MOVIESIGN!!!

Harry Potter and The DeathlzZzzzZzzzzZZZz

2010-11-22T09:28:00.001-05:00

Let me go ahead by stating up front in perfectly clear language that everyone can understand: I hate this movie.

Now that I got that out of the way, we can go into the particulars of why I am dead set against the first half of the last film of the Harry Potter series. However, I have to further state that I've only watched the films, have not read any of the novels. Because movies should stand on their own people. Yes, they can compliment the written word, but they are their own medium.

And it's not like I have been a huge fan of Harry Potter all along. I mean, sure I went to see each and every movie in the theatre pretty close to opening day. And there are ones that I like more than others. (Prisoner and Goblet are the bestest)

But this half of a movie, is so terrible I'm not sure where I want to begin. Perhaps, I should start with the concept that there is this need they feel to touch upon every little cornerstone of the series history. All the remaining characters, even the most minor, need some screen time or else diehard fans will be upset. Boo-frickin-hoo! The pacing of this thing was already going to be tragic since it's only the first part of the finale, now we have to visit every little corner we've been to before?

Then there is our main trio, Harry... Ron... Hermonie. Any semblance of prior character development seems to have been eradicated here, save for the strong Hermonie who tends to grow just a touch every time. Harry has been stuck in one-note-central for three films and poor Ron went from comedic relief to hardly much of any use at all.

And don't tell me these problems are because of how the story goes. That since they aren't at Hogwarts, that because they're outlaws on a journey on their own this is the way things are. It's not that. It's the lazy direction of David Yates. For some reason, they decided to deviate from changing directors, and gave the last 3... or 4 films depending on if you're counting these things separate or as one. And because of that, everything on set no doubt became so familiar, who really needs to bother anymore? We'll just coast through Part 1, rake in some money, and then maybe do a better job on Part 2. People will show up regardless.

Well fuck that.
And fuck this movie.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows: Part 1 grade: F

The Social Network is so Anti-Social

2010-10-30T18:40:00.001-04:00

With dialogue that flies at you with a frenzy as fast as it is funny, "The Social Network" is absolutely captivating if somewhat disturbing. There's not a single likable character portrayed in the film, and yet you'll likely be hanging on the edge of your seat trying to root for someone... perhaps Zuckerberg, perhaps not.

I, myself, was excited to see Justin Timberlake, as his portrayal of the creator of Napster just oozes charisma and fun. Every scene he's in he steals with as much gleeful abandon as his charm allows. Scenes shared with Brenda Song are some of the best I think this film has to offer.

Only, characterization really is one of the few things this film has to offer. While some would like to point out the brooding score via Trent Reznor, or others reflect back on that quick chirpy script by West Wing creator Aaron Sorkin, I have to say I'm not really that excited about the story about Facebook.

Bouncing off court hearings, is probably a nice way of doing it, but there really has never been a great way to show people typing things on computers in motion picture. I mean, not unless you're Crash Override or Acid Burn or something.

Still, "The Social Network" gets serious points for those characters and a story that's modern and relevant. And while the script may never really be as clever as it thinks it is -- it can really be boiled down to just one line "If you were the ones who created Facebook you would have created Facebook" -- it's certainly an extremely well crafted film.

The Social Network Grade: B+

Let Me Go Watch The Original

2010-10-04T16:57:00.007-04:00

The movie opens with humongous lettering and blaring horns as a sorry substitute for a score:

LET
ME
IN

And any subtleties of the original film are blown away from the start.

If "Let the Right One In" the Swedish film based on the chilling novel by John Ajvide Lindqvist was a cheese, it would be rich and filled with layers of flavor. Meanwhile its ugly, nasty, and most importantly, unnecessary American remake would be the stanky one that tastes impossibly stronger than it even smells.

What is more infuriating is not a single one of the changes made for "Let Me In" boost the movie positively. Altering the teasing lines of the bullies and making each of those scenes more cruel, overloading each attack with more violence, nothing helps more effectively tell the most romantic horror story I've ever seen on film.

I think the absolutely worst offense is how the subject of Abby is dealt with. Never mind the pointless name change, it's more that the character is treated more like an otherworldly monster than mortal made different by the need for blood. It's not done for any reason other than to try to juice up the scares for the new audience. And worse, it takes away something from the uniqueness of Owen (for fucks sake, Owen instead of Oskar, why? why?) and Abby's relationship. In fact, I think it's directly due to this factor, this, almost reluctance of this version to accept how the story is supposed to go, that I didn't feel Owen quite accepting Abby as deeply as he should.

Truly, it was the casting that was one of the only saving graces of this version of the film. But even then, what's really the point? Why go through this whole charade in the first place if we already have "Let the Right One In?"

So if you're asking me if I can give you a grade on "Let Me In" without considering the film it's poorly remaking. Yeah, I guess so. It'd be somewhere in the B range? It IS a very unique story. A very gripping drama that's well made.

But if you say, well, what would you give it as compared to the original, I'd say it's a narrowly passable D. You really ought to do yourself the favor and skip the games and get the good stuff.

Let Me In final grade: D-
Let the Right One In final grade: A-

Scott Pilgrim vs Everyone

2010-09-09T16:54:00.003-04:00

Do you deliberately set out in making a cult classic? You certainly probably ought not spend gawd awful amounts of money doing so. And yet, that money is exactly what seems to be what was required to bring the frenzy fantasy world of Scott Pilgrim to life on the big screen.

Developed from a very successful comic book series, Scott Pilgrim vs The World when it hit theaters a month ago flopped. It flopped hard. Were people uninterested in Michael Cera now that he's played the same role a half dozen times?

Or was the target audience just so small, it didn't find any appeal outside of it?

I liked Scott Pilgrim for what it was: lightning fast, unique, and exceptionally witty with both its dialogue, humor, and video game references. When the 8-bit Universal theme hits, I knew I was in for something special and in that way Scott certainly didn't let me down.

However, the story and laughs only took it so far before I started feeling mighty beat up myself. See, Scott has to fight 7 evil ex's in order to win the love of Ramona Flowers. Sure, each ex fight kind of represents a level in a video game. But there are no save points when you're watching this thing in the theatre. And as quick as the thing starts, it does get bogged down toward the latter section.

I recommend Scott Pilgrim vs The World in spite of this however. But I recommend it in much the same vein I recommend Grindhouse or Speed Racer or even Josie and The Pussycats. They're just different and different doesn't come to town often.

Scott Pilgrim vs The World Final Grade: C+

My Two Dads 2.0

2010-09-07T21:16:00.002-04:00

Hot vampire Eric's brother, Gustaf Skarsgard leads the charge in this indie-gay flick about two men who seek to adopt a kid.

Instead of getting one aged 1,5 as you can see by this sentence it's pretty easy to realize a typo gives them one aged 15 instead.

It's mostly innocent fluff, but the story adapted from a play constantly goes back to the homophobia well far too often. Adding the new pedophilia well is just icing on the cake really. Really disgusting, take you out of the moment, and slap you in the face shitty icing. And that's a shame. Because there really is a lot of stuff to like about Patrik.

Patrik himself is one of the best parts of the film. Perhaps one of the only one that does any character development, there is a lot weighing on the kid played by Thomas Ljungman. Better still, he isn't asked to do anything patently gay and indie like suddenly make out with one of his adopted dads or anything like that.

Gay films that are watchable are really hard to find. Ones that are actually good on top of that, even more of a rare breed. Patrik Aged 1,5 is just barely both. And much like Gustaf Skarsgard's character, we're so desperate, we'll take whatever we can get.

Patrik Age 1,5 Final Grade: B-

Holy fuck Inception!!!!eleven1!!

2010-07-19T15:58:00.002-04:00

This is one of those films that divide the geeks that crave this sort of entertainment. And believe me, even those who saw it and are just outright hating on how it's put together, they secretly inside just love this movie to death.

This is a puzzle heist film set in the inner reaches of people's minds via dreams. Leo gathers a crew to attempt to do something thought impossible: plant an idea so that the person who has it, thinks it is their own. Inception.

Some of the critics who like the film, but don't think it's the masterpiece that it is, feel the characters are hollow and there is an overall lack of emotional depth. I have some theories on why that is deliberately so. But I can't really say them here without spoiling something. What I will say is that I do not agree, even if there is a good excuse if you feel that way.

But that's kind of the whole thing surrounding the movie. The end of the story can be probably woven into however you want it to be told. Sort of a Choose Your Own Adventure that can be backed up with enough of the pretzel logic. Personally, my mind was blown away, and I was literally hopping in my theater seat giddy as elements of the thing all came together.

While many films these days try to jump start a franchise, Inception IS the fucking franchise. A trilogy of film all bundled into one sleek tight ass package.

Inception final grade: A+

How to Ride Your Dragon to the Bank

2010-07-11T18:18:00.002-04:00

Did you know this movie is still minting box office gold even in July in the second-run theaters, in spite of not being in 3D? It's probably easy peasy kid entertainment. You know those younglings will watch anything a half-dozen times. Makes it even better when the film is actually good which Dreamworks' "How to Train Your Dragon" is.

I missed it the first go round, so I didn't get to see it in 3D. I don't think I missed much though, since I was now able to focus purely on the characters and story, both of which are as lush as its animation.

Not only did every Viking have personality, so did every Dragon. And while some may harbor a bit of a complaint that it's another "misunderstanding of your enemy" and "become one with them" so soon after Avatar (especially since this was released in March on the heels of that epic film), I certainly don't mind. In fact, that and the flying sequences just make me embrace it more.

Hiccup is a hoot and Toothless will make you smile. Time is certainly running out on this long-lasting box office behemoth (nearly a half billion dollars earned worldwide) but it's worth checking it out for the first time or the fifth in the second-run theaters.

How to Train Your Dragon 2D Final Grade: A+

Geriatric Prince of Thieves

2010-06-01T18:14:00.001-04:00

I know I have this moviesign blog, but you know, I haven’t been doing a very good job of working on that. Blame Shotalicious. Blame lackluster films I’ve been seeing. Films like Russell Crowe’s “Robin Hood.” I took my mom to it for her birthday, so as long as she was satisfied with it, the outing would be a success. Well, she did like it, so that was good. And it was free. Got tickets from MyCokeRewards. I’m telling you people, you gotta work the systems you’re giving. In fact, I got another free ticket from AMC Moviewatcher Club when getting these.

But back to Robin Hood. Do I have to talk about it?

Why don’t I just mention the only part I really liked. Okay two parts. I liked Robin’s merry men. Even though they weren’t really called that, they kind of reminded me of Merry and Pippin so that was fun. And the other thing were the lost boys of Nottingham that were in the outskirts of the flick. You could just make a flick about them. They even called them Feral Boys in the credits.

Now they were cool. Old ass Cate Blanchet with her lack of bosoms and angry faces. She sucked. Russel Crowe sucked too. And the movie just never wanted to end.

Robin Hood final grade: D

Who Can Stop Watching the Watchmen?

2010-04-07T16:21:00.004-04:00

Superhero movies have been run into the ground. It's gotten so bad they're going to reboot Spider-Man even though they've only just done them. Hulk got two reboots. Superman, ugh. The XMEN get prequels.

Deciding that maybe the problem is they take themselves too seriously, "Watchmen" goes the in the opposite direction. Nothing ever appears on screen that you can put your faith in. It's long, it's droll, it's boring.

Playing in an alternate 1980's universe, the superheroes of Watchmen are not super nor heroes. They each get about a half hour to tell their painful reduction of humanity existence storyline, and then wrap things up with another half hour of exposition.

All style and silly substance, it's no surprise I didn't enjoy this. I didn't care for "300" another Zack Snyder experience. The fast, slow, fast fast, slow dance of camera movements punctuated with over the top graphic violence in both dialog or action makes me ill.

The fact that when it's over I realize I've wasted 162 minutes of my time trying to find deeper meaning to a storyline in which the only interesting thing is a naked blue demigod, that just makes me sick.

The fact that somewhere out there, someone is so in love with themselves and this project they went and made a 215 minute version. Well that's just insanity.

At least it was better than "The Spirit."

Watchmen final grade: D-

Wimpy a Strange Breed

2010-03-28T13:31:00.006-04:00

Based on an uber-popular set of children's books (but seriously, what kid flick isn't these days?) "Diary of a Wimpy Kid" is not your ordinary film for the tweeners.

Sure, it features more than its fair share of gross-out humor and playfully teases at what still remains taboo for the age group (ha-ha, he's in his underwear, how embarassing!). And more often than not it does really zero in on what makes the middle school years so devastating to many kids.

This is most often propelled by the narration thinly voiced by our lead Zackary Gordon. Not exactly a new comer to Hollywood, even at the tender age of twelve, he plays Greg, who obviously knows more than everyone around him. That includes his dimwitted parents, his abusive older brother, and his best friend.

While Greg, even in animated form -- which is a pleasant breath of fresh air directly taken from the books -- gives us so much to dislike about him, that best friend played by Robert Carpon keeps us happily moving along with the story.

I can 't remember seeing a children's film that features such an unlikable lead. While I understand that we're supposed to be learning by watching him fail, it makes for a real uncomfortable experience sometimes given the genre.

There are plenty of laughs still to be found in this scathingly insightful and accurate analysis of the tumultuous years of pre-pubescence. But, much like "Josie and the Pussycats", I almost wonder if a majority of the more interesting satire will be lost on its own target audience. I don't know if the movie played close enough to the books for loyalists, but the kids in my screening sure were engaged.

I was only whelmed, as I think it went too far too often and only played real nice in the last five minutes.

Diary of a Wimpy Kid Grade: C+

Not Nearly Alice

2010-03-11T11:10:00.004-05:00

I find it quite curious that nearly half of Tim Burton's new version/sequel to "Alice in Wonderland" he very dramatically included the biggest problem with the movie. I mean, he specifically spells it out time and time again:

It is not Alice.

Was he trying to make that point in a positive light. Kind of like when people say, "this ain't your parents [blank]?" Because, quite honestly, in this case, it totally didn't work.

As a long time Tim Burton fanatic, I hope to God the problem I have with this flick is only temporary. While most people just crave his dark twisted imagery, even this time I didn't think he'd gone where he normally would have. Was it Disney holding him back?

And there isn't even really much here otherwise as well. Sure, Johnny Depp's Mad Hatter role has been supersized, and there are enough of the old touches of the classic to keep you going back to fuzzy nostalgia, but in essence the plot can be boiled down to one mind numbingly bad sentence: Alice returns, challenges Red Queen's Jabberwocky, the end.

What? Seriously? That's all we get?

The after-created 3D effects fully pull off the insult. Since we were just completely jerked off to orgasm (some of us multiple times) by James Cameron's ability to use the medium to high potential, to see these half-assed effects is akin to rubbing one out to whatever happens to be playing on 4chan at the moment, beauty or quality be damned.

Perhaps the only saving graces of Alice in Wonderland is a few of the characters. Voice acting by Stephen Fry and Alan Rickman in particular were nice, though left me wanting even more. Thankfully Helena Carter realized this was her show to steal and did so with ease as well.

Otherwise, this is one white rabbit I wished I hadn't followed.

Alice in Wonderland final grade: D

Would you like to YES!

2010-03-03T21:06:00.007-05:00

I recently rejoined Netflix earlier this year. The general idea of my New Years Resolution was to see more films in the theater. Well, that hasn't quite worked out as well as I would have liked. (Thanks a lot four times seeing "Avatar") However, I AM seeing more movies than I have in quite some time.

When I put these two in my queue, I didn't realize they'd be coming back to back. I was just clicking add add add to all the films I'd been wanting to see.

I also didn't realize just how well they pair with one another.

"Yes Man" could be just another zany Jim Carrey movie. It could be considered even worse, since you'd think by now the actor should have grown out of such silliness. As it turns out, the premise of this flick is actually more the point than Carrey making funny faces or you laughing at how he gets himself in and out of increasingly peculiar situations.

Yes, his character is supposed to say 'yes' to every opportunity after going to a self-help group. And, yes, the movie does take quite a lot of liberties stretching out that plot device as far as they want. But perhaps just like Steve Carell's "40 Year Old Virgin" it's just the hook to hang the humor on. Acting and writing take it the rest of the way, and I have to admit, for a few times, I think I saw the more interesting Jim Carrey rather than the rubberfaced kid.

Zooey Deshanel, whom I also recently saw in "(500) Days of Summer" co-stars, but sadly isn't given much to do other than look pretty and accept the weird things surrounding her. For a brief moment, there is depth to her character, but unfortunately its more of a wrapping up procedure than anything of substance. It's a shame.

"Adventureland" is shameless however. Striving to apparently be nothing more than 'slice of life' it features the summer where ~~Michael Cera~~ Jesse Eisenberg doesn't get to take a trip he wants post-graduation. Instead, he's forced to take a job. Any job. Ending up at the local theme park, he meets friends, makes enemies, and eventually lands him a girlfriend.

It's not that the movie is uninteresting. It's actually hardly ever dull. It's just that the whole thing comes across more of a big-time indie film than something of real interest. The movie is funny, albeit at times obviously deliberate in being crass. You may even start to really enjoy some of the side-characters that "Superbad" director Greg Mottola populates it with.

But I think in the end, because it's just so real, you'll have decided you've ridden on this one before.

Also, stop trying to remind us you set the flick in the 80s. We get it, already!

Yes Men final grade: B

Adventureland final grade: B-

2010-02-21T21:28:00.004-05:00

"The Goods" is an extremely silly film about a odd crew who are extremely good at selling cars. It has more akin to Family Guy in how random and inappropriate it is, but the farce sometimes goes deeper than that.

I think it's an easily misunderstood film, not unlike "Josie and The Pussycats" if one tries to take it at face value.

No, not everything they throw at the screen sticks as funny, but there is something particularly genius about just how messed up the flick is. Fans of The Daily Show should be particularly pleased with two former funny guys featured: Ed Helms and Rob Riggle.

Especially of note is just how cool Ving Rhames comes across.

Speaking of cool, Zooey Deschanel practically sleepwalks through her role as Summer in the big indie breakout "500 Days of Summer." A film that tells you from the onset that it is not a love story, the kind of dramedy also features Joseph Gordon-Levitt.

A lot of people really liked this one, and I did too, but I didn't fall for it like "Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist." One of the biggest problems, I think, is just how thin the script is. Essentially it really is as simple as boy meets girl, boy falls in love, girl doesn't. But the movie tries to make you think there is more there with it's non-linear storytelling devices.

There is humor, but it's hard to really feel much of the romance due to the fact that none of the characters come across as complete. I've also thought the acting, particularly of Gordon-Levitt has certainly been better in other films. Maybe it's because he's carrying this flick and it was a box office success that so much praise has been heaped on him, but it just didn't see like it had much to sell.

The Goods final grade: B+
(500) Days of Summer final grade: B-

God Almighty a Race to the Bottom

2010-02-08T10:40:00.009-05:00

Evan Almighty is the red-headed step sister of hit Jim Carrey film Bruce Almighty.

It's about a snooty politician who is taken down a few pegs by Morgan Freeman replaying his role as Asshole God.

The biggest problem with the film is that it is written by Steve Oedekerk. While the man's Kung Pow: Enter the Fist was spoof genius, the screen play he produces here is simply an attempt to go for all the easy jokes. It makes the movie skew way younger than its predecessor and not much fun.

Speaking of not much fun, there is Death Race 3000, a movie that seems pretty much designed to feature nothing of any value whatsoever. While most people have realized by this point that Jason Statham has absolutely no acting quality to him and has been making the SAME EXACT MOVIE since 1998, others can be lured into this fine piece of cinematic trash with banal race scenes, brutal graphic violence, and false macho prison humor.

I've really only liked one thing director Paul W.S. Anderson has ever done (Resident Evil) and, of course, there is that lurking Roger Corman effect too. So while I wasn't exactly expecting a masterpiece, I still would have liked to be at least somewhat entertained. But, unfortunately, with a plot as paper thin as cons racing to the death for a bitch of a television exec, I really was running on fumes.

Evan Almighty final grade: D
Death Race 3000 final grade: F

Avatar Backlash Deepens.

2010-01-31T12:12:00.009-05:00

So, I haven't exactly been posting here so much. Why is that? Well, I technically still have been going to movies like I said I would, but the thing is, I've been mostly watching the same one over and over.

While I haven't taken it to the level as many Avatards, I have seen the James Cameron epic three times currently and wouldn't say no to a fourth heaping helping of 3D deliciousness.

Since I still wanted to add some new content to this page to keep you all interested, I thought why not write more about Avatar? After all, it seems that everyone is really getting their shots in now that the most expensive movie ever to produce has not made the most money.

Well, actually, that point right there is one that's being hotly debated currently. People are rattling on about adjusting for inflation and the premium price 3D and IMAX carries. Suddenly a lot of Gone With the Wind fans have come off the plantation, trying to defend the ancient legacy of that motion picture.

It's all a bunch of thanator dung.

There is no authentic way to compare a film from 1939 to 2010. Theaters didn't have multiple screens back then for one. And the numbers people use to adjust for inflation seem to change from method to method. You also can't compare numbers of tickets sold because it becomes a patch-work nightmare with many levels of tickets, passes, or good old fashioned freebies.

Yes, Gone With the Wind (or Titanic for that matter) is a legendary box office giant, but what Avatar has accomplished is more like a juggernaut. There is a very good reason why today's non-adjusted domestic box-office is loaded with modern day films. But to look at it that way, one would be missing the hometree in the middle of the forest.

They're all packed together below 400 million except for 3.

The Dark Knight, Titanic, and our soon to be number 1, Avatar.

How did The Dark Knight accomplish what Star Wars (even with many many multiple releases) did not? Heath fucking Ledger has a hell of a lot to do with it.

How did Titanic accomplish it? James Cameron created the first perfect motion picture. It didn't just hit the four quadrants (older, younger, male, female) it rammed them into an iceberg.

How did Avatar accomplish it? Almost the exact same way, but with added technological genius to ensure domination.

See, where many of the plot detractors go wrong is that they're looking for something unique in the wrong place. The plot is time tested and simple. But it had to be in order for people to be comfortable enough to instead be engaged with the new advances in film making.

The Na'vi and Pandora do not exist. So much of the movie doesn't exist in any physical form whatsoever. There won't be tours to Pandora's location sets like there were for Lord of the Rings, because the majority of them don't exist. And yet it all seems so real.

This is mind boggling!

It's as mind boggling as the fact that Avatar is the first film since 1997 to accomplish what it is doing in the box office. With ticket prices higher, with the turn and burn strategy employed by movie studios, no matter how awesome a movie is, being number 1 for SEVEN weeks now, should never happen. They've practically ensured that it doesn't. And yet, it has.

There are plenty of other points people have made against the film. They range from the silly (it causes depression, durr, you were depressed before you saw it) to the boring (white guilt really? We're going there again?) to the spiritual (they don't worship nature, they worship a deity and live symbiotically with its creation) to the boring (anti-capitalism, anti-American, anti-blah blah blah).

None of them are really worth rebutting since many are simply arguments people had before they even saw the movie and are just using Avatar to make points they want to make about their topic.

But there is one dumbass thing I want to correct before I go: Dances with Smurfs?

Okay. I get the Fern Gully comparisons. I do wonder how many people who say that actually saw that movie, but anyway...

I even get the Dances with Wolves comparisons. Though you could also go with The Last Samurai. I don't particularly like either film but, hey, Dances with Wolves got Best Picture and Kevin Costner got Best Director. I think Zoe Saldana's should get an award for acting. She made the new technique for filming actors not only work, but dominated it. But I digress.

Smurfs? Really? Smurfs?
Maybe people forgot what Smurfs are.

This is a Smurf.

The Na'vi look pretty much nothing like that. So, yeah, people need to remember that satire requires at least a germ of truth to be actually funny. And no, just being blue doesn't count.

Alright, that's enough from me for today. Remember to go see Avatar at least one more time before Alice in Wonderland comes to take all of the 3D screens away from what has become in just the short span of 7 weeks THE biggest motion picture of all time.

Thumbs Up In The Air

2010-01-17T11:52:00.006-05:00

"Up in the Air" isn't a sad movie in the sense that you just learned your dog has died. It's more like you just realized you never had a dog to begin with.

In what may be George Clooney's seventeenth movie in 2009, the film follows his character across the United States as he goes about his job of telling others they've lost theirs. He's the type that travels so often, he's got it down to a science. Unlike the narrator in "Fight Club," he doesn't have single-serving anything, much less friends.

That changes for him as he picks up some baggage. Some of it is desired, as long as it fits in his overhead compartment. That works well too for the girl he lays in between lay overs since she's cut from the same cloth.

One of the best scenes in the flick is how the pair meet in an airport bar. They show off their loyalty reward program cards and then sneak off to do it in a hotel room they don't pay for. Those crazy kids!

However things aren't so happy for our leading man when he's forced to take on a protege who, ironically, is trying to put him out of business. Anna Kendrick has the movie's best role, even though you hate her guts almost the entire time she's on screen. She's that good.

The film takes its sweet time really getting into the meat of why you are watching it. You are lead in and around so many airports and cities while getting to know exactly what makes Clooney's character tick. That's not too terrible, but when you start to realize there IS nothing that makes him tick, it does seem like a long time spent on nothing.

When things do finally start moving in a direction, it seems a bit false. For a man who truly has made himself an island, it seems unreasonable to believe the changes that begin to take place. An entire sequence that I don't want to really spoil takes far too long and is almost immediately undone.

Overall, the film is worth seeing. It's brilliantly acted with rich characterization. The script is scathingly funny. But remember, it's pretty dour through and through.

"Up in the Air" final grade: B+

Fantastic Mr. Fox is... well, Fantastic

2010-01-11T17:08:00.004-05:00

While it was met with very limited box office success, Wes Anderson's "Fantastic Mr. Fox" is certainly a lot more entertaining than the furry flick "Where the Wild Things Are."

Both films were released in late 2009 and I chose the one more traveled. I picked incorrectly.

"Wild Things" was big, expensive, and immersive, but it was ugly, pointless, and boring. "Mr Fox" is old school with its stop animation, but loaded with layers of quality entertainment. It also includes something the other flick forgot: FUN!

While some may write this off as a not-for-kids future cult classic, I have to say I would rather it be remembered as Clooney's "Ocean's 14" as it's just as slick and sophisticated as those Soderberg heist movies.

Characterization is key even when the plot is rather mundane. A family of foxes and other assorted critters live in the shadow of a trio of farms. Each of those are owned by their own amusing villainous fellows while they produce chicken, doughnuts, or cider.

The movie uses stop animation. That can be a little disorienting, especially since there is a sort of hyperactivity to many of the chase sequences. But while this format can sometimes be a flaw, it also is a predominate draw. There is much to marvel at, and I think you'd be just as curious as how it was filmed as the uber-modern "Avatar."

Honestly, I haven't had this much fun at an alternative animated film since perhaps 2000's "Chicken Run." Sure, the humor's sophistication is a bit more dry here (it is a Wes Anderson film after all) but the quality totally overrules a majority of objections one should have in watching it.

Fantastic Mr. Fox final grade: A-

Milk is good for the bones, but a little spoiled.

2010-01-05T21:22:00.005-05:00

Oh, you thought I was only going to review new movies I see? Ha ha! Well, that's not going to be the case. No, Sir! I plan on reviewing a lot more than just whatever Hollywood spits out.

Speaking of spitting out, last night, I finally watched Gus Van Sant's film Milk. Hey, I really wanted to swallow, but Sean Penn just gave me too much.

This recreation of actual events (with some fudging... oh, sorry, wrong choice of words?) is all about the gay rights advocate and political hack Harvey Milk.

I say hack because from what I gathered from the movie, he didn't actually wanna BE a politician the way we normally think of them. He just wanted his rights and thought why not be the man on the inside rather than continuing to put trust in the gay friendly straights.

The interesting thing is Sean Penn's Harvey Milk is actually often times the least interesting thing on screen. As usual it's the directors trance inducing shooting style that captures my attention.

Well that and Penn's costars, James Franco, Emile Hirsch, Kelvin Yu, etc. etc. That's a very good thing too since the star of the show often times is so over the top you kind of need a break now and then.

The film's pace is all screwy, though that's a common complaint about Gus Van Sant. He's going to show you the story the way he wants to, and there really isn't anything you can do about that other than decide you want to go along for the ride.

And you really should. Harvey Milk may not recruit you, but you'll at least bare witness to something that was very powerful back in the 70s. Something that has been repeated on smaller scales with similar issues ever since. Though some of us really need a reconfirmation.

Milk final grade: B-

Holmes is no shit, Sherlock

2009-12-30T18:52:00.006-05:00

It's tradition at my house to take my mother to see a film on any given major holiday. This is especially true on Christmas. While I tried very hard to persuade the woman who gave birth to me that Avatar was the film she wanted to see... nay, the film she HAD to see, I failed.

It was Holmes for the Holidays as the tagline went and so we did.

I'm very happy to report that it was fantastic. The theatre wasn't very crowded for our screening, though the movie has already done gangbusters even in the giant 3D shadow of the aforementioned film. Heck, even the buttered popcorn seemed to taste a little better.

Remakes, reinvisionings, reanything in Hollywood is a risky preposition. Sure, Star Trek did a great job with a reboot in 2009. I mean, I didn't think it was as amazing as many, but it was certainly much more watchable than the Enterprise series or Star Trek: Nemesis.

The idea that a fact fanatic and mystery loving bloodhound Sherlock Holmes could be retooled into something more entertaining seems crazy on the surface. Mix with that Guy Ritchie and it could be a damn near disaster.

But it wasn't. Robert Downey Jr. continues to soar above everything, even a mumbling, at time incoherent accent. Jude Law is handsome, dare I say, dapper as his sidekick. The pair fall into a real rhythm reminding me of television's House and Wilson that even audiences can start playing along with. I especially liked sequences where the action pauses and you're treated to the inner thoughts of Sherlock as he goes through a plan he has in mind. Then, you watch the events unfold, cheering him on, hoping that everything goes exactly as intended.

Unfortunately though, the plot, while entertaining and action packed, has no riddles for you to solve. You can't sit back, take a look at the clues, and play along as if you were an apprentice at 221B Baker's Street.

An additional problem is the movie is generally serving as an introduction to what the studio hopes a mega franchise for them. I know this is the movie biz and thems the (new) rules, but I would have liked a more satisfying conclusion than simply the end of a lesser plot.

Still, for all those complaints, I can't find myself wanting to knock off many points to this extremely energetic, and perhaps even more realistic version of the classic Doyle originals.

Now if only someone would do a screen version of Encyclopedia Brown for the kiddies.

Sherlock Holmes final grade: A-

Avatar is a Game Changer

2009-12-27T15:51:00.013-05:00

Welcome to my new movie review blog. Reviewing movies on the internet is nothing new to me. I once co-hosted a site called Queer and The Fat Guy where my room mate and I provided hundreds of reviews.

I later resubmitted some for The Trades website.

Here on pixiesticks.org, I've tried to maintain a list of short one-line reviews of films I had seen. But that practice started to fall by the wayside when I didn't go to the theatre that much and I had other projects to keep up with.

That all leads us up to this first post. I'm going to try to see more films in the theatre and I'm going to try and write more reviews of them.

How appropriate then is it that my first review will be on the motion picture that absolutely requires you to see it in its natural habitat? That's right, bitches, I'm talking about Avatar!

James Cameron worked ages on this mega-expensive movie and I almost wonder why he even bothered to release a normal, boring ol' 2D version. I mean, if you are so unfortunate to see it in that way, you'll only be witness to a ho-hum storyline on a somewhat interesting planet called Pandora.

But why would you do that to yourself when 3D and 3D IMAX is where it's at!

I already wear glasses, so wearing glasses on top of glasses, I thought would be mighty annoying. And it is. For approximately six minutes. By that point, you're already so engrossed in the movie, you forget that you're wearing them. You also wish nearly all the big time Hollywood movies would be filmed with these effects.

There is still the ho-hum storyline, but you have to kind of ignore that. I mean, is there really a downside of being told the same story you've heard before as long as it's being told in a whole new way?

The 3D used here is not really the same as we've seen in films littered across 2009 with lots of things poking out at you in a gimmicky kind of way. Those are fun, don't get me wrong, but what Avatar does is use the 3D to essentially extend the film into your lap. The whole film, not just random pieces when they feel like giving you a good squirm. This essentially places you in the movie which is what we really want in 3D technology anyway, right?

You have to let the effects do their job though. Focusing on things that are deliberately out of focus is only going to give you eye-strain, a headache, and you're not going to have a good time.

Similarly, if you keep trying to break down the storyline into smaller parts, rather than just accepting it as a whole cliche ridden tale of going native, you're not going to have a good time.

But if you pizza when you're supposed to pizza, and french fry when you're supposed to french fry. You're going to end up declaring Avatar not just a great experience at the theatre, but one that demands to be seen a second time. After all, no matter how fucking awesome your home set up is, it won't be able to deliver the goods. At least not until that technology catches up with James Cameron's brilliant mind.

Avatar 3D final grade: A+