In Short: The Sorcerer's Apprentice

The Sorcerer's Apprentice
Cast: Nicolas Cage, Jay Baruchel, Alfred Molina, Monica Bellucci, Teresa Palmer
Writer(s): Doug Miro, Carlo Bernard, Matt Lopez, Lawrence Konner, Mark Rosenthal
Directed by Jon Turteltab
Release: 14 July 2010
Walt Disney Pictures, 114 mins., Rated PG-13

Plot: Dave Stutler (Baruchel) is destined to be the sorcerer's (Cage) apprentice.

Hand Me a Ham Sandwich: Nicolas Cage loves the long hair and trench coat, going balls-out crazy as the title sorcerer Balthazar. Good news is: his major amount of fun makes us equally giddy. And Toby Kebbell (Prince of Persia) gives us the laugh-out-loud Criss Rock-esque superstar magician who's a total dweeb. Pretty visual effects: explosions, shattering glass filling the screen, super cool dragons, and lots of fire.

Bugger All: Alfred Molina (Prince of Persia) is just there, looking all imposing and grrrr. Jay Baruchel (She's Out of My League) irritates with every word that creaks out of his mouth. Not enough substance, plenty of glamor, though.

The Prime Merlinian: Pretty dragons and sorcerery can't make up for this uninspired and unenthusiastic production that doesn't necessitate the big-ass chunk of money spent on making this thing. We've seen this story and spells in far better movies, so check 'em out instead.

In Short: The Fly (1986)

The Fly
Starring Jeff Goldblum, Geena Davis, John Getz
Written by Charles Edward Pogue, David Cronenberg
Directed by David Cronenberg
Release: 15 August 1986
20th Century Fox, 95 mins., Rated R

Plot: In a drunken state, scientist Brundle (Goldblum) ends up transfusing fly genes with human genes with really, really freaky results that don't bode well for his love life.

Well, that was cool. And it was also refreshing to have a much-hyped film live up to its reputation. Working at a video store, David Cronenberg's THE FLY gets nearly God-like status from many horror and sci-fi customers, so my seeing it was nearly guaranteed. Upon its release, this re-imagining of the 1958 original received equal critical praise, namely the makeup effects of the creature and Jeff Goldblum's tour de force performance. In a nutshell, yeah - they were spot on.

Goldblum, who will always be Malcolm from JURASSIC PARK to me, is fantastic as the wide-eyed Brundle. Davis is pretty good herself as the love interest reporter who ends up with a complicated storyline that lends itself to the unnecessary sequel a few years later. Another nifty thing is that these two actually have some real down-to-earth chemistry, and it helps sell that this rather dorky dude who has no idea how to talk to women could get a gal like that. John Getz plays the editor of Davis' magazine/newspaper, who for the most part is quite a dick, but his character (surprisingly) grows and is given a fate that actually invokes some sympathy from the viewer. And here I thought I would be rooting uproariously [though, truth be told, I did root a little].

As publicized, there's some magnificent visual effect and make-up work done. The progression of his fly-like persona on the still-human Brundle is nothing short of amazing - a technical achievement just as much as the actual fly is. I was prepared for something sorta freaky, but I didn't expect how beautifully the fly end product blends the insect and human together. And the remote control work done with the eyes alone - gorgeous. So, yes, every word ever spoken about the technical achievements in this production...totally true.

Overall, THE FLY is a pretty good movie. It does suffer from some pacing issues (which is strange, with it being only 95 minutes and all), but I do give kudos to the screenwriters and director for allowing us to get attached to Brundle and watch the majority of his transformation and mood swings. Jeff, Geena, and David - you guys crafted one helluva movie. Definitely recommended, though if you're sorta squeamish with blood and pealing skin, um, you'll sorta have to turn away from the screen here and there.

The Crazies, Last Song, Repo Men, Robin Hood

The Crazies
Starring Timothy Olyphan, Radha Mitchell, Danielle Panabaker, Joe Anderson
Written by Ray Wright, Scott Kosar
Based on "The Crazies" by George Romero
Directed by Brek Eisner
Release: 26 February 2010
Overture Films, 101 mins., Rated R

Plot: A sheriff, his wife, and a deputy face off against everyone else in town who have been infected by some strange virus in the water and have become quite crazy.

Luckily, I didn't endure the same experience others had while watching The Crazies, this remake (and here it actually does apply as a remake) of a old George Romero production (which I never saw), so my review is pretty straight-forward. All in all, a pretty strong and quite effective movie, which was quite nice considering I was expecting nothing less than a below average rehash of Grudge 2-esque crap.

The movie is pretty intense, I won't lie. Although it's not necessarily scary, it did make me literally cling to every shot, wondering where the new bad guy is gonna be and what new obstacle is gonna get in their way now. It's awesome. There's some truly cool moments, like the super-duper-best-ever-death involving Olyphant, a hand, and a knife. That was tight. There's also the awesome car wash sequence which I'm sure plenty have written about already - that was pure terror and intensity, same thing near the end with the deputy and his wife at the gas station/market area where they're confronted by two crazies.

The biggest and best surprise of The Crazies - and a large reason why I'm giving it additional props - is the 70 second scene with Glen Morshower, who you may recognize as being a military Head Honcho in both Transformers movies, and in TV Land, you recognize him as Agent Piece in 24. In Crazies, he has a short, sweet, and thankless role as a government agent who tells Olyphant & Co. what's going on before getting shot in the head.

Another element that I like - and yeah, I know it's not necessarily original - is that these are not zombies, and that the U.S. military comes in to clean up their mess mercilessly. That's just cool, and I like how it's handled here. It's truly a fight for survival, and it's dirty. But none of the drama or the heightened tension would mean a single thing if it wasn't for the great cast involved - Olyphant, Mitchell, Anderson. All three feel like they've known each other for years, and to their fight for survival where not everyone makes it is grueling yet cool. So The Crazies is recommended, 'cuz it's actually pretty damn cool.


The Last Song
Starring Miley Cyrus, Liam Hemsworth, Greg Kinnear, Kelly Preston, Bobby Coleman
Written by Jeff Van Wie, Nicholas Sparks
Based on the book "The Last Song" by Nicholas Sparks
Directed by Julie-Anne Robinson
Release: 31 March 2010
Offspring Entertainment, 107 mins., Rated PG-13

Plot: Ronnie (Cyrus) is forced to live with her dad on a really pretty beach after getting into some major legal trouble back home, and as luck would have it, she finds romance in a well-built, doofus looking hunka-bunka.

This Miley Cyrus romance vehicle surprisingly didn't suck. Sure, there were some rather funny moments of really bad acting thanks to Cyrus' real-life hubby and onscreen romantic elemento Hemsworth, but overall, not too bad. Based off a Nicholas Sparks novel - which incidentally, Sparks wrote the book with Cyrus' starpower in mind - it's expected that A) romance will blossom, and B) something bad will happen. Both do indeed transpire through the course of the movie. What's interesting is that I actually gave a damn, and I think that means that Cyrus and company actually did a pretty OK job.

Cyrus' Ronnie doesn't much like her father Steve all that much, probably blaming him for breaking up the family, so they spend the majority of the movie in a verbal jest - she yells, he calmly rebuttals and tells her to go to bed. Greg Kinnear is a awesome actor, and it's great to see him actually engage in a conversation with a angry daughter instead of the stereotypical back-to-back yellfest. On the opposite spectrum of good acting, we have Chris Hemsworth, who is just as bad as Hayden Christensen in Episode II [give the guy a break with Episode III - with the exception of the Courscant balcony scene, then make fun as much as you want].

The fact that I enjoyed the movie doesn't forgive the fact that it's your run-of-the-mill, predictable romantic entanglement. There will somehow, someway be some sort of fault with Ronnie's new leading man, and although he's hunky and 'deep', he has some emotional baggage and regret about something that will just make her fall in love more, etc. And as for the title, it takes only a couple seconds to guess the few scenarios that it suggests. Even through the script isn't entirely strong (e.g., the entire subplot involving this rebel girl Blaze was entirely unnecessary, and I wouldn't have been saddened if a legion of zombies wanted to massacre her in any way), it nonetheless boasts some pretty decent performances, and in all honesty folks, there's far, far worse romantic dramas/comedies floating around the world right now. This one just happens to be rather tolerable. How about that for an endorsement?

Repo Men
Starring Jude Law, Forest Whitaker, Liev Schriber
Written by Eric Garcia, Garrett Lerner
Directed by Miguel Sapochnik
Release: 12 March 2010
Universal Pics., 111 mins., Rated R

Plot: Jude Law slices people up to take their organs if their payments overdue, and when he gets one tossed in his body, he decides to run 'cuz he can't get the dough.

Yes, I've seen Repo! The Genetic Opera, and no, I'm not going to compare the two. Repo Men is all about Jude Law pulling a Minority Report, and kicking some Tom Cruise-esque ass. And Jude is rather good at doing just that.

2010 has been a powerhouse of awesome action scenes, and Repo Men is no different. The final 20 minutes gives us one hell of a awesome hallway fight sequence, where Jude uses his hands and any weapons he can get a hold of to beat up about 15 bad guys. It's sorta like Oldboy, but without the 'woah' factor of being filmed in one shot. With the raging music and Jude pulverizing everyone in that hallway, that was just sweet.

A real ruiner of the movie comes in the form of the ending. On one hand, it's a nice cop out, and completely unexpected, and I can't help but respect the decision. On the other hand, WTF? It's not remotely a understatement to say that I seriously, really like-a-lot hated that ending. I'll rent the DVD to (hopefully) watch 2 or 3 alternate endings, because they MUST have filmed at least a few more and just wrongly chose that one.

Overall, Repo Men was a pretty good run-for-your-life action film with plenty of awesome sequences and awesome actors - Forest Whitaker is 'da man! (don't believe me, watch season 5 of The Shield. Period.) - and is one of the better action films of the year thus far. Just perhaps leave right after the hallway sequence mentioned above, and you won't have to suffer the uber-dumb twist of an ending.


Robin Hood
Starring Russel Crowe, Cate Blanchett, Mark Strong, Oscar Isaac
Written by Brian Hegeland
Directed by Ridley Scott
Release: 12 May 2010
Imagine Entertainment, 140 mins., Rated PG-13

Plot: Robin Hood's, like, really good at shooting arrows and stuff.

Well, no, it wasn't Gladiator 2.0, though I'm not sure if that's necessarily a good thing, Gladiator was visually stunning, dramatic, character driven, action-awesomey, and just simply a great movie. Robin Hood is a underwhelming "it was good." Keep in mind though, folks, this film is a prequel/origin tale of the legendary Robin Hood - it's not actually about his crusades against King John and taxation. The last 10 minutes are dedicated to that mythology. As a origin story, though, I'd say Robin Hood doesn't quite succeed. Speaking of which, looking back at the movie, I would have much preferred if they kept the title Nottingham as the script was originally called.

Although he looks awesome in the Robin Hood outfit, Russel Crowe mumbles his way through the performance and doesn't seem all that interested in the role. He just looks tired. Cate Blanchett is overall OK in her performance as Lady Marion, but her character is severely undeveloped and in the end, her character makes no real impact that calls for her presence in the film. Oscar Isaac as King John is perhaps the most revealing performance, as it's obvious the actor is having immense fun being this pompous imbecile. I would have loved to see more of his character, although if there is a sequel commissioned, I can't wait to see what he will do with such juicy material.

The script is...alright. The first act suffers the most, being rather dodgy and all over the place, and there's a lack of flow that hinders the film rather largely. By the time Robin arrives in Nottingham to give the Locksley family a sword he vowed to return, things start picking up, but yet the scripts still feels a little choppy. The main problem facing Robin Hood is, simply, there needs to be more. And I say that knowing full well its lengthy running time. But there's plenty of material that can be condensed or omitted (William Hurt's material, for example, which doesn't necessarily need to be there) to make way for more character beats. The entire picture just seems to cobbled together, with all these random elements thrown in to make some big 'epic' production, and they lost sight on the characters.

From a directorial standpoint, Robin Hood was rather tame. When I think of Ridley Scott productions, that man has crafted visually beautiful films - this movie doesn't fall in that category. A particular problem that takes away the joy of the fight scenes is that the framing is too tight that we can't enjoy the full spectacle of the battle. The fight scene in Nottingham is guilty of this, as is the big climatic finale. Perhaps I'm too picky about framing, spoiled by Nolan, Spielberg and Favreau (yes, Favreau), but this was a little disappointing. However, one really super cool aspect of the film was the freakin' awesome score, which will definitely be a must-buy purchase.

All in all, Robin Hood falls into the 'eh, it's OK' category, which is quite unfortunate. It's a beautiful tale, and a origin story held boundless possibilities. On the plus side, it's not nearly as offending as last year's "origin" story. Yeah, you know what I'm talking about.

In Short: Vampires, Romance, Aliens, Dramedy,

During the long period of time where I neglected to review basically everything I watched due to the sole reason of me simply not being 'juiced' enough to think let alone write about some of these flicks, I watched plenty from the good to the really bad, though most of it wasn't stellar filmmaking. Now a majority of these movies I saw a while ago, so some of the details may not be so vivid and detaily. My apologies. So this is basically just a simple overview of my general impression without specifics. Besides, not like they're really relevant now: if you wanted to see the movie, yah did; if you didn't, yah didn't. Or are just waiting for DVD/Blu-Ray and are reading a few more reviews in which case this might actually be relevant...

Aside from plenty of school work and website building (nothing fancy, just had to construct school-related websites for poets and media industries - a world of yippie), most of my free time has been spent watching TV programs. They've become quite addicting. With the release of Terminator - The Sarah Connor Chronicles: Season 2, I was close to skipping school every day until I finished the series; and I've recently become addicted to The Big Bang Theory, watching both seasons within two weeks, however fast Netflix could ship 'em. So in the midst of my TV show watchin', I've viewed a few movies, but c'mon, let's be frank: with a few exceptions, movies haven't really warranted the "must-see" label.

Moral of the story: I got lazy, I dislike school, and I love me some Big Bang Theory.

BLOOD: THE LAST VAMPIRE
Cast: Gianna Jun, Allison Miller, JJ Field
Writer: Chris Chow
based on the movie "Blood: The Last Vampire"
Director: Chris Nahon
Asmik Ace Holdings, 91 mins., 2009

Heavy on the blood and effects, light on the substance that makes a movie worth watching. Surprise #1: 97% of the movie is spoken in English! And here I thought I was popping in a full-on Japanese production complete with some English subs, but alas, not necessary! Surprise #2: this flick is gory. It's not to an insane amount a la the Saw movies, or Hostel for that matter, but it's very gruesome cartoonyish blood. [Make sense?] Similar to Kill Bill, a simple slice to the flesh will result in massive buckets of blood spilling or sprinkling outwards like a rain fall. Surprise #3: the CG effects are really dodgy. Fake-y looking and far too reliant on said fakey CG work, The Last Vampire loses a few points from me for that, but I can't shake off the feeling I think it was a deliberate move on their part.

Honestly, I'm unsure of what type of tone the filmmakers were trying to conjure. The bad CG effects nearly scream 'deliberate' that I half want to say this movie falls under the category of a satire of the vampire story, but it's directed with such seriousness I'm hesitant to call it such.

In Blood: The Last Vampire, there's yet another one of those top-secret organizations only a few key people in the universe know about. This particular organization, dubbed "The Council", assists Saya, a half-human half-vampire sword-wieldin' gal who seeks revenge on Big Bad Demon Onigen for the murder of her mentor some many years ago. Along the way, she meets up with American gal Alice who also wants to kick some vampire ass to avenge the murder of her father.

A good waste of a hour and some change is the best way to sum up The Last Vampire viewing experience. Is it one of the better, awesome revenge-kickass-vampire films of the last decade? A world of nah. But it is fun, and Ms. Miller is pleasing to the eyes, and there's some awesomely bad performances from a group of English actors. The final, 'climatic' battle scene doesn't tread any new territory; Saya's background is unsatisfying, as is the stilted, unenthusiastic 'I-just-got-paid!' performance of Ms. Jun; and the script is far too familiar. Really, these days, it just seems no one tries to do something different with a concept. I get it - original ideas are a rare breed these days, and if they do get made, they're circulating around independent theaters and aren't very publicized. But making a tired formula movie without trying to spice it up with something really cool or 'movie defining' is just rather lazy. The most interesting thing about it is a rain-soaked vampire melee that's more awesome sounding than it is realized.

It's cool that it was made with a mostly American cast with English dialog, but the end product is just the tired same formula thang. But like I said, fun was had. So sit back, order a pizza, drink some Dr. Pepper (I'm their unofficial sponsor), and let the party begin.

CIRQUE DU FREAK: THE VAMPIRE'S ASSISTANT
Cast: Chris Massoglia, John C. Reilly, Willem Dafoe, Salma Hayek, Ken Watanabe, Josh Hutcherson
Writer: Paul Weitz & Brian Helgeland
Based off "Cirque du Freak" by Darren Shan
Director: Paul Weitz
Release: 23 October 2009
Universal, 109 mins., Rated PG-13

News flash: vampires are all the craze these days. Stephenie Meyer did a number to tween and teenage girls with her Twilight Saga book series, which was then adapted into a million dollar movie franchise; HBO and The CW adapted The Sookie Stakhouse and The Vampire Diaries books for TV to huge ratings success; merchandise ranging from a Edward vibrator to a Twilight Christmas tree and Tru Blood drinks are all the range. So it makes sense that Universal Pictures - and for that matter, any company - would try to adapt a successful supernatural book franchise. Others that were Harry Potter imitators inevitably failed (The Spiderwick Chronicles), but Universal had the inclusion of vampires in the title and plot as a sure-fire money maker. And thus, they acquired the rights to the Cirque du Freak series by British author Darren Shan, and adapted the first three novels of a 12-part saga for the big screen.

The Vampire's Assistant presents a idea that interesting (and apparently not in the novels), but it's done in the same redundant, un-imaginative way that one really oughta wonder if the director's heart was in it [which, according to interviews, it was]. Sorry to go off on a warparth for a sec, but I think it's something that needs a moment: a lot of these fantasy/fun movies these days don't have a sense of creativity; it feels very much like a formula, a 'going-by-the-motions' kind of thing. It's almost like there's a ginormous lack of effort put into these movies, like everyone involved just threw their hands up and reasoned 'whatever, it'll make some big bucks anyway.' Not only do the actors seem unenthusiastic, but the script typically comes off something rushed and uninspired or remotely original, with classic and redundant lines of dialog, underdeveloped characters (basically everybody), and true lazy directing. And the sad thing is that I read interviews with these directors and they seem genuinely enthusiastic to be behind the camera on this picture. Then why do these movies so often feel uncared for?

Weitz at least throws in some creativity to the mix as far as cinematography is concerned. As Darren begins to harness his supernatural ways, or the editing style of the circus freaks near the beginning, there seems to be a want to make things look visually beautiful, a important factor in films that some book-to-movie directors who aren't helming Harry Potter seem to care little about. The Vampire's Assistant fails with the writing, and I speak in a general sense (it's been over two months since I saw it, so the specifics are a little fuzzy); it's near 99% predictable dialog. However, the high point, as I said somewhere in the beginning of this review, is a certain plotline that I find fascinating: (spoiler warning for future viewers) Darren and his best friend Steve become enemies, and thus must face each other. These two best friends are cast, by 'fate', to battle one another until the end of this vampire war. It's a cool concept that I really hope gets some good material in some future movie.

The acting in this movie is best left unmentioned, although I will quickly add that the cast of Twilight have a contender for 'worst performances in a major motion picture', as Cirque's teenage lead Massoglia is as monotone and stiff as one, I imagine, views Keanu Reeves. Oh, and Salma Hayek cracked me up every second she was onscreen - horrible, but hilarious. Judging by the unspectacular box office gross, I doubt the saga of Darren Shan will see similar treatment with future installments (if any), which is a shame, because the story of Cirque du Freak is actually quite interesting. If anything, this movie works as a good promotional tool for the 12-part series.

For a movie with a relatively chunky running time for a kid flick, there's a lot happening but very little that actually deserves being reviewed. There's a extremely, extremely lame attempt at a love interest. There's the way-too-caviler 'hey, I'm gonna be a vampire! Isn't 'dat kool?' attitude to this 16-year old boy's transformation to a being of the undead. There's the big climatic battle that also sets up for a never-gonna-happen sequel. And then there's the sense of bewilderment that for a book series that is so rich with material, this is the rather disappointing movie we get in return.

The Vampire's Assistant doesn't tread any new ground, and it isn't anything grandiose. But it is a fun flick for anyone who hasn't read any of the books; otherwise, this movie is absolute blasphemy, like Episode I was to Star Wars fans and Kingdom of the Crystal Skull to Indy lovers. Worth a check when it hits DVD.


COUPLES RETREAT
Cast: Vince Vaughn, Jon Favreau, Jason Batement, Kristen Bell, Kristin Davis, Malin Akerman, Jean Reno
Writer: Jon Favreau, Vince Vaughn, Dana Fox
Director: Peter Billingsley
Release: 09 October 2009
Universal, Rated R, 113 mins.

The very idea that Kristen Bell (TV: Veronica Mars) was in a bikini for 40% of a movie's running time is a automatic ticket purchase. The great cast line-up only further solidified my movie anticipating excitement! That's why it was rather disappointing that the movie hardly could live up to the interesting premise. Once again, the 'best' laughs were featured in the trailer, leaving all the deep and not-needed emotional baggage and lack of any really good LOLers a big surprise. Yes, the promise of attractive female leads in bikinis sold me the ticket - the Universal (?) marketing department did their job well - but at least deliver a movie that's really worth my time.

Looking back, I would have to say the movie starts breaking apart by the last 40 minutes - it's around that time utter seriousness, and a ridiculous Guitar Hero 3-min 'ad', ruin a otherwise okay movie. I will give credit to the screenwriters, however, that there was a sense of jeopardy with some of these relationships; but that credit is nearly canceled out by the shamefully lazy conclusion they slapped on to make this one of those 'sweet comedies' (as in: joke, Hallmark 'ahhhhh' moment, joke, another Hallmark 'ahhhhh' moment, repeat)

Now before I move on, take a look at that cast list two paragraphs above. Go on, take a lookie. One would conclude, with the talent being paid, that the film would have no problems eliciting a hoot and giggle, let alone create characters you can really, truly honest-to-Jebus care about. There is one relationship that particularly got my attention - Dave (Vaughn) and Ronnie (Akerman), a couple so down to earth and relatable I nearly wished all the other characters went away and we could simply concentrate on these two. On the opposite side of the spectrum, Joey (Favreau) and Lucy (Davis) is a couple that is obnoxious from frame one all the way to the conclusion, which is entirely unsatisfying. In fact, the finale is poorly written and unsatisfying. It's one of those particular scripts where by the film's conclusion you don't feel as though the characters deserve their ending, they didn't earn it, even with all the trials they went through at Eden.

Overall, an entirely skippable comedy/drama that misses the mark far too often to make it a worthwhile, entertaining flick to watch, which really sucks because I was rooting for it. Perhaps with the impending DVD/Blu-Ray release, I'll give it another go, as I'm sure my disappointment overshadowed the plenty positives.

EXTRACT
Cast: Jason Bateman, Mila Kunis, J.K. Simmons, Ben Affleck, Kristen Wiig
Written & Directed: Mike Judge
Release: 4 September 2009
Miramax Films, 92 mins., Rated R

Getting more publicity than its worth for being the newest production by Office Space director Mike Judge, Extract is a little dramedy that rises upon it's okay script with stellar performances from everyone involved: the always great Jason Bateman (Hancock), J.K. Simmons (I Love You, Man), Mila Kunis (TV: That 70's Show), Ben Affleck (Dardevil), Kristen Wiig (Whip It!) and Clifton Collins, Jr. (The Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day). All of these actors were absolutely 100% on their A-Game: Simmons was as lovable as always, although I wouldn't have minded a more prominent role; Wiig was beautiful; Bateman kept to his regular ways, but at least he branches out his abilities more-so than his Arrested Development co-star Michael Cera; Kunis doesn't have too much of a opportunity to shine, but anything's damn better than Max Payne; but it's Affleck that steals the show every second he's on screen.

It's been a long while since I saw it, but I the general sentiment was this: funny at some parts, annoying at others, a all-around OK movie, but definitely not worth the $9.50 ticket apiece. By the time of this writing, Extract is making it's way to DVD, where it's doubtful it'll make the Office Space-home video-esque cult classic, but should get a look at.

THE FOURTH KIND
Cast: Milla Jovovich, Elias Koteas, Will Patton
Written & Directed: Olatunde Osunsanmi
Release: 06 November 2009
Universal, 96 mins., Rated PG-13

Memory does not look back fondly to The Fourth Kind. A sci-fi thriller heavily publicized as a documentary reenactment of 'actual events' in Nome, Alaska, this flick is a hell lot of nothin'. Truth be told - Fourth Kind wasn't high on my 'to-see' list, but it was playing at a convenient time (biked to the mall, went to the local theater at a whim, and voilia, Fourth Kind), so I gave it a shot. Ladies and gents, I wasn't expecting a movie that would freak the frak out of me like Paranormal Activity did, nor was I looking for a movie with a intelligent script, but with, at least, something good. Unfortunately, it failed to deliver even that.

From the opening moments with actress Milla Jovovich lookin' right at the camera and professing her status as a actress reenacting these 'actual case studies', I knew this movie was doomed. The annoying camera rotation was ticking me off - I wager this is how moviegoers felt watching Transformers - Revenge of the Fallen this summer. And then the movie began. If there was such an award for 'Most Establishing Shots of Mountains in a Movie That's Not a Franchise', The Fourth Kind would win, hands down. More time is spent with the camera up in the sky (and zoomed up at a owl) than with our leads, and its' not to create a 'the aliens are watching us' feeling, it just seems to come out of laziness to make adequate transitions. And then there's the performances which are completely phoned in. Jovovich was probably preparing herself for the fourth Resident Evil movie, and the other guys were possibly contemplating their future careers in the television landscape (which isn't necessarily a band thing).

The movie tries to work as a supernatural suspense film. It does not accomplish this. Suspense is attempted by cutting in-between 'actual' hypnosis sessions and the dramatized reenactments. Not so much. Frustration, freakiness, and fascinating is meant to come out of the blurry, scratchy moments of the tape when something actually happens. Partially; particularly the 'possession' moments moreso than anything else (i.e., a hostage situation that goes wrong). That was a genuinely freaky moment, especially the talk about Sumerian and the "I am...God" moment - chilling (spoiler?). There's also a shot of a owl watching the camera as it moves across a driveway for about 40 seconds that sort of creeps you out, but that's about it.

Fourth Kind is a exercise in futility. Not matter how much you wanted it to be good and enjoyable, it just couldn't deliver. The script, which, if this was based off 'actual case studies', shouldn't really be considered a script, is rather rubbish. The dialog, the cliched characters, the lack of considerable tension throughout the film, and a lack of keeping audience attention through it's long, long running time - I can't recommend The Fourth Kind as a viewing choice of any kind: Netflix, Watch Instantly, Redbox, or a group riff track. Just skip it.

LAW ABIDING CITIZEN
Cast: Gerard Butler, Jaime Foxx, Leslie Bibb, Viola Davis
Writer: Kurt Wimmer
Director: F. Garry Gray
Release: 16 October 2009
Overture Films, 109 mins., Rated R

Some friends and I were discussing Gerard Butler and his re-emergence in 2009 as a actor who was nearly everywhere you turned around, but until Rob Pattinson's ability to haunt your dreams, Butler made you want to kick some ass and take names. Mom got into the conversation and offered this little bit: apparently from some TV talk show, Butler described his career right now as such: "I make two types of movies: the ones with my shirt off in which people try to kill me, or the ones with my shirt on which are really sappy."

Guess what category Law Abiding Citizen falls under.

Buildings blow up, people die, and Gerard Butler plays his awesome, cool demeanor every step of the way. Big-time lawyer Jamie Foxx attempts to reason with the man, but see's him more as a opportunity to get his name out their more. None of the characters are really all that appealing, but out of the bunch, Butler undoubtedly takes the lead. Cunning, manipulating, brilliant, and persuasive, Butler plays this betrayed man very, very well. A decade after watching his wife and child killed, Butler makes a choice to show the faulty system the law works under and expose humanity's waste. Luckily for him, he's quite a wealthy man so he can accomplish a lot of crazy shisha.

I'm not sure if we're particularly supposed to root for someone, but Jamie Foxx never grabbed my attention, sympathy, or understanding. His character wasn't brilliantly written, I'll grant him that; but Foxx's performance was also strikingly off to the extent I was never quite sure I ever bought this role as anything but phony. So when I say Butler kicks ass, I mean that he positively OWNS this movie, and for that reason alone, Law Abiding Citizen is a recommendation.

You already know what type of movie this is, and you can pretty much guess the film every step of the way. But it's enjoyable, and actually punches some real surprises. Absolutely give it a shot; I might even buy the bugger when it hits home video.

LOVE HAPPENS
Cast: Jennifer Aniston, Aaron Eckhart
Written & Directed: Brandon Camp
Release: 18 September 2009
Universal, 109 mins., Rated PG-13

I hardly remember this Jennifer Aniston/Aaron Eckhart rom-com, but I recall my disappointment that it wasn't anything more than your typical, redundant, paint-by-the-numbers movie that didn't take full use of the caliber of actors they had at their disposal. I'd say rewrite the bloody script to better suit these people. Eckhart has some moments to shine, particularly a cool sequence in which he burns his feet trying to persuade a man not to leave one of his seminars.

Right, let me back up a bit: Eckhart plays this Dr. Phil-like guy who basically says the same things every other self-help therapy doctor dude spills, and Aniston is one of those hottish gals who pick the wrong guys and is free spirited. Eckhart's character is also emotionally burdened with the death of his wife, and feels he is to blame and thus can't confront her family or attend her funeral (not spoiling anything; it was in the trailer). Naturally, these two characters spark a connection. Maybe romantic, maybe just friends-with-benefits, but a connection apparently worth making a movie about.

How my watching Love Happens came about was mom really wanted to see a chick flick, and she was paying. So, why not? At the very least, I get to see Eckhart play another emotionally damaged character who is completely lost in his pain. That's interesting, that's worth making a movie. The resulting movie with the unnecessary but perhaps company-forced romantic element just feels uneven, like it really doesn't know what it's trying to be or what it wants to say other than 'open up, goofballs.' In the end, it's a okay flick, but entirely skipable. No career defining performances or a script to blow one's socks off, Love Happens just simply happened, and left unnoticed.

In Short: Disney Singer, 'Funny' Comedian, Traveling Naked, and Angry Man

School is back in session, and my time to write reviews or update this blog is becoming increasingly more strained (not like I updated like an insane lunatic with massive amounts of free-time anyhow), so I've decided to give a few recent viewed movie's a critique in a short manner, right down to the nitty gritty and throwing away all the blubber that makes my reviews. So, without further ado, I write about the much-anticipated Hannah Montana: The Movie, Tony Scott's remake (this is no "re-imagining", this is a blatant, uninspired remake) of The Taking of Pehlam 1 2 3, the tiem flux love story that reminds me why I'm in love with Rachel McAdams: The Time Traveler's Wife, and finally, Judd Apatow's third dramatic comedy Funny People that is really one of those "love it/hate it" flicks.

FUNNY PEOPLE
starring Adam Sandler, Seth Rogen, Leslie Mann, Eric Bana
written & directed by Judd Apatow
Universal, 136 mins., Rated R

Earlier this year, Seth Rogen also starred in a non-Judd Apatow production called Observe & Report, a comedy that a large amount of the general public found hilarious. Me? Not so much. The only reason I bring this up, is that I'm suffering through the same thing. It also happened with the much-praised about Adventureland (publicly and proudly advertised as "from the director of Superbad"). Judd Apatow's third movie (great Gatsby, only his third?) is an interesting one, and I completely respect what Apatow was trying to achieve with it; there's some great performances, and there's one ginormous tud. When the movie ended, I was left with a feeling of, 'Why did I just watch that movie? What was the purpose?' Perhaps it's that the marketers advertised this as a comedy, whereas it is undeniably a drama where its main characters are comedians, I would have understood and liked it a little more. And speaking of comedians, I never once smiled, smirked, chuckled, or laughed during their "stand-up" routines. If I were a ginormous company such as Facebook hiring a famous comedian/actor, I sure as hell wouldn't pick friggin' George Simmons. Luckily, Seth Rogen's Ira does a far better jobs with the jokes.

As it stands, Adam Sandler (who I used to have respect for and actually laughed with his movies) as main character George Simmons gives THE most annoying acting job of his career, never once making me laugh, chuckle, or smirk. Not only is his character unlikable (67% deliberate), but the guy's voice is so damn irritating in the flick I sorta didn't mind if he didn't get better. In fact, even when he's saying Ira's pretty good jokes, they come off as 'holy-crap-shut-up-dude' annoying. However, there are some career highs for many people in the creidts: first and foremost, Seth Rogen gives his second best performance to date (Pineapple Express is still The Empire Strikes Back of comedies, hands down), bringing on the chuckles where no one else could; and Eric Bana (Troy), who completely stole the show during its final act as Leslie Mann's new husband concerned about George's resurfaced presence in her life (Mann being George's ex-wife, see).

The idea of Funny People is an interesting one, and with an (mostly) good cast, he could have made a good movie. But honestly, the script sucks. The last half with George's ex-wife and the on again/off again relationship they form was sorta dumb and half-assed and, well, felt like an entirely different movie that would be far more interesting. I wouldn't mind knowing about the life of a comedian, but there's so many unlikable qualities about George that I find it hard to root or give a damn for the poor bastard. But even though I didn't really dig Funny People (or Knocked Up for that matter), I'm still sorta looking forward to Apatow's next flick.


HANNAH MONTANA: THE MOVIE
starring Billy Ray Cyrus, Miley Cyrus
written by Dan Berendsen
directed by Peter Chelsom
release: 10 April 2009
Disney, 102 mins., Rated G

There's really no effort evident in Hannah Montana's theatrical debut; similar to Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li, it felt very much like a by-the-numbers, mundane and uninspired screenplay with the mandatory cheesy lines and acting required in a Disney flick. The lines between the life of Hannah Montana and that of Miley Cyrus is becoming even more blurrier, as Hannah's life is beginning to interfere with Miley's and is straining her friendships and family (prompting one friend to say "I'll never forgive you!" only to totally forgive like nothing ever happen and not even apologize for her lameness). As a brilliant solution, Papa Cyrus whisks Miley back home to her country roots, and it's there that she gets off her high horse and as a 'consequence' a romance blossoms with a clean-shaven, annoyingly cute boy who is helping out the family.

More or less a big screen production of music videos placed between cringe-inducing dialog which, I'm a little embarrassed to say, did result in a chuckle or two. And I'm also a little embarrassed to say that some of the song ain't that bad. Yeah, the movie's not great - didn't really expect it to be - but there's maybe two songs that might just be worth havin'. Oh, and there's a named cameo of Taylor Swift. Highlights: there's one badly done, unoriginal 'funny' gimmick where Miley runs and changes between two simultaneous dinner dates; there's the moment where Miley reveals herself as Miley and not Hannah Montana, and a young blond girl cries out for her to be Hannah Montana again after Miley does one of her own personal songs (taken out of context, it sounds mean, but in the spirit of the movie, it's one of those 'Awww, shucks' moments).

I'm sorry to say it's not going to be on my Christmas list this year, but it was a fun, if entirely forgettable and cheesebally way to waste a hour and a half. But, c'mon Disney, put some effort into your products! There used to be a time when Disney movies were something to be eagerly anticipated, to sit down in the darkened theater and expect something of actual quality and substance with a damn good script riddled with great characters, endurable cheesy moments, and overall funness. Bring that back.

THE TAKING OF PELHAM 1 2 3
starring John Travolta, Denzel Washington, John Turturro
written by Brian Helgeland, David Koepp (uncredited), Morton Freedgood (novel)
directed by Tony Scott
release: 12 June 2009
Columbia, 106 mins., Rated R

The real draw of this movie is to watch Denzel Washington play a character he's played thirty times over; a character that never gets old and never loses your attention; a character he plays really, really, really well. He's the draw because he's charismatic, tough, able to play "good cop/bad cop", and is just a damn good actor. Co-star John Travolta just isn't Vincent Vega anymore, and I've never really liked anything Tony Scott's done (Alexander was a jumbled mess; Domino and Man on Fire became more or less endurance factors than anything else: just how much can a person stand this acid-looking, quick-cuts that would make the Saw directors get massive boners?). In fact, The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 wasn't one I was going to see theatrically, but it was the third in line at the nearby drive-in next to District 9 and The Ugly Truth, so why not see it, y'know?

The basic plot is that a train, Pelham 1 2 3, gets jacked by Travolta's mysterious Ryder, who thinks himself threatening by yelling "motherfucker!" at the end of nearly every sentence. Ryder ends up being in communication with Walter (Washington), a train dispatcher currently under investigation for taking a bribe in Japan. During the course of one hour (the time Ryder demands a sum of $10 million), Ryder and Walter share oh-so-fun time together as Ryder forms a really clingy bond to Walter, and makes Walter reveal the truth as to what happened with this Japanese bribe business. The movie has moments of intensity, thanks more to Travolta and Washington more so than Scott's kinetic, quick-cut camera frenzy that he's grown an annoying fetish for. Performance-wise, not Travolta's best or Washington's greatest moment, but they both do well enough to make the paycheck worth it.

There's a unnecessary dramatic car zoom-zoom through the city to get the money at the destination in time, unnecessary camera nuttiness, crappy music, and all around not all that suspenseful of a movie. Apparently the movie cost over $100 million to make. Um, where did all that money go, folks? The movie looks low-budget and feels like a rushed production. Maybe Scott spent most of the money on its hideous color schemes? If you've exhausted your Denzel Washington collection and have no interest in watching Glory, this is a nice time waster with a good amount of slightly above-average moments to make it worth a viewing.

THE TIME TRAVELER'S WIFE
starring Eric Bana, Rachel McAdams
written by Jeremy Leven & Bruce Joel Rubin, Audrey Niffenegger (novel)
directed by Robert Schwentke
New Line Cinema, 107 mins., Rated R

"Pretty good, mate!" That was my quasi-Vinnie Jones/Eric Bana proclamation that The Time Traveler's Wife is actually a worthwhile romance movie to check out. Fantastic performances from both Bana (who, as written above, was the absolute highlight of Funny People) and McAdams (a woman so very lovely and thank the Lord she's coming out of hiding since her 2005 surge), and a competent, coherent, and twisty screenplay by Leven and Rubin make The Time Traveler's Wife an endurable movie for both men and women and simultaneously pretty interesting to watch. Let's break it down this way: manly geeks get to analyze the "correctness", shall we say, of the time/space continuum while girls can ga-ga over McAdams and her tribulations whilst gawking at the hotness of Eric Bana (girls, see Troy).

Henry is burdened with a genetic disorder that allows him to time travel, and it's one sure-fire of a pain: he basically has no control over it, and the really sucky thing is that clothes don't so much time travel with him. But on one breezy afternoon, he runs into this stunning woman at his place of employment, named Clare (McAdams) who knows everything about him. Apparently, it's in his future that he meets this woman as a little girl on several occasions and striked up a bond, and eventually resulted in Clare falling head-over-heels in love with the guy. Romance blossoms, but once all that lovey-doveyness fades away, there's the stark and haunting loneliness that comes with being the soul mate of a man not in charge of his life...

My only real complaint is that the believability factor of all these relationship steps happening in such quick speeds is a little low. Here's this guy, Henry, who hasn't had time for a relationship, but once this girl says she's ga-ga for him, he warms up to her and eventually falls in love. It more or less comes off that Clare is a convenience for him moreso than an actual romantic partner, at least from my viewpoint. Nevertheless, once the pre-wedding part of the relationship is over with, the movie picks up considerable speed, and the script and actors are in perfect harmony, and the flick becomes one of those engrossing movies you can't take your eyes off. The downbeat but predictable ending is absolutely right, and I loved the fact that due to the wonderful time travel device, there's a brief indication of Clare's future which is oh-so-lovely. A dramatic romantic sci-fi-y movie that does most everything right, I'd say Time Traveler's Wife is definitely worth a few hours of your time.

In Short: Gargantuan and Super-Duper Awesome Short Movie Reviews!

I'm just now recovering (and I use that word mildly) from a 5-day ginormous headache-o that has driven me sorta in the park of crazy. But now with the weather in Minnesota turning towards the rainy side of things, I feel like I'm getting my mojo back. These are some flicks that I've been meaning to write about for a while, but haven't had the gusto; and now, I'm just so tired of seeing them labeled 'draft' that I've bundled all the semi-reviews together into this holy-crap-this-is-totally-rad-and-brilliantly-worded review machine of awesomeness. Prepare to be amazed by my articulate writing skills and entirely original opinion of these hard-to-fine, completely obscure masterpieces. Come back later for some actual meat, like a Drag Me to Hell review, or Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian. I still have a bunch of other titles to catch up on, like Angels & Demons and Up. Okay, maybe not a "bunch", but I still feel guilty. Anywho, hope you're all having a good day. Cheeri-o.

Ghosts of Girlfriends Past
starring Matthew McConaughey, Jennifer Garner, Michael Douglas, Emma Stone, Breckin Meyer
written by Jon Lucas & Scott Moore
directed by Mark Waters
release date: 01 May 2009
New Line Cinema, Rated PG-13

There's Frakking Worse Things

So how did a movie fare with a bloke who doesn't like either of its two leads nor isn't a fan of romantic comedies? Well, alright-ish. There were plenty of laughs, many of them I think unintentional because I laughed more often than the half-packed theater. Basically, McConaughey's agent was able to snab him another role where he gets to kiss and caress many a hot woman (but this time a freakin' legion), but with a script that 'creatively' adds a Christmas Story-twist to it. McConaughey is Connor Mead, a guy who got his heart ripped once, and through tutelage of his deceased uncle (Douglas), learned the way of picking up women, having a jolly good shag, and dumpin' them later; a good existence, until three ghosts - past, present, future - show him his errors and hiccups, to try to point out that, 'hey, love is important, too, asshole!' As expected, his childhood sweetheart (Garner) is his destined companion, but can Connor change his bastardy ways to win her hand? I'll admit right now I was initially interested in the title, but there's nothing really here to appreciate; the performances are completely phoned in, worse than what I imagine people perceive Keanu Reeves in his 'performances', and the script is basically average. There's basically four reasons to see Ghosts of Girlfriends Past: 1) hot women for the guys and a shirtless McConaughey (again) for the girls; 2) boyfriend wins points with girlfriend; the supporting cast outshines our principal leads; and 4) it's better than Made of Honor (I apologize, I'm never going to get over how bad that was). Overall, if one must experience all that is McConaughey, this ones best left for cable or DVD rental.

Lady Vengeance
starring Lee Young Ae, Choi Min-sik
written by Jeong Seo-kyeong & Park Chan-wook
directed by Park Chan-wook
release date: 29 July 2005
CJ Entertainment, 112 mins.

Pretty Frakkin' Good

Superior to Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance, but not quite reaching the awesome levels of Oldboy, Lady Vengeance is nonetheless a very interesting revenge tale that keeps your eyes glued to the screen. Wrongly-convicted Lee Geum-ja (beautifully played by Lee Young Ae) for the death of a young child, Geum-ja is released from prison for her supposed 'spiritual transformation'. However, that pretense is pretty much a facade as she's hellbent on exacting revenge on the person who set her up and truthfully killed the boy. But the interesting thing about Lady Vengeance that separates it from other revenge tales is what happens the last forty minutes (Spoilers follow): she, with the help of a police officer who believes in her innocence, recruits the families of all the children this man has hurt and killed, and leaves the mans fate in their hands. As far as I know, it's the first time I've watched a group of people collude in taking out revenge on a common enemy, as far as the whole children situation is concerned.

Director Park Chan-wook's usual sense of stunning cinematography is once again at work here, as is his time/place jumping, although it's far more restrained than his first effort in the trilogy (Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance). There are some pacing issues, but nothing that is too nagging; similar to Mr. Vengeance, there are plenty of abrupt flashbacks to Lee's days in prison, but at least these bits are interesting and actually add layers to the story. Score-wise, I can honestly say I can't remember a single note, even furthering the awesomeness that is Oldboy in that it really has everything a revenge story should have. Lady Vengeance has a lot going for it, from its stellar cast to its awesome script. If there's any areas to fault, the captivating performances and interesting story more than makes up for any lagging moments.

Paul Blart: Mall Cop
starring Kevin James, Keirr O'Donnell, Jayma Mays
written by Kevin James & Nick Bakay
directed by Steve Carr
release date: 16 January 2009
Columbia Pictures, 91 mins., Rated PG

There's Frakking Worse Things

Paul Blart: Mall Cop is one of those movies you don't have much to say about it. As a comedy, it works; there's moments of simple chuckles, and every once in a great while there's something that will really make you laugh. But sadly, for the most part, there's nothing significant about the movie to make it really worthwhile, let alone a DVD purchase (seriously, this title was a very good seller at work, nearly as good as Gran Torino's selling). If there's one thing that I would give kudos to this January comedy, it would be the casting. Kevin James (TV: King of Queens) is completely likable and relatable, and Kayma Mays (TV: Heroes) is simply adorable as Blart's love interest. Additionally, the Alan Rickman/Die Hard-like character Veck Sims, played by keirr O'Donnell (Wedding Crashers) is friggin' awesome, and the true highlight performance of the movie. Overall, it is an enjoyable comedy, but compared to this year's other mall cop flick, Observe & Report, it doesn't nearly carry as many laughs (and that's saying something, when I wasn't as in-love with that title as much as my friends seem to be). A decent if unspectacular family comedy that has its moments but for the most part is just...meh.

Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance
starring Song Kang-ho, Shin Ha-kyum, Bae Doona
written by Park Chan-wook, Lee Jae-sun, Lee Mu-yeong, Lee Yong-jong
directed by Park Chan-wook
release date: 29 March 2002
CJ Entertainment, 129 mins.

What the Frak?

Who knew revenge could be so bloody boring. Now I've seen plenty of revenge movies, and I understand that there needs to be a certain amount of character development and creation of tension. However, Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance simply basks in them, creating two distinct hours dedicated for each character, while the entire story could be accomplished (without losing any of the emotional impact, I guarantee) in a far tighter version.

Telling a story of cause & effect, we first meet Ryu, a deaf-mute who tries to buy a kidney for his desperately ill sister after finding that he's not a right match. So he channels the black market, paying a group $10,000 (10,000,000 Korean won) for a kidney, but they vacate leaving Ryu naked and stranded. And its at this juncture that the doctors tell him that they found a donor, but need $10,000, the money he doesn't have. With the help of his radical friend Yeong-mi, they devise a plan to kidnap the daughter of a friend's boss for ransom, but that goes to hell as his sister kills herself for not wanting to take part of the plan, and the little girl accidentally drowning as he's putting his sisters body to rest. While Ryu tries to handle the situation and find the people who stole his money, we now meet Dong-jin, the angry father who makes it his mission to find the man responsible for his daughter's death and punish him.

Sounds really cool, right? Well, it could have been a very good movie, if it didn't feel like it dragged on forever. Sure, the cinematography, as well documented by nearly every reviewer, is simply beautiful; it's pretty much award worthy. But being so in love with the shots and the performances (which I concede are great, but aren't captivating enough to warrant 4-minute long shots of a distraught father) should not impede a editor from doing their job. Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance could highly benefit from editing, and then I think this movie truly would be perfect. Director Park Chan-wook's interest in time-jumping/scene-jumping is also at full display here, oftentimes becoming a little confusing or simply irritating. Although this sounds like a overly negative review, I did not hate the movie, I just didn't enjoy it as much as I should. There are some great things to love about this movie, and deservedly so as everything is done with such a high caliber of excellence, but its poor pacing really deters the enjoyment level. The performances are top-notch, the dialog witty, the music moody, and the direction stylish. Despite the pacing issue, Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance still comes recommended, but I would rate this one the lesser awesomest of the Vengeance Trilogy.