a remake of just a few years past (literally, like 3), this time with far less British people and far more black people - same exact story. The Losers looks to be an action flick with a twist, except I can't figure it out. Everyone's favorite stock broker Gordon Gekko returns in Wall Street, and I bet you $100 he can get us out of a recession better than Obama. And, to cap it all off, A Nightmare on Elm Street remake for this generation - because killing him a few times and even having a Freddy .vs. Jason movie just wasn't enough.

May. My beautiful May. Iron Man 2. Literally this is the only movie I really and truly care about seeing in May. May 7, 2010. I could watch a 4th Shrek, yet another Robin Hood, or (more than likely) another pathetic video game-to-movie crossover in The Prince of Persia. But the only man I want to see is Tony Stark. This is my most anticipated May movie release. Look, nothing against the other films, but the thought of Robert Downey Jr suiting up again just makes me tingle all over. All I'm saying - don't hold your breath past May 7 for more great May releases. I might be wrong, and I'll eat the humble pie if I am, but this is just my opinion.

June. Now I'm approximately 3 months out there, and I've seen very few trailers for most of these, so I'm just going to go with what I've seen or what I know. The A-Team, another remake of one of the best TV shows the 80s could have given us. And the safest best of the month: Toy Story 3. Pixar can't go wrong with Tom Hanks and Tim Allen back in the saddle and spacesuit.

I promise I'll have more when it gets closer to May. But for right now, this should get you enough info to tide you over.

Oh wait - I forgot one.

December. Tron Legacy.

There - my life is almost complete.

More to come in April!

<> <> <> April Update <> <> <>

April showers bring May flowers and yadda yadda yadda. April also brings movie previews for summer releases.

Lets go thru SOME of the titles I've learned about.

Survival of the Dead. From George A. Romero, king of "the Dead" movies and original creator of the zombie franchise. We'll see, but I've liked the other series enough to stay involved, but Zombieland may have ruined me!

The Expendables. Otherwise called "Maybe the greatest action film ever made"? Who knows, but the laundry list of actors on this film blows my mind, and hopefully it's got a HALFWAY decent story.

Predators. A refresh of the franchise, with none of the originals. Impressive cast from the trailer, and looks pretty good.

The Human Centipede. I know, I know. Seek help.

Meadowoods. DVD release of what looks to be "The Blair Witch" but of people murdering another human and filming it all.

The Crazies

2010-03-07T23:26:00.005-06:00

I'm a sucker for apocalypse movies. Whether they are weather based, war based, alien based, or zombie based, a good "end of the world" film always gets me feeling all warm and fuzzy. I guess it's the whole "last chapter of the Bible" thing or the fact that its the "fear of the unknown". Either way, The Crazies is a movie I had to see when the trailer crawled up the screen for another film.

Let's start with the cast. Timothy Olyphant plays the sheriff of this pitifully small town of under 1,500. I'm looking forward to seeing him in the upcoming F/X series Justified (with my boy Walton Goggins!). Playing the sheriff's wife and the town's doctor is Radha Mitchell, who has done some scary movies in her past.

The story is set in that pitifully small town in which people just start to go, well, crazy. Is this zombie based or alien based? Was it a crazy experiment gone wrong or is it the government doing a test on a small town that nobody will miss? Is this the end of the world? Is this a declaration of war? Is this an accident or intentional?

Watch the movie to answer that question. Geez I can't watch them all and tell you to watch them all or not.

Long story way too short here - this is a remake of a 1973 film with the same name. After seeing a horrible "comedy" to start the weekend, I ended it with this one. I liked this one better. Could it have been better? Yes, but very few apocalypse style films rarely deliver from opening credits till the end. Most of them leave you hanging or they give you a teaser as to "what really happened" and might even "set you up for a sequel". I'm having a "I use quotes too much" moment right now. Is this the greatest 'zombie' type apocalypse made? Nope, check out this movie for that. Is this worth a rental or matinee? If you like the genre, yes. It won't blow your mind, but you won't want to blow your mind out of your skull if you watch this. A respectable 4 Pieces of Gum.

Possibly important info:

Film info, Official site
Rated R for violence and language. Expect bodies, lots of them.

-D

Cop Out

2010-03-07T23:06:00.003-06:00

Ah yes, another buddy-cop movie. Just what the world needs. But wait, this is a comedy! With Bruce Willis as one half of the buddy-cop equation. So what do you title this comedy about police officers who have a love-sorta annoy relationship? Cop Out of course! How clever!

Directed by indie-cult-classic Kevin Smith, our everyman action hero John McClane, I mean Bruce Willis teams up with Tracy Morgan for this comedy shot in New York about a pair of police detectives who seem to find trouble (if you're thinking about Lethal Weapon, that's because you are) without looking for it.

This is the classic buddy-cop comedy with a bit of action without the comedy. Yeah, I laughed once or twice throughout this entire movie. I know I laughed at the end, because it was over and I was happy I could move on with my life. Bruce did a good job, but I just don't find Tracy funny. I don't know what it is, but I just don't find him to be laugh out loud funny. I didn't enjoy his comedy on SNL, and I don't watch 30 Rock. Not for religious reasons - I just don't watch that much TV anymore, especially since TV (Fox) killed off Arrested Development, the greatest TV comedy ever made and I'd be willing to bet your firstborn's life that I'll never see a comedy of that magnitude ever again.

Seann William Scott plays the comic relief, and my goodness is the relief appreciated. He makes the scenes with Tracy actually tolerable. Not saying that Bruce didn't do a fantastic job, but if you place a pile of dog poo on the plate with a steak, well, it's still poo and steak.

Look, if you thought this was the funniest movie you've ever seen, that's great. I'm glad you enjoyed it. I said in my "get to know me" blog that I will offend you and that we will not see eye to eye. In this case, I don't even know how this got past a focus group (if there was one). Personally, I didn't think it was funny. I thought the comedy was forced on you, the laughter was too blatantly setup, and I guess that Kevin Smith and I just don't see eye to eye anymore on what he thinks is funny and what I thought was awesome (See Zombieland or The Hangover). I'm going to give this movie a whopping 2 Pieces of Gum. One for Bruce Willis, and the other because the wife liked it.

Possibly important info:

Film info, Official site
Rated R for language, sexual references, and violence.

-D

Avatar

2010-03-01T19:50:00.003-06:00

In the distance, you hear monks chanting something that sounds like the angels in heaven have opened up and poured themselves onto film. . .

Then you realize that it's just the projector starting up.

Ah yes. Avatar, by the time you read this (since my first chance at seeing this movie before its release tragically died 1 hour into it, with the right eye print becoming stuck in the IMAX projector and subsequently melting onscreen right before my eyes), James Cameron's little idea will have probably made enough money to buyout Warren Buffett.

"Formula" comes to mind when you watch this film. Why? Well let's take the star, Sam Worthington, who gets thrust into the limelight thanks to the unfortunate death of his twin brother. Sam is tossed into a role of driving an avatar of his twin brother (which just happens to look identical to him - what are the odds of that?) of a species of humanoids from another star system. These are 10' tall blue people who speak a language that you and I can't understand, but that's why we have subtitles! Sam is a Marine - not a scientist. So that means we need to have some friction between him and another Cameron legend - the female scientist played by Sigourney Weaver.

Okay, so you're sitting there asking yourself why would I care about 10' tall blue people on another world, and our 2 human character so far? Money of course! Plenty of billions of dollars are at stake thanks to this mineral ore aptly named "unobtanium". Plot twist - it's under the ground which holds the tree that the blue people live in. Didn't see that coming did ya?

What's next? Trying to find a diplomatic solution as opposed to just nuking the site from orbit? Why you read my mind!

But wait, there's more!

Surely our main dude Sam won't fall head over heels for the typical Cameron "strong willed female lead" played by Zoe Saldana will he? Of course he will! Hence my term "Formula" a few lines up. I'm going to go ahead and give you, the casual movie goer, about 5 seconds to figure out the rest of the plot.

(Time passes)

You guessed it! Sam decides that the blue people need to live because he's fallen head over heels with a blue girl. No diplomatic solution will be found, only a "final solution" and that's to force relocation of the blue people by destroying their home, which will lead to many blue people dying. This lights a fire under Sam, which forces him to make a "fight or flight" response and he decides to fight and lead the blue people in an obvious war over the regular people (you and me). Of course, he has to win, because you didn't pay $65 for you and the spouse for 2 drinks, 1 popcorn, candy and 2 IMAX tickets to watch the main character die and the story arc to take a nosedive into sadness did you?

Right.

From my original viewing over 3 months ago and just seeing 1 hour of the film, I was able to jump to all these (accurate) conclusions because there's nothing in this film that makes me drive home going "What an amazing story! I totally did not see that coming!". Likewise, I didn't see the boat sinking in Cameron's other movie...

Look, you're going to see this film not for the story or the plot, which is predictable at best. I could care less what "political" implications where involved, nor do I care what environmental issues it might bring up. I don't go see movies to change my life. I go to movies to escape my life (not that my life is not awesome) for 2 hours and immerse myself in another person's shoes, their story, their life, and their world.

This world was impressive. Mind blowing. I was immersed all right, but it was the graphics of the world rather than the story.

So, I've got to grade this film on a very harsh curve. On one side, I've got the amazing graphics and realism of Avatar. For the graphics, I give it a whopping 8 Pieces of Gum. However, for the story and the fact that the actors, for the most part, where all shot with a fantastic special effects camera, I've got to give it just the average of 4 Pieces of Gum. So, we're going to take the 8 + 4, divide it by 2 and get the average of 6 Pieces of Gum. It's the only way I can get to a fair conclusion.

Yes, it's a love story. Yes, it's got war and death. Yes, it's predictable. Cameron, if you're going to make a sequel, blow my mind with your story since the effects won't probably change.

Possibly important info:

Film info, Official site
Rated PG-13 for extreme length, some language, epic battles and occasionally epic deaths. And a very o.O love scene.

-D

Surrogates

2010-03-01T19:31:00.003-06:00

Surrogates.

A movie starring Bruce Willis, the everyman's action hero.

Enter a world of altered reality, in which most people live constantly in their homes thru an "avatar" of themselves or someone that looks better than them. No crime, no danger, no drugs, no abuse.

There's a reason why a utopia never actually works.

Mostly because the writing just flat sucks.

Hey, I told you that I would probably offend some of you all out there. Not everyone will love my reviews but you'd better appreciate the fact that I don't pull the wool over your eyes by fluffing up crap to take the edge off. This is the kind of movie that can drive you to drink.

Let me explain. Take a great action hero, give him a mediocre story, awful writing, horrible editing, and a reason to carve out your eyes with a fork. The characters are not developed, not the lead of Willis or Rosamund Pike (the wife of Willis), Radha Mitchell (Willis' partner), Ving Rhames as the leader of the human resistance, or even the mighty James Cromwell who flat out mimics the role from I, Robot as the inventor of the "surrogate" (or "avatar", but I think Cameron reserved that one first). Personally, I could have cared less if the DVD would have been given to some monkeys for a few days before popping it into my player, or if every character in the film (not the actors, for you crazy people out there) would have died 4 minutes into the film. In fact, it may have been a better movie that way, since you probably could have spent a lot of special effects and explosions rather than another 85 minutes of nonsense.

Look, there are people out there that liked this movie. You also might think The Apprentice is top notch television. I think it's awesome that you can set your DVR to watch a guy with the same wig from my childhood scream "You're fired!" at people. Come to think of it, Trump would have been handy on the day that someone said "Hey guys let's make Surrogates!". If he would have fired that individual, he could have saved me 89 minutes of my life. And no, I will never get it back. Luckily the story is so bad and forgettable, that if you watch something a lot better you'll forget all about it!

I'll give this film 2 Pieces of Gum. One for Bruce Willis, and the other for being in focus.

Possibly important info:

Film info, Official site
Rated PG-13 for some intense violent scenes, surrogates dying that lead to real people dying, your brain seizing up because there is no story.

-D

Blood Creek

2010-01-31T22:59:00.003-06:00

With a name like Blood Creek, it's got to be good. (AKA Town Creek, so to not confuse you)

Okay, so maybe I'm overstating the obvious, but if you can't figure this out now, it's not a film you show the kids before bed.

Let's revisit some of the themes I enjoy. Introduce anything historical with some (albeit a small reference to the truth) into a movie. Scary movie is another plus. Must enjoy long walks on the beach and talking about our future together.

This movie, by Joel Schumacher, who has previously been in the captain's chair on some movies like St. Elmo's Fire, The Lost Boys, The Client, Falling Down, A Time to Kill, doesn't slum out and just pick up a crap script to get some dough to the next project. He gives a horror movie the feel of a well crafted story. Heck the cinematography in the beginning of the movie had me very interested right from the start. You can count my wife in that boat, who actually was intrigued by a scary movie, a first of the last few years since she typically hates the genre. The fact that this didn't look like a crappy franchise flick (See-saw?) and actually had some premise of a story and a real director's touch, I was hooked.

Okay, this is not some epic. Let me say that before you jet off to your local DVD shop and pick this up. The story is that in the Hitler era, the Nazis were obsessed with the occult of any variety. This is true. Look at some of their symbols and do some research of your own (or if you're lazy, you can just click here). Being a history nut, you had me at hello. I love history, and always will. Add in a horror movie and you've got my complete attention for at least a good 90 minutes.

Dominic Purcell, famous for a TV show in which he leaves a prison, and Henry Cavill, who's more used to playing a character from centuries past, lead this film to the end. Include Michael Fassbender, recently famous for impersonating a Nazi in another movie in 2009, as the head Nazi occult researcher, and you've got yourself a decent little horror movie.

Decent is a good word. It's not fantastic, but it's not crap. It's a good movie, but not a great movie. It doesn't employ cheap tricks like raising the audio on a scene to have a bird fly out of a barn. It's more "butt crawling on the seat" than anything. Like I said, not great, but good. Better than some crap, but not a classic.

To be honest, very middle of the road. Five Pieces of Gum. Worth a look if you like the genre. Good story and shame to the distributors for not putting this in out in theaters in my area.

Possibly important info:

Film info
Rated R for language and graphic violence.

-D

Up

2010-01-31T22:35:00.004-06:00

Another year, another Pixar movie.

And with the exception of two (Cars and Ratatouille - In my humble opinion, simply because I didn't enjoy them as much as the others), this company has literally failed to make a terrible movie. I could write an entire review expressing my love of Pixar, and the fact that they have such high standards and they live up to them every single time.

So you'll have to pardon me after seeing the aforementioned pair of Pixar movies and then seeing the preview for Up. This is about an old man and him floating his house somewhere? Look, their previous adventure into the wild and crazy produced a fantastic movie about a little robot, but how are they going to hook kids on the premise of the elderly?

Allow me to take the first bite out of that humble pie.

Voiced and lead by Edward Asner, it's the (great) story about a guy named Carl who wants to be an adventurer when he was just a little boy himself. The story line arcs to include a feisty sidekick for Carl in Ellie, his girlfriend turned wife turned soulmate. Over the first 7 minutes of this film, you get to see just how involved these two become, and how much they do love each other. Of the two, Ellie is the more outgoing with Carl playing it safe and close to the chest.

While I could go into further detail about the story and possibly introduce something I shouldn't too early in my review (because I hate people that tell you the entire story and even some twists just to get to their point), I'm going to stop here and just wrap up the rest of the film.

Pixar does it right. They get it. They bring along John Ratzenberger (Cliff from Cheers) along for yet another cameo voice, which is awesome. They bring in memorable characters, they tell important life lessons, and they do so without insulting kids or terrifying them.

Fantastic story? Check.
Pixar professionalism throughout? Check.
Good voice actors and comic relief for kids AND adults? Check.

One of the better Pixar movies, if that's even a logical statement.

Check it out. Seven Pieces of Gum.

Possible important info:

Film info, Official site
Rated PG for some peril and action.

-D

GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra

2010-01-31T22:04:00.003-06:00

My childhood was full of fantastic memories. Being an only child meant that I was spoiled beyond measure by my parents and grandparents, and that I had to develop a fantastic imagination in order to pass the time when I wasn't sitting in front of the Nintendo and Sega (that's right, eat up - I had them both!). Enter a very popular boy's toy in the 1980s - GI Joes.

I had a plethora of them. I even had the aircraft carrier, which I apparently should have saved in the box and never had my parents put it together on a cold night in December. Used on a certain monopolizing auction site has bids of over $800. That's used. Imagine the new in box, never played with a la 40 Year Old Virgin condition. See previous paragraph about spoiled rotten.

So you can imagine my surprise as you strike another childhood dream movie off my list when I heard about GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra. (For the record, we're only missing a fantastic Voltron and Thundercats movie to complete my childhood movie dreams. Note the keyword: fantastic) Due to a lot of scheduling issues in August, I was unable to make the theatrical debut of this awaited released.

Boy am I glad I didn't use my free passes on this one and just shelled out the single George Washington for it.

Allow me to elaborate. If not, you can just scroll down to the bottom and see my score and you can move on with your life on the internet.

Hollywood has a very fine line to walk in terms of bringing an iconic series (or any series for that matter) from the small screen to the big screen. This was an animated series with a lot of toys to match, making this an 80s marketing machine. You have to please the hardcore fanboys and you have to introduce a new audience to the series. In the case of this movie, the story and the characters felt almost thrust into your face, whether you wanted to know them or not. Literally I could use the entire rest of this review to give you a brief history on each character, but it would take me a lot longer than I need to take for this review. The writers of this film chose to introduce you to a whole lot of Joes in the first movie, way more than you need to know. For the record, Marvel did it right with their universe not trying to throw all 5000+ characters into your grill for their first venture on the silver screen. This was almost confusing for a kid that had an aircraft carrier and a plethora of his own Joes to follow.

Second, the CGI and digital effects almost looked rushed or forced. Look, it's no Avatar. No movie is, and I'm not judging this film against another. Some of the scenes looked too animated for my liking, and didn't blend in well with their surroundings. When I play video games on my PC that look more real that the movie, something is wrong. Sorry creative team or effects team over at all the companies that tried to do their best. No, I can't do it any better. Those who can't, critic. . .right?

Look, all things considered, I didn't sit in my chair expecting to have all my wildest GI Joe childhood dreams come true. Mainly because my imagination and the average Hollywood blockbuster budget are not in the same ballpark. Is this movie setup for a sequel? Of course. Are they going to make one? I assume so. Will it be better? I hope so, for Hasbro's sake as well as the financial backers. I'll give this movie 4 Pieces of Gum.

Possibly important info:

Film info, Official site
Rated PG-13 for violence and some occasional profanity.

-D

The Hurt Locker

2010-01-23T23:51:00.003-06:00

Ah yes, another movie about the war in Iraq. Such a popular conversation piece among the 2008 election, and so quickly forgotten after a new party takes office. This is also a centerpiece of Hollywood. Not this war, in particular, but let's face it - War sells movie tickets. War movies bring little gold statues home to directors, actors, and they bring many hundreds of millions of dollars to the movie studio.

So why has the war in Iraq turned out so many inconsistent films? Hollywood, for the most part has turned away from the war in Iraq because they've seen so many other films turn belly up too fast for their liking. Is it the timing of the piece? Too soon for too many people? Is it because the country itself was divided for a period over why we fight? No idea my internet friend. No idea.

What I do know is this - The Hurt Locker is a fantastic film. Allow me a moment of your time to explain.

First, you take a job that people only volunteer for in the military: Bomb engineer. Apparently it's a very stressful job. I thought dealing with irate clients about their software not working was a stressful job. I was completely wrong.

Second, let's take a director who can really tell a good war story. Scorsese? Spielberg? How about a woman! Kathryn Bigelow takes the captain's chair in this story, and does a phenomenal job in it. Never hurts to be the ex-wife of James Cameron, and for him to recommend that you do this film.

Third, let's use some non-A-list actors to fill the shoes. After all, we're telling the story of an average solider doing an extraordinary job. Kudos to Jeremy Renner for taking the lead role and doing a great job selling me on the idea that he's just a guy to do a job, and if he goes, he wants to go out comfortable. More props go out to Brian Geraghty, for basically getting back into gear as a soldier in Iraq again (see Jarhead). Anthony Mackie rounds out the trio of people that comprise the core group of this bomb tech team.

Throw in some surprise cameos by David Morse, Ralph Fiennes, and Evangeline Lilly, and you've got yourself a nifty little piece of work.

The camera work is good. Powerful yet present. In the scene but not controlling the scene. The characters are driven, not by a job well done, but in the simple fact they are possibly surrounded by the enemy at all times, and if they don't do their job to their capacity, there's a very high chance that they don't make it home in less than little pieces. The backdrop is genuine. Well, the country of Jordan specifically, but the neighbor of Iraq. Close enough for me. I mean I've never visited the Middle East, but on film, it all looks the same. (Note to all you possible morons out there - not being racist or anything else. In countries of sand that all seem to have used the same architect, Jordan and Iraq look similar.)

The action is real enough for me. You're on edge, wondering exactly how really stressful that last board meeting was or that really annoying client last Thursday. Somehow it evens you out, knowing that you really don't face true life or death decisions each day. That driver that cut you off and got your heart rate and stress level going just doesn't seem as big of a deal anymore after seeing what these people volunteer to do. I believe the danger is real, and this is not even a documentary. The director presents the dangers and some of the atrocities that plague both sides in this conflict.

Look, put your left/right wings down. Go see this movie. Seven Pieces of Gum.

Possibly important info:

Film info, Official site
Rated R for graphic violence and language.

-D

Gamer

2010-01-23T22:52:00.002-06:00

Gamer.

A movie based upon a video game? Well, sort of. It's more or less a movie based for the avid, extreme video game player. The sort of gamer who plays your above-average First Person Shooter, and it even includes a side-story of the gamer that plays your Multi-Player Online Role Playing Game. So is it a good movie?

Okay, as an avid video game player and movie fan starting his 3rd decade on this 3rd rock from the sun, I'm going to tell you that I drastically lowered my already extraordinarily low expectations for this film. Gerard Butler, keeping the same frame that carried him thru the movie 300, "acts" as the star in this movie. I use the term "acts" very loosely here, since the story is driven by the simple fact that all of his "actions" are controlled by a real life player.

I've gotta stop. Seriously, it's hard to get my brain to wrap itself around even attempted to produce a well-written review of a complete pile of crap.

Look, I really wish I could meet the person that green-lit this project. That's movie-speak for "Hey guys this sounds very interesting/profitable, so let's make this movie!". I'd ask them what drugs could induce such a hypnotic effect that even imaging to move forward on this movie is beyond the realm of this world. Have you ever seen the movie The Running Man? Have you ever seen the only other movie referenced in this review (300)? Okay, this movie is a complete rip-off of the story from 1987 and Arnold's role of a convict having to fight his way thru a game in order to save himself. Wow - really? Did I just sum up the entire movie of Gamer? Yes, I did. I'm sorry, but I did. This movie has a lot of action, zero story and zero originality, and zero chance of anything other than my lowest rating ever. A Single Piece of Gum. To be honest, this is one of those movies that I just look at and I'm amazed it even made it to the theatre and wasn't a straight to DVD feature.

The camera-work was more vomit inducing than anything else. My guess is that they were trying to show that the true gamer lives in a constant moving world without the ability to focus on a single element at a time. Oh, they also assume that the gamer loves random breasts constantly, loves lesbian make out sessions, and that all MMORPG players secretly just want their characters to go around and simply shag anything that moves. Horrible direction, a complete rip-off of a story, and it even introduces other characters that I don't care about. I don't care if they live or die. I can't connect to the main character. I can't connect to the movie. I spent $1 to watch this and if the director or Lionsgate themselves read this, I want my $1 back. Horrible movie. Complete waste of time, money, energy everything. And this film made over $37 million worldwide. Cost just under $13 million. Ladies and gentlemen - this proves that you and I can make a complete rip-off of 2+ movies and we can make a profit! What a wonderful economy!

Possible important info:

Film info, Official site
Rated R for sexual content, nudity, graphic violence, adult language, a complete turd of a movie.

-D

Possibly imp

Daybreakers

2010-01-14T21:52:00.004-06:00

Ah yes, another vampire movie. Have we, the people of this world, not had enough vampire movies, TV shows, and books recently to send off into space and tell the rest of the universe that "WE LOVE BLOODSUCKERS". Not to be confused with "WE LOVE POLITICIANS", but I digress.

Daybreakers, a film by a pair of brothers (not Coen, thank goodness) named Michael and Peter Spierig, is set in 2019 after an outbreak of what I can only think as the "vampire virus" has literally swept the entire planet and has a firm grip on placing the human race as extinct. Vampires run the entire world, working mostly the 2nd and 3rd shifts (for obvious reasons), and are farming humans for blood. Think the scenes from The Matrix as storing humans in such a fashion as holding them in a containment area, void of consciousness, to be drained of their blood to feed a starving population.

Problem #1 - Humans that are farmed aren't exactly reproducing more humans.
Problem #2 - Humans have a shelf life and will die.
Problem #3 - Substitutes for human blood are failing.
Problem #4 - A riot of people, excuse me, vampires is a nasty problem.
Problem #5 - I feel bloated from the sheer amount of butter flavored popcorn I consumed. (Note - I said "butter flavored", and what that entails only God knows)

Okay, so let's get into the film. Ethan Hawke plays your standard issue doctor, who's specialty just happens to be in hematology. How ironic is that - a blood doctor in a vampire move. Think the original Blade film. Well, you've got the first ingredient of your story. Now you need a CEO of corporation that wants to control the flow of blood to the public, and make a little money on the side. Enter Sam Neill, who has done his fair share of scary/horror movies. What's the last ingredient you need in a standard issue vampire movie? Oh yeah, the rebel with a cause - save the world. Willem Dafoe fills that void, playing the rebel trying to save humanity nicknamed Elvis.

Sigh.

Now I have to fill this review with stuff from the movie that is supposed to entice you to see the film.

Yep, I'm out of stuff to fill this review with stuff from the movie.

This movie has potential, but very little kinetic energy. The movie seems a bit recycled from other movies (especially the aforementioned ones), and it tries way too hard to scare you with cheap thrills such as CRANKING THE VOLUME UP AS A BAT FLIES BY YOU. Much the same effect as TYPING WHILE HOLDING THE SHIFT KEY AS TO EMPHASIZE THAT YOU REALLY DO NOT HAVE A POINT. While a few cheap tricks are allowed in any scare movie, to base your entire scare factor on it is completely lame. Sometimes you Hollywood executives, less is more. You can have less special effects and less cheap tricks and have a better story.

My advice to all you people out there in the interwebs: If you have to just prove me wrong, by all means do so. I'd save this one for a $1 rental somewhere or catch it on your local premium channels. Do not waste your gas money or any other money seeing this in a theatre. I'm going to slap an entire 3 Pieces of Gum on this one and call it a day. Big names can only do so much in a crap movie. And even if you pour steak sauce over poo, it's just steak-sauce-covered poo.

Possibly important info:

Film info, Official site
Rated R for brief nudity of immobilized humans, graphic violence and some language.

-D

Up in the Air

2010-01-12T10:28:00.004-06:00

A movie about the current times we live and how they relate to most of the general population. Or at least enough of the population to care to go see it. A movie that can speak to adults about adult issues, and about very young adults just now wandering into their careers. About how sometimes a fantastic idea on paper can be flat worthless in practicality. A story about love? Well, aren't all stories about love on some level?

Up in the Air takes a crafty veteran of the big and small screen in George Clooney and crafts him to be a suit-wearing grim reaper. Clooney plays Ryan Bingham, who logs more time in the air than most pilots and just happens to be extremely good at telling you that your company no longer wants to keep you around. Fun times huh? I mean, all that fun and travel and the long days spent telling people their lives are going to drastically change from this day forward.

But I digress. Plus, if I don't stop with the whole Clooney backstory thing, then you'll have no reason to see the film.

So what in name of the automotive bailout could ground Bingham and change the game? Of course, the know it all college graduate! Fresh out of school with a degree and a chip on her shoulders, Natalie Keener (played by Anna Kendrick, who's in a series involving vampires - pick one because I could care less, but she's cute nevertheless) thinks of a brilliant idea of using the interwebs to fire people. How fantastic is that? Not only can you save a crapload on airfare, hotel, and travel expenses, but you can fire people over the interwebs!

/End Sarcasm

Obviously Clooney's character is less than excited to learn of this new venture, and decides to school the rookie in the ways of the world. On his travels around the country, Clooney runs into a firecracker of a woman in Vera Farmiga, who plays Alex Goran. To be honest I'd never seen anything she did until she did The Departed. She did a great job in that, and does an equally great job in this as the love interest who also is a airport warrior. The two leads have a great conversation comparing hotels, rental car companies, rewards for being a certain level member, airports and airlines. Obviously they have instant chemistry.

Fast forward in the film and you learn that Bingham (Clooney) has a family he's pretty much left behind (two sisters) in some rinky-dink town in the central US. When one of his sisters decides to take the plunge into marriage, it forces Bingham out of his comfort zone and into new territory. Will the lone wolf return home? Will Lassie ever get help for Timmy? Tune in next week, same Bat time, same Bat channel.

I don't have time to post next weeks, so I'll just wrap this up here.

Jason Reitman, who did the screenplay and directed this gem, has also directed two other movies I enjoyed: Juno and Thank You For Smoking. It's clear (to me) this guy has nowhere to go but up, and studios should consider to feed this guy money because he makes very good use out of it. Most of his stories are character and dialog driven, and they (the 3 including Air) are all well written. Personally I think you'd enjoy this movie, especially if you've enjoyed his previous works. It's a good movie and worth a view. I enjoyed it more for the "stick it to the rookie" because I meet too many people that think they are the latest thing since sliced bread when they are all really crusty. Experience is a valuable tool, and rarely do you ever see that in a flow chart. I'll give it a good 6 Pieces of Gum. Should I feel bad that I don't critically love this movie more than the rest of the critics? Or should I just say I like being me? Oh well. You decide.

Possibly important info:

Film Info, Official site
Rated R for brief nudity (a butt, and some side shots/profile of breasts), talk of sex, some drinking, and some language.

-D

Terminator 2: Judgment Day

2009-12-27T21:25:00.003-06:00

I can hear the theme music in my mind. It gets the heart racing. Adrenaline starts to pump.

It's July 3, 1991. A sequel to a very amazing movie is about to change the way action movies are made. Instead of just blowing up a whole, whole, whole lot of stuff, you're about to get a story, character development, and you might just shed a tear for a robot. Well, I did. Heck I know another company who had an entire movie based around a robot, and I fell for that little bugger as well.

James Cameron, who I've already said has a Midas touch when it comes to movies, directs a sequel to his original film from seven years earlier. Since the failure of the first Terminator to eliminate the mother of the resistance (Sarah Connor), this time SkyNet makes it personal and is going after her son, John. Arnold Schwarzeneggar reprises his role as the T-800, the previous flagship model of Skynet in terms of wiping out human beings. However, he literally meets the next generation of robotic assassins in the T-1000, played by Robert Patrick. Long story short - liquid metal. Yes, liquid metal. It's fantastic. Well, not for John, played by newcomer Edward Furlong. John's mom is picked back up by a strong(er) female in Linda Hamilton. This woman will eat your lunch, pop the bag, and steal your parent's car. She's bad to the bone. You need to be bad to the bone when you're running from something that is liquid metal.

I could go on and on and on about this one. Literally, about how much better of a movie this one is compared to the first one (and that's saying a lot, considering the first one is a good movie). This ranks in the top #250 on IMDB at a current rating of #45 at the time of this post. Not only do you care for the characters, but at the time, this movie had ground-breaking special effects. Admit it, when you saw a rogue cop/machine appear out of a puddle of metal, your mind was blown. The effects are good, the gunplay is good, the acting is good, the direction is good, and the story is good.

Overall, this movie has a lot of good. I'd say its worth 8 Pieces of Gum good. Lots of good times with this film, and its probably one of the few I'll buy for BluRay whenever I finally break down and buy a PS3.

Possible important info

Film info, Official site
Rated R for graphic gun-play/violence, language, and ever so brief nudity. Mostly it's the violence and language.

-D

It's Complicated

2009-12-27T20:54:00.002-06:00

It's Complicated.

It is complicated. Love, that is. Always has been (in terms of a man loving a woman). Probably always will be. Heck, a lot of companies make these little pills to make 'love' easier for a man. For the lucky few of us who don't require those little pills, nor want to take something that might make 'love' last for 4 hours and cause permanent damage, we have a Christmas movie release from a director who knows how to make these adult (not pornographic) comedies work.

Nancy Meyers directs a fine cast in yet another popular movie genre that's slowly (in my opinion) gaining more ground each year. She's directed previous movies with great success. In this success (a possible hint to my score), she doesn't really have to direct anyone in terms of her female lead: Meryl Streep. Look, nothing against Nancy here, but I could direct Mrs. Streep to another Academy Award nomination. Arguably the most talented actress of this generation or possibly any, Meryl Streep makes it look all too easy. She does the same in this role. While it may not garner a nod from Oscar (see her performance in another movie this year involving food, and lots of it), Streep still makes you believe in her character, the flaws, and the fun.

Now you've got your leading lady, now you need your leading man. I mean, men. Wait, I mean Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin. Baldwin plays the ex-husband of Streep, and plays it to the part. He's a lawyer, and successful enough to make partner. He's got the money. But then again, so did Streep's character. She owns a bakery, and I wonder where she learned how to cook (see previous movie this year). Their divorce, a decade past, has left Streep grounded, confused, and a bit lonely. Baldwin, on the other hand, marries the young and aggressive Lake Bell. Yep, that's her real name. Anyway, Baldwin and Streep fall back together at the wrong time in both of their lives, but have fun doing it. Literally and figuratively. Martin, written to be possibly the nicest guy in the world, is fresh (relative term) off his own divorce in which his wife left him for his best friend. Martin is some top dog architect, so nobody in this movie, at this age, is hurting for cash.

Okay, I admit I watched this on Christmas Day in a little town in southern Illinois. The entire cost of our tickets and our drinks/popcorn were less than the price of 2 regular tickets here in Nashville. That being said, the same problem I encounter with comedies in theatres is this: People tend to laugh, and there's not a laugh track in movies. I missed a good portion of dialog in this film because I laughed and other people laughed longer than I needed them to. Look, I love you people, but I still stand by my recommendation of never seeing a comedy on opening night/weekend in a theatre. It's best if you catch it during a matinee when other people are at work, or a later show after the movie has been out. With all that being said, this is another product of Nancy Meyers. Not too heavy, not too light. I give it a solid and well deserving 5 Pieces of Gum. Definitely worth a view if you value good acting, and you can even sneak a peek at John Krasinski as the comic relief if this movie even needed it.

Possibly important info:

Film info, Official site
Rated PG-13 for some language. Wait, this movie is Rated R. Are you kidding me? PG-13 was as far as I would push it. No sex showed (implied), no nudity (you get to see the butt-double of Alec Baldwin), very weak use of language (no f-bombs), but they do show some people smoking the ganja, so that earns it the solid R rating from the MPAA. Yes, those people are morons, but that's another review.

-D

The Terminator

2009-12-15T09:50:00.005-06:00

Terminate. To Bring to an end. Put an end to. To end, conclude, or cease.

The Terminator. At #159 of the top 250 films according to IMDB (at the time of this post). James Cameron day continues on 8POG.

The year is 2029 (okay, it's not really, but stay with me here) and Skynet, an organization that mankind created as a defensive system has turned rogue and is killing off the human race. Man versus machine. These machines mean business. The best way to kill off mankind for good is to go after the leader of the resistance of the future - John Connor. Quick - what's the best way to kill a weed? Go after the roots. In this case, the mom. Stop the baby before its born. Kill Sarah Connor.

Sarah Connor is played by Linda Hamilton, and she appears to be that girl-next-door moves to the big city and is working at a local cafe when we meet her. Unbeknownst to her, she's the target of a killing machine. Fortunately for her, she's not the only Sarah Connor in the phone book (Facebook is still 2 decades away). An emotionless machine, covered in flesh, is sent back in time to stop Ms. Connor from procreating the savior of the human race. That machine is played by Arnold Schwarzenegger. This T-1000 model is a cybernetic organism covered in living flesh, and it only really has one job description: Kill. Doesn't sleep, doesn't eat, and it doesn't take crap from anyone. So how does the girl-next-door have a prayer against a machine destined to end her life? Well, like in Aliens, there's only one person you can call: Michael Biehn. Biehn plays a character named Kyle Reese. Reese is hand picked by John Connor himself to go back in time and save his mother from certain death.

(Side note - While you and I could discuss time travel and altering time lines and realities all day long, for the purpose of the movie let's just say that time travel is possible and by subsequently killing John Connor's mom, the Resistance against Skynet will collapse and the future will be even worse than Cameron can imagine.)

Okay so we've got that out of the way. But wait, can't you drag back some incredible firearm that can end this T-1000 in a single shot? Short answer: No. Can't bring back anything mechanical. But Dustin, the T-1000 is a machine. Yes, but it's covered in flesh. Look, I didn't make the rules up, so stop. They both come back naked if that tells you anything. Apparently clothing gets burned right off.

This movie is one entire chase scene, with some obvious slow parts in the chase. The story is great, the fact that Arnold can play a character on screen without emotion shows you exactly how cold and mechanical he is (get it, he's a machine) and how driven he is. We often give praise to some actors for their onscreen intensity. This performance is no different.

The only way this film doesn't get the highest praise is because I'm doing something unfair - I'm grading it against the sequel. Yes, it's not fair, but let's face it. The sequel not only takes this story to the next level, it takes movies to the next level. However, you have to start somewhere. And this foundation of a film makes you appreciate the body of work Cameron started. A well deserving 6 Pieces of Gum. Like I said, if this movie was being graded as a standalone product, it would get a higher score.

Possibly important info:

Film info
Rated R for graphic violence, language, some brief nudity.

-D

Aliens

2009-12-15T08:25:00.004-06:00

Plural. Notice the 's' on the end to signify that there are multiple aliens. The 's' also denotes that this is the sequel to Ridley Scott's Alien. So, why the interest in reviewing a movie from 1986? Well, Aliens shares the same thing as a little movie coming out this week called Avatar: director James Cameron. Oh, this entire review hinges on the fact that you've seen Alien. If you haven't seen Alien, stop here. Seriously. Stop here.

So starts a full day of James Cameron reviews. This also starts a full day of movies that get a high rankings. I mean really high. In case you're just a complete moron terrorist from the Middle East and you've literally been living under a rock for the past 2 decades, I'll give you a brief history of what Mr. Cameron has done, film wise (IMDB rankings all-time). Terminator (#159). Aliens (#53). The Abyss. Terminator 2 (#44). True Lies. Titanic. Oddly enough, Titanic, which scored 11 Oscars, is not in the top 250 on IMDB. Proof that everyone is a critic.

Where was I? Oh yes, Aliens.

Scott's original was literally taken to a new level (#45 on IMDB) when Cameron went on to elaborate on an already fantastic tale. In sports, there's something known as a 'sophomore slump' when it comes to the second year in playing. Usually you hear this phrase after a rookie sensation (See Joe Flacco, Matt Ryan) leads their teams to the playoffs with great records only to have a 'meh' season the following year. In the film industry, sequels have literally one of two options following the originals success: Miserably fail (the majority) or blow your mind (the minority). I am excluding books/trilogies from this category, because it's not fair to judge Lord of the Rings with, let's say, Saw. Saw 1 - amazing. The rest? Well, utter crap.

Man I'm ranting a lot today. Back to the matter at hand.

Cameron picks up the story 50 years after the fact. Not bad huh? But wait Dustin - he's using the same main character. The fiery Sigourney Weaver as Ellen Ripley. How can you use the same main character but not have her age? Look, they have these pods that literally put you in some sort of stasis....wait let me back up. They live in space and travel thru (yeah, thru - stop cheating at Scrabble and spelling it through) space. If that's not enough science to convince you that 50 years in stasis is possible, then you can go ahead and close this window now. Now where was I...oh yes...Ripley is the sole survivor of the ship Nostromo after they run across an interesting little critter on a desolate planet LV-426. And in case you're reading this for the first time, I just ruined Alien for you. I told you to stop after the first paragraph.

Anyway, this little critter is, uh, fascinating. Let's see: It can crawl on the ceiling, it bleeds acid, it has 2 mouths (one that is thrust from inside the other), has a tail that pretty much has a huge razor blade on the end, and requires a host to be born (arguably one of the best scenes in sci-fi movie history). And like most critters, it doesn't react too well to bullets. Or fire, for that matter. But this little critter has an amazing knack for being able to snatch the life right out of you. Literally, like if you had to make a Top 10 list of what this critter can do, murdering humans and snatching humans has to be 1-2. Redecorating a spaceship/colony is probably #3.

Okay, so you know about the critter. And (if you've seen the first one) you know who Ripley is. Now you need a huge, greedy, military contractor to come in and see the value of the critter. Remember the top 10 list from earlier that this critter has? Let's just say the military could care less about 3-10 and is very interested in the creature's top 2 abilities. Enter Paul Reiser as Carter, your businessman for the evening. But wait, there's more. I said this has a military involvement. And you've got to have a top-notch military crew for this sort of extraction. And there's only one guy you can call on in any film, mid-80s to early 90s to get the job done: Michael Biehn. And you also need someone that has worked with Cameron in other movies. Someone like Bill Paxton (Terminator, Aliens, True Lies, Titanic), who can play a character that's for sure. Biehn and Paxton play Hicks and Hudson, two of your military guys for this trip. We still need something else to make this story work. A synthetic. A droid. A versatile actor is needed for this, and Cameron grabs someone else from Terminator in Lance Henriksen, who plays Bishop, part of the new standard issue parts to have on a future deep space mission.

Okay, I've ranted a long time. Let's get down to the nitty gritty. A fantastic setup. Great cast. High expectations thanks to the original film. Evil critters. Strong female lead. Micheal Biehn. James Cameron. Ladies and gentlemen, start your engines. At the time of its release, the special effects were cutting edge. The end scene itself is and will always be one of the greatest scenes ever, opened with one of the most memorable lines in movie history. Cameron knocks it out of the park in terms of an action film with a story. He makes you root for the characters, root for the aliens, and then, root for a strong woman to save the day. Weaver pulls off an amazing performance, and kudos for her being able to do so while not having to stoop to the depths of having to get naked to do so.

In case you can't tell, this movie is getting 8 Pieces of Gum. I stop every time this is on TV to watch it, no matter how far along it is. I've stayed up way too late just to catch that quote, watch that end scene. It's something that gets tossed in my DVD player at least once a year. Turn out the lights, turn up the audio, and sit back and enjoy a true sci-fi classic and even a classic overall.

Possibly important info:

Film info
Rated R for violence (human/critter death), language (human only, but working on the critter translation).

-D

The Blind Side

2009-12-04T11:09:00.002-06:00

The Blind Side.

Based on a true story.

(May include/remove events/dialog for cinematic effect).

I feel like this should always be included in almost any movie based on a true story. Even my review on 21 has similar cinematic effects. Unlike a movie based on taking advantage of a card game, any movie based on a football player immediately has more influence in my life, as you will see in my obviously biased review.

What you're about to watch (if you watch it, that is) is the story of a young man named Michael Oher, a kid literally trying to make it to the next day in his life. Like most feel-good stories, Michael has to have a rough life/childhood. Well, you're going to appreciate all God has given you and all you've got when you sit down to watch this movie. Played by Quinton Aaron, a rookie for most accounts in TV land, you get to see what it's like to literally have no place to live or sleep. Most Americans only get this close to this interaction by watching those "save a kid in Africa" ads on TV. This happens in Memphis.

But wait Dustin, you can't have a feel-good movie without at least a star to drive home this vehicle. Sandra Bullock drives home a performance that we are not used to seeing from this fantastic looking female. Normally a staple in the rom-com role, she definitely steps outside of her comfort zone by playing a spitfire Leigh Anne Tuohy, a Republican, card-carrying-member of the NRA, and someone who literally tells it like it is. Tim McGraw plays the breadwinner as the owner of his fair share of fast food restaurants. In case you can't tell by now, the Tuohy's aren't exactly hurting for money. The fact will be driven home by what they drive home. And by the size of their home. Yadda yadda yadda.

Look, I'll be yet another person to tell you that the term 'cinematic effect' can alter a story. There are some 'variations' from the facts in this movie (from the book), but for the most part it's still a good story. Is this something you want to watch when you're wanting to have a good laugh? Nope. Heck no. What are you smoking? Is this something you should watch just once to appreciate how an opportunity can really change a life? Oh most definitely. The good thing about this movie is the fact that it's a feel-good movie that can appeal to women and men alike. Women get to see what a "strong woman" can do and look like, without being the @#$%^ that some stereotypes accuse them of being. Men get to enjoy the football aspect, and learn that in some instances, leading by fear and power doesn't really get you anywhere.

Plus, appearances by Kathy Bates (as the tutor for Oher), and major kudos for director John Lee Hancock for scoring actual appearances by NCAA head coaches (at the time Oher was in high school no less): Phillip Fulmer, Lou Holtz, Tom Lemming, Houston Nutt, Nick Saban, Tommy Tuberville, and more. Serious props for bringing in the real life coaches for the right time frame in Oher's high school career.

Is it the perfect feel-good movie? Nope. Is it a good feel-good movie? Yep. Right time of year (Thanksgiving/Christmas season) for it, and probably worth a watch if you want to swing by for the matinee. Like I said, probably not something I'd throw in to watch on a gloomy day, but it's worth a single solid viewing for sure. 5 Pieces of Gum for this one.

Possibly important info:

Film Info, Official site
Rated PG-13 for some brief violence, brief drug/sexual references, and yes, it's a black man in the south, so you will see some brief overtones of intolerance.

-D

National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation

2009-12-02T10:11:00.004-06:00

Everyone has heard of a disaster during the holidays. The Christmas of 1989 for the Griswold Family might be one of the worst. It is also one of the funniest. Yes, some is over the top, but the rest is well worth it.

Chevy Chase plays the patriarchal leader Clark Griswold, a husband to Beverly D'Angelo's Ellen, a father to both Juliette Lewis (a favorite of mine for many years) and Johnny Galecki (currently starring in The Big Bang Theory). In order to stage his first family Christmas, and by first I mean where both sets of parents are invited into his home, he brings out all the stops in order to try and make it a perfect event. Now, for all you perfectionists out there, there are just some things you cannot account for in life, and this movie is definitely one for you to see.

The movie does definitely play down to children in some instances, most notably the "silver surfer" scene in which Clark uses an experimental spray to add more speed to his disc. However, the movie also plays up to adults, using Clark again at the forefront in the mall scene buying gifts, and the infamous pool scene.

This is a true classic in all the sense. Chevy Chase, in his prime doing what he did best. The family stereotypes played out in terms of annoying in-laws, older family that is ornery and confused, annoying cousins who literally boggle the mind, and one guy trying to keep the peace and focus. The reason for the season is about love more than anything else, and this movie does a decent job keeping the focus on that very issue. Sure, they wander around a lot, but in the end, who doesn't enjoy Clark's rant about his bonus, and seeing Brian Doyle-Murray with a bow? I know I love it. 6 Pieces of Gum for this one, and a must watch every Christmas season.

Possibly important info:

Film info
Rated PG-13 for some vulgar language, brief nudity (okay, side boob but no nipple)

-D

Die Hard

2009-12-02T09:20:00.002-06:00

Action movies often have history in other films. Your main character is a huge, buff stud of a man, armed to the teeth with more guns than the French army, more gadgets and technology than James Bond, and more women to save than Hugh Hefner has in his house.

And then there's Die Hard. A story about an almost accidental hero in terms of Bruce Willis' portrayal of New York City cop John McClane. Our story begins with McClane taking a cross-country flight from NYC to LA, in order to spend Christmas (that's right, I said Christmas, not holidays like some people try to cram down your throat) with his wife and kids. Wife moved to LA and took a sweet job making bank, and their marriage is on the rocks a bit but you have a feeling that if both husband and wife can put away their differences and come together, it'll all work out. McClane attends a lavish Christmas party at the top of 30+ story building, complete with the latest technology 1988 can throw at them.

And then it all goes wrong.

(Dramatic music starts here)

Enter one fantastic villain played by Alan Rickman. Seriously, one of the best bad guy roles in a long time. Smart, witty, ruthless, yet charming to some degree, Rickman's turn as Hans Gruber sets a standard (in my opinion) for bad guys with attitude and background. He gives you a reason to loathe him, and more reasons to root for him, as strange as that sounds. A fantastic performance by a great actor indeed, Gruber intends to rob a corporation in a very dramatic, elaborate fashion in which he actually needs police and FBI attention.

Look, by now if you haven't seen Die Hard, then you obviously are missing out on a fantastic movie. Heck it gets played at least once a month on some cable TV channel. And, this being the Christmas season at all, what better way to celebrate the birth of our Lord than by rubbing your toes in the carpet, turning on your surround sound system and turning it up, and enjoying a classic Christmas movie? 7 Pieces of Gum for an amazing movie about an everyman hero just trying to find some shoes...

Possibly important info:

Film info
Rated R for language, graphic violence, brief nudity, drug use, one of the best one-liners in all of cinema.

-D

21

2009-12-02T08:29:00.005-06:00

21.

One more than 20, yet strangely less than 22.

Cards. Gambling. Math. Sex. Drinking. Laurence Fishburne. Fighting. Kevin Spacey. Money.

Okay, so that's pretty much it.

Not really, but, well, yes it is. This movie is constructed loosely around the events that transpired of some MIT math students that go on to study the game of blackjack in order to make ends meet. And by "make ends meet" I mean the make a load of extra money before they get caught. And by get caught, I mean end up dead. Because let's face it: Casinos exist only to make money, not give it away.

Jim Sturgess plays your lead character, our resident genius who just can't afford his upcoming Harvard Medical bills of somewhere around $300,000. Yep, nothing like giving out a massive loan to someone making $8.00 an hour working at a suit shop. No way this could have an economic impact (that's a whole other blog). Anyway, back to the 'story'. What we need now is a mentor, someone who can show our lead character the ropes, someone who has done it before, someone like...Kevin Spacey. There. Now we've got a fantastic actor to anchor this cast of D, C, and even B movie stars. No, wait, we're missing someone. A nemesis, someone that gets in the way of the main character. Truly an evil person...wait...a security chief of a Vegas casino will suffice. Laurence Fishburne takes that job, and in my opinion, doesn't really have a lot of room to play. He's limited by on-screen time and character interaction. What little time he has on screen is more or less trying to imply that "Hi, I'm an amazing chief of security for casinos, and I'm going to lose my job to a computer software in the next few years, but for right now I'm nothing short of fantastic." I guess that's a job well done then, because he conveys that and only that.

Okay, what you need to understand is that this is a film that is "loosely based" on the book. I recommend getting the book if you want to know the truth. If you're after a fantastic film based on real-life events, I recommend other movies. This movie is predictable beyond all means, and other than a caged Fishburne and an always dependable Spacey, there's nothing really here worth the investment of by buying this movie at full retail price. To be brutally honest, this might be a movie that we bought that may never get watched again. It's just interesting enough to say "Not bad" but just boring enough when going thru your collection on movie night to say "Is that the best you've got?". With that in mind, I'm going to give it a well deserved 3 Pieces of Gum.

Possibly important info:

Film info, Official site
Rated PG-13 for some language, implied sex, partial nudity, and some fists meeting some faces.

-D

The Bourne Trilogy

2009-11-11T08:52:00.004-06:00

The Bourne Identity.
The Bourne Supremacy.
The Bourne Ultimatum.

Instead of trying to grade each one of these movies individually, especially since I started reviewing movies AFTER they all came on out DVD, I'm going to score the set as a whole. Some of you out there are already pondering my demise, and how dare I judge them as a whole. Settle down there, and realize that this is one big story being told over 3 separate movies.

Matt Damon. Obviously this made him a bigger star that that other "trilogy" that he was in with tons of other stars. Just because you signed on to be in a mega-star movie doesn't make you a bigger mega-star. This trilogy, the Bourne trilogy, certified Damon as both a leading man in movies and more importantly, stuck his entire body in the door of "Male Action Lead". Damon stars as your amnesia suffering hero-to-be Jason Bourne. Over the course of the 3 movies, we get to uncover the mystery behind Bourne's beginnings and his role in the CIA.

Before we go any further here my gentle snowflakes, let me pause here and go over some of the other actors. Franka Potente plays the love interest in the trilogy. Yes, I love the accent, and she's just attractive enough to play the character without being over the top so you're saying to yourself "No way is this person a loner/off the grid" character. Chris Cooper, oh where do I begin. I think Cooper steals the show in a lot of his roles, and he does a great job in this series playing an upper-level CIA guy. Brian Cox, also a great actor, plays yet another CIA executive involved in this series. Another counterpart at the CIA is played by Julia Stiles, who is a 'handler' of Bourne. Think of her as the person who is just sent to deliver the orders. Joan Allen also comes into play as the tough as nails CIA executive who is trying to do the right thing. The aforementioned actors have at least some role in the entire trilogy.

Other co-stars that make an appearance are headed by my main man Shane Vendrell from The Shield Walton Goggins, who plays a tech at the CIA. Oh how I wish he had a bigger role. Clive Owen, who plays a Bourne-type character, also makes you sit a littler higher up in your chair while you watch this. Karl Urban is yet another cog in the gears in terms of story development over the series. Gabriel Mann plays the role of sidekick to the CIA guys very well. Michelle Monaghan, who I have just a small crush on, pops up in the second film. David Strathairn, a brilliant actor that I've enjoyed watching on screen since 1992's Sneakers, takes center stage in the last of the trilogy.

The one thing about the Bourne series is that it takes you the James Bond-style gadgets and removes them from your mind. Bourne doesn't run around with a wrist watch that can cut thru 6" steel plates, and he doesn't have car with laser guided missiles. Bourne runs around with just enough technology that you'll find at your local electronics store or local gun shop. What gives this series its credibility is the fact that Bourne will use any and everything around him to his advantage. I don't want to give it away, but just enjoy the fact that anyone with common sense can appreciate what he uses as distractions and as weapons.

My ONE fault with this entire franchise is that they took to heart the "shaky-cam" tactic of presenting fights. They got worse over the franchise, causing some people to literally leave the theatre or turn their head from the screen. I appreciate good cinematography, just like you, and there is a time and place for shaky-cam work. During every fight scene, on every punch or kick exchanged, is not that time.

For an entire series to have only one major fault is pretty good. The story is believable, and the actors actually do a good enough job to have you care for them. The action is a good pace, never leaving you too much into story details to bore you.

For the series, I'm going to slap an entire 7 Pieces of Gum on it. The shaky-cam is the one thing I can't give it 8, or it'd be there.

Possibly important info:

Film info, Official site (Identity)
Film info, Official site (Supremacy)
Film info, Official site (Ultimatum)
Rated PG-13 (all 3) for realistic violence, some language, gun play, people getting shot, stabbed, beaten, car wrecks, etc etc.

-D

13 Going on 30

2009-11-11T08:30:00.002-06:00

Okay let me go ahead and tell you that romantic comedies aren't exactly my cup of tea. Most of the time they all follow the same formula, and can be predicted down to an exact science. Boy meets girl, boy falls head over heels in love with girl, boy wants to marry girl, girl initially says yes, girl leaves boy at the church/makes dramatic speech in front of entire family and family-to-be/doesn't show up at church/has horrible accident in which they barely survive/gets hit by a truck while riding a bicycle (Mad mad props to a friend of mine for calling that one), 99% of the time this is all cleaned up nice and neat for the viewer (save the truck hitting the star actress).

Jennifer Garner plays your dangerously cute female lead in this movie. I say dangerously cute because, well, just look at her. She's dangerous, and she's cute. Moving on, let's just say that our star had a very "terrible" experience at her birthday party. I can't exactly remember what happened, since it's been a long time since I've watched this movie. A wish was made, aka, 13 Going on 30, in which JG wakes up and she's instantly 30 years of age.

Mark Ruffalo plays your male lead in this rom-com, and is the target of affection for said female lead. Friends from the 80s, they have to grow apart during this transition right? I mean, she can't turn 30 and still have ALL her dreams come true can she?

Of course not. This movie would be all of 12 minutes with opening and closing credits if she got everything she wished for in this movie.

Look, it's a formula movie. It's not a tearjerker by any means. If you watch this film, go in with realistic expectations (low) and you'll come out the other end at least saying you didn't waste 90 minutes of your life. A very average 4 Pieces of Gum for this one.

Possibly important info:

Film info, Official site
Rated PG-13 for mild language, references to some body parts, and some alcohol consumption.

-D

Paranormal Activity

2009-11-10T19:20:00.004-06:00

Long time listener, first time caller.

You hear this same line on the radio a lot. Even on stupid radio shows that are nationally syndicated to your late night call in shows where a perfect stranger is supposed to give you advice on life after hearing your 15 second life story.

Well, I don't remember where I was going with this opening statement, so I'll get right to the movie review.

ZOMG.

Yes, I said that. That's internet lingo-talk for ZO MY GOSH (in the not taking the Lord's name in vain approach).

Let me go ahead and tell you where the roots from this movie appear. You can see a lot of influence from the blatantly obvious Blair Witch Project in which the film leads you to believe that what you are about to see is real. Heck it might as well be when you leave the theatre. This also has roots in Alien (the first one, notice that it's singular) and even the original non-crapified version of Halloween. The references to the last 2 movies mentioned give it the "Oh man when is this going to hit the fan" because in either one or both movies, the following takes place:

You will see the killer/creature in the same room/house/zip code as the victims to be but they do nothing.
Anticipation is what really scares the crap out of you.
Your mind is a dangerous weapon when left alone to ponder what scares the crap out of you. Let's face it, for some people, the thought of a huge hairy spider, venom or not, will make some grown men cry. For me, well, it's not spiders. Maybe for you it's an angry ferret, holding a spork in his right hand and flinging poo with his left. Of course the ferret is wearing body armor to deflect any bullets you may want to send his direction.

Look, this isn't your obviously mentally challenged formula flick in terms of what gets produced every year (hint: replace the tense of the word "See" in this statement: I see it.). There is no audio track laid overtop of the film in order to CRANK the audio up to scare you. There's no shoddy camera work in which they zoom in on the face of the victim to be in an empty 200,000 square foot room, with just 1 huge box placed squarely in the middle, only to pan the camera over to see the killer/creature right next to the victim. That's just dumb. Yet, this is what Hollywood continues to crank out month after month, year after year.

The words to describe this movie are: Slow burn, brain melting, conscience shredding, setup a booth outside the exit door of the theatre and lead people to Jesus, ZOMG did that just happen. Don't bother buying popcorn or candy for this movie. Sorry movie theatre owners. You won't touch the stuff about 30 minutes into this 90 minute event. This entire movie's premise is to make you lean forward out of your chair, ears working overtime to hear....that....Did you hear that? That's what this movie does to your senses. It does more WITHOUT audio than a lot of movies do with it. It wears out your brain, trying to pickup that low frequency sound. Was that a footstep? Did I hear someone's name? Do I hear breathing? ZOMG!

This movie makes the hair on the hair on the back of your back stand. This puts goosebumps on your goosebumps (Insert your "Yo dawg" line/image here).

I've seen it twice, and both times I've seen people get up and walk out of the movie. It's creepy. Do not watch this at home. You will burn your house down. If you own a firearm (and if you don't you're a tree-hugging hippie), unload it when you get home from the theatre and hide the bullets somewhere else. This movie re-defines the term "things that go bump in the night".

I know what you're saying right now: I've seen scary movies and they don't bother me.

Same here you whiny reader. I've seen a plethora of scary movies El Guapo, and very few get to me. This movie burns its way into your retina, and then digs a nice spot into your conscious and even your subconscious and parks itself there until you can force it out. Yes, the power of Christ compels me to tell you that I would not buy this on DVD. Wouldn't even bring it to the house. Won't let my wife watch it. But I've seen the demon twice in theatres.

And yes, my eyes are watering just thinking about this movie again.

It's. That. Scary.

You have been warned - don't comment on here when you can't sleep for 2 weeks after you watch this.

8 Pieces of Gum. Yeah, I didn't see this coming. Now I can't un-see it either...

Possibly Important Info:

Film Info, Official site
Rated R for some language.

-D

Zombieland

2009-10-02T11:14:00.004-05:00

Okay, first things first. I love zombie based movies. I love scary movies. More importantly, I love good scary movies, and good zombie movies.

Shaun of the Dead is a fantastic movie about the alternative zombie genre, showing slow, almost borderline mind-numbingly stupid zombies that use the cliche of "Slow and steady wins the race", or in this case, kills you.

Zombieland, on the other hand, takes the role of my personal favorite - Ray Lewis-style zombies (I have the utmost respect for Mr. Lewis, and I am simply referring to his 'never give up on the play and make sure you make the tackle' mentality he possesses). These zombies are your Romero style zombies of run hard, run fast, run forward no matter the cost to get your prey.

My wife will be the first to tell you that I normally get my hopes up when I see a good movie trailer. Go back to my childhood for references of giant robot deathmatches to cartoons to movies, and then from TV shows to movies, if I loved it as a kid you've got your chance to get your teeth in me. Zombieland is no exception.

I love zombie-style movies. I know I've already said it, but I've said it again. Maybe it's the "one .vs. all" mentality it provides, or the fact that you cannot reason with zombies, or negotiate with them, and they are not looking for land, money, power, etc. Simply put, they just want to rip the flesh from your bones. And usually there's a lot of anarchy in zombie movies, as there are very few survivors versus an seemingly insurmountable horde of them. Heck a video game named Left 4 Dead follows the plight of 4 survivors in a zombie apocalypse. Yes, I own this.

What makes Zombieland so exciting is the storytelling. We get to meet a character named Columbus, played by Jesse Eisenberg, who, for the fact of this review, is a complete introvert, video game nerd, loner. We also get to meet Tallahassee, played by Woody Harrelson as someone who has found what he was born to do: Kill zombies. Along the way these two guys on the opposite end of the personality spectrum run across two ladies Wichita (Emma Stone) and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin), sisters trying to get to a theme park in California where they just want to go to feel human again.

This is where I stop the "explain the plot to me in 15 seconds" writing here. I literally cannot go any further without ruining the movie for you.

There are just a few ways I can explain the difference between the hype of a movie trailer and the actual experience. This is one of the very few movies I've ever seen in which I intentionally hyped it way, way up to an almost mythical level based on trailers, and this film actually exceeded those expectations. This movie is a theme park ride at a rollercoaster, or the first real amazing Christmas morning you ever had, or the first time you took your mom's Z28 to 127mph. It's just a thrill ride. This movie doesn't stop with the fun, the laughs, anything.

And the guest star that I've failed to mention? If you really really want to just sit back and be simply amazed at this movie, do not look up who it is. Go watch it for yourself, and just be blown away.

If there's 1 movie this year you need to see in theaters, it's this one.

Unless you're reading this on your smartphone IN the theater, go now. Go young grasshoppa, and if you don't like this movie, then you have the best reason in the world to never read my reviews again. I'd give this an amazing 8 Pieces of Gum for the sheer fun I had at this movie.

Possibly imporant info:

Film Info, Official Site
Rated R for zombie violence, some cursing. Brief nudity, but it's the same type of nudity you might have seen at a major sporting event's half-time show gone wrong.

-D

Year One

2009-06-28T19:04:00.002-05:00

Year One.

Directed and written by Harold Ramis.
Jack Black, Michael Cera, Oliver Platt, David Cross, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Vinnie Jones, Hank Azaria -- All in this movie.

What could go wrong?

Apparently a lot.

I went to the matinee today to watch this movie, thinking of the star power, the fact that Ramis' Ghost Busters changed my life, and expected to laugh my way right out of the theatre.

Instead I ended up walking out of this film right after a scene involving Cain and Able, and not because of religious reasons. I walked out because this film was just not that funny.

Allow me to demonstrate how "not funny" this movie was: I can only remember cracking a SMILE one time up until this point. And I can't even remember what scene it was on.

Look, I loved Ramis-directed movies. Love them. Cannot believe this one made it to the silver screen.

I guess even the best are allowed to have a bad day.

1 Piece of Gum.

Seriously, I would not even spend $1 at a box to rent this movie.

I'm not even going to post film info or anything else. Can't even bring myself to put the time and effort into this. Seriously if you absolutely have to watch a comedy in the summer of 2009, go see The Hangover.