"The Ugly Truth"

Wow, this movie was awful. Don't see it, don't think about seeing it. Don't waste your time. It's not bad b/c it's a chick flick and I'm trying to be some tough dude. It's bad b/c it's BAD. The jokes are stupid, the writing is terrible. When it was over, I told my wife that I hated it. She replied, "I didn't think it was THAT bad." - translation: "Though I didn't hate it, it was certainly no 'Hannah Montanta: The Movie.'" I rest my case.

Gerard Butler: You're better than that

"The Taking of Pelham 123"

Hmmm....what to say about this movie, what to say? Well, it wasn't bad. It wasn't great. When Netflix asks for my review of it, I'll give it 3 stars and move on. There is ONE thing I'll take from this movie...it will be how weird it was to hear John Travolta say "motha f..." I know this seems irrelevant to the movie, the plot, and all that other movie jargon, but I'm telling you that Travolta steals the show with his weird, spastic way of swearing through a subway radio. I've never seen or heard anything like it. I know Travolta is playing a psychotic extortionist, but still, that doesn't excuse anything. It's like he's trying to drop an F bomb while holding in a hick-up all at the same time. It's quite remarkable, actually. I don't think I could do it if I tried.

I hate to harp on casting again, but why put a gun in Danny Zuko's hand when you have Denzel Washington RIGHT THERE. Denzel can play any character any way he wants. He's an incredible actor. But he is especially good at the villain (i.e. "Training Day"). The whole thing just seemed backwards. I would have made Travolta the good guy and Washington the bad guy.

The backwards casting isn't enough to ruin the movie. It had it's moments. Again, I'd give it a 3 out of 5. It's a good action/thriller but not one where I'd run out and recommend it to everyone I saw.

"G.I.Joe: Rise of Cobra"

Ugh. Why? Why? Why were Channing Tatum AND Damon Wayans in this movie???? WHY?????? Yes, the writing was terrible and the plot was a disaster, but the casting of this movie put it over the top. It went from bad to just plain awful. They even threw in Brendan Frasier....BRENDAN FREAKING FRASIER for some weird chameo. Listen, I understand casting leading men who are easy on the eyes (many an expert has said I am in that category) but it'd be nice if they knew how to act as well. There were several scenes where I thought I could see Tatum reading off a cue card, like he was hosting SNL. I'm convinced that the casting director had some side bets w/ his buddies that he could get 5 of the worst actors in Hollywood cast in a major summer "blockbuster." He did well with Tatum and Wayand (which just confuses the crap outta me) but his crowning achievement was Brendan Frasier. There is not a worse actor in Hollywood than Frasier, and that includes Matthew McConaughey (see my "Ghosts of Girlfriends Past" review) and every other two-bit hack who's dreaming of their big break while scrubbing toilets at TGIFriday's. I went on "The Mummy", a roller coaster at Universal Studios in Orlando. The ride was great, but at the end, there was an outro video w/ Brendan Frasier. The video completely ruined the ride for me. I got nautious, broke out in hives. It was terrible.

Congradulations G.I.Joe movie...you have RUINED my childhood. I hate you (you too Frasier).

"Zombieland"

Woody Harrelson is my hero. I'm not going to talk about the movie, the direction, the plot, whatever. It's a movie about zombies. It's not a movie that tries to make a statement - thank God. It's an hour and 25 minutes of fun. There's no point in disecting a movie like this. It opens with Metallica and shows you how to use a banjo as a weapon. All I'm going to say is that it's worth seeing just for Woody Harrleson. I don't know why he isn't in more movies, but I do know who I'm going to be for Halloween. According to his biography on www.IMDB.com , Woody is a vegan, an admitted sex addict, and was one time married to Neil Diamond's daughter. Oh, and his middle name's Tracy. Awesome. So he starred in "The Cowboy Way"- who gives a crap. Mr. Harrelson is my hero. I think some other people are "Zombieland" too.

Go see zombieland. It's original, not too long, and smart enough to make fun of itself. It's up there with "Star Trek" and "Inglorious Bastards" as the best movies of the year.

It is an R rated movie and deserves it. The violence is a bit graphic and the language is every bit an R rating.

"Ghosts of Girlfriends Past"

Matthew McConaughey sucks

"Observe and Report"

The Seth Rogan comedy "Observe and Report" is not worth your time. Seth Rogan plays a bi-polar mall security guard looking to solve the crime of a mystery "flasher." The R-rated movie uses every opportunity to uphold it's rating. Seth Rogan is exactly what you'd think he'd be while playing a mall security guard. The first 20 minutes might make you think the movie is going to be funny, but after that, every joke repeats itself.

The highlights of this movie are Rogan's mall security cohorts. Matt Yuan and John Yuan almost steal the movie with their performances. Is it worth seeing the movie for, though? No. Aziz Ansari has a cameo, which should have been much longer. I'm starting to think that everything this guy does is funny. Even with these 3 providing some funny moments, the movie falls short. The writing was leaning on Rogan and Anna Farris too much - but the comedic duo was not able to save this movie.

Overall, I'd say don't bother watching this. What we can learn from this movie and "Paul Blart" is that you have to do more than just put a bumbling idiot in a mall security guard outfit in order for a movie to be funny.

I'm glad Rogan put out "Funny People." Though I haven't seen it yet, I'm sure he redeemed himself with it.

"Bandits"

I don't have much time, so I'll make this a quick one. If you're in the mood for a dry humor / bank robbing movie, check out "Bandits" starring Bruce Willis and Billy Bob Thornton. It's a 2001 release, so if you haven't heard of it, that's probably why. Bruce Willis plays a solid character but Billy Bob steals the show. The two are an odd couple who, after robbing a few banks, find celebrity and infamy in their theft. Willis plays his typical tough guy character, but Billy Bob (looking really skinny in this movie. Might've been when he was battling his eating disorder) plays a hilarious hypochondriac. If you like Wes Anderson movies, then I think you will also like "Bandits."

If I had to knock it, I'd say it might be about 20 minutes too long, but even that might be a stretch.

"Adventureland" / "Sunshine Cleaning"

I chose to review both of these movies at the same time b/c both are so similar. The plots are completely different...kind of...but the feeling of "Adventureland" and "Sunshine Cleaning" are exactly the same. Both movies have that indie feel (ie "Little Miss Sunshine" or "Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist"), so much so that I was waiting for that cliche shot of the teenage boy looking out the car window, headphones in place, with some indie rock song playing on the soundtrack.

Having said all that, I thought both movies were good. I actually liked "Adventureland" better which surprised me. In case you don't know, "Adventureland" is about a college student finding himself desperate for a job. His only offer is at a run down theme park. From there he meets new friends that give him entirely new experiences. It reeks of that typical coming-of-age story, but it does well with it. Ryan Reynolds holds his own playing the role of a lowly repairman. It reminded me a lot of "Dazed and Confused." Give it a try if you're looking for an offbeat dramody.

"Sunshine Cleaning" has all the ingredients of an independent movie - including Alan Arkin. Amy Adams stars as a struggling mother faced w/ staring a cleaning business amidst being a fading star in a small town (small town = independent movie ingredient). With all characters being borderline pathetic, the movie remains upbeat. The problem that I have with this movie is that it's not conversational. There's nothing to bash in this movie and there's nothing to rant and rave about. At best, I'd say it's pretty good - worth a shot, but nothing that's going to define your evening.

* I must admit that I watched both of these movies in the back of my father-in-law's Tahoe on the to and from North Carolina. With my legs half numb, a dog in my lap half the time, and living in fear of what might happen if I were to rip one, my memories of these movies could be a bit cloudy. So if you totally disagree with me, well, you have my disclaimer.

"State of Play"

A long haired Russel Crowe and the mere presence of Ben Affleck was almost enough to scare me away from Kevin Macdonald's "State of Play." I'm glad that I was able to gut out watching this movie b/c it was far better than I imagined.

"State of Play" is a crime thriller based on murder and D.C. politics. I won't get into the plot simply b/c there's too many twists and turns to wrap my head around. From the very onset, the movie grabs your attention. Don't look away, though, b/c you might just miss something very important. I would not put Play in the same category as a "Syriana", where the jargon alone leaves you wondering what in the world is going on. "State of Play" is much easier to follow, yet leaves you guessing at the movies end the entire time.

Russell Crowe was very good, Rachael MacAdams was a surprise casting but performed a successful supporting roll as an up and journalist. The big shocker of the film was Ben Affleck's performance...he was VERY good. I've never been a huge Ben Affleck fan, at least not when it came to acting (I think he's a much better director). But with his performance here, his role in "She's Just Not That Into You," and from what I hear about him in "Extract," 'ol Ben might be coming around. Or maybe he's just picking better scripts (though "Gigli" had Oscar written all over it; wonder what happened there).

If you're in the mood to try and solve a mystery, definitely check out "State of Play." It's worth a watch.

*I also failed to mention Jason Bateman's appearance in the film. This guy makes every movie better. He's honestly in my top 5 actors right now.

"Inglorious Basterds"

Not an hour out of the theater and I'm already writing my review for Quentin Tarantino's latest movie, "Inglorious Basterds." One of my favorite movies of all time is "Pulp Fiction" and this movie had all the makings (and hype) of duplicating, if not exceeding, the greatness that is Fiction.

Let me start by saying that this was, in fact, a very good movie. Brad Pitt is without a doubt my favorite actor. Besides "The Mexican" (which I think he did after losing a bet), Pitt has not made a bad movie. In "Basterds", Pitt is THE star. Every scene he's in, he owns. And every one of his scenes is better than the ones in which he's not in. Aside from him, the rest of the movie succeeds in what it's trying to do. The story was great, the actors phenomenal, and the direction made it all work together.

I"m going to do my best to not sound pretentious here, but I feel like Tarantino is the best director at getting what he sees in his head transferred onto the screen. Every shot seems incredibly thought out and artistic. You can spot a Tarantino film a mile away and this one is no exception. HOWEVER...what I didn't get from this movie was the "cool" factor that "Pulp Fiction" and "Reservoir Dogs" had. Pitt was cool...no doubt. Every scene without him did not have that same feel, though. I missed that in this movie. This is not a knock on this movie b/c I don't think Tarantino was trying to make it "cool" throughout. It's simply to say that the "cool" is what I love most about his movies, and this one didn't have enough (as far as I'm concerned).

Overall: I'd give this movie and A. Stay away if you don't like graphic violence...which leads me to my next point...

What, in movies, has happened to the classic "camera turn-away," when there's a graphic scene (whether sexual or violent or what have you) where everyone in the theater knows what's about to happen and right before it does, the camera conveniently turns away, saving our eyes from things we need not see. With the level of violence shown in "Inglorious Basterds" and most other R movies these days, where do movies go from here? Some might call this artistic expression, but it seems more to me like an "anything you can do, I can do better" or "whatever you show, I'll show more" and I don't see an end in sight. Has anyone ever left a movie saying, "Wow, that would've been great if only the violence was more graphic?" To me, it just seems unnecessary and actually takes AWAY from what the film is trying to do. B/c instead of talking about the movie itself, people are left discussing the graphic nature of the film. To me, if you focus so much on being gruesome, then it proves that you really don't have much to say.
("Inglorious Basterds" is a good movie despite the graphic violence, not b/c of it)

"Duets"

The other night a friend of mine (Becky) pointed out to me that I had several "negative" reviews on my blog. After reading a few, I agreed. So I thought I'd write a quick review of a movie I watched recently and enjoyed thoroughly.

The 2000 Bruce Paltrow movie "Duets" is one of the more surprising movies I've seen in a while. The movie is broken up into 3 different "duets", with all very different stories. If the storylines are good, the singing performances are even better. The movie revolves around karaoke singing. Hard to explain, but it is pulled off well. I never like giving anything away in movies, but know that the movie is much more than people hopping from one karaoke bar to the next. The singing is more or less the healing source for things gone wrong. If you're looking for a different movie, check out "Duets."

Also,it's hard to pass up a movie starring Huey Lewis.
"Duets" also includes Paul Giamatti and Gweneth Paltrow

"District 9"

Finally Hollywood has put out a movie that dares to be different. I'm not a huge sci-fi guy (and don't say that "Star Wars" is sci-fi b/c it's way more than that), but my curiosity got the best of me, so I went and saw "District 9" on opening night. I have to say that I was more than pleased w/ what I saw. The movie is almost broken up into 2 parts: 1. the set up and 2. the play out. At first, I was thinking that the 2nd half of the movie was more entertaining than the 1st, but after thinking about it, I'd say they were both equally entertaining...just different.

Things I loved about this movie:
1.They didn't use any well-known actors. It makes the story more believeable and gives authenticity to where the movie takes place.
2.How they portrayed the aliens. There's not much more I can say about this w/out giving something away, so I'll just say that I LOVED what they did w/ the aliens.
3.There was no romance story that you would typically see in a summer movie. (That is, the lead guy doesn't suddenly get partnered w/ a female who he hates at first and then eventually falls in love with). There is a love ingredient in the movie, but it is certainly not in the forefront
4.The science fiction aspect of the movie was very, very well done.
5.The movie was shot in a very real way. It's a mix of documentary and live action.
6.The movie had me talking in a South African accent for days. And I nailed it.

Overall, I'd give this movie an A-. I didn't leave the theater obsessing over it, but I thoroughly enjoyed it. I would recommend it to all my movie-obsessed friends...you know who you are.

Next: "Inglorious Bastards" comes out this Friday. If I write anything less than a raving review of it, consider me the most depressed person in the world.

"Gran Torino"

"Gran Torino" proves my point that 90% of movie enjoyment, or at least MY movie enjoyment, depends on the expectations I have going into watching it. I had a high expectations, some might even say "great", going into "Gran Torino." After watching "Million Dollar Baby," "Unforgiven," "Flags of Our Fathers," and "Letters from Iwo Jima" and loving all of them, I learned to trust Clint Eastwood in his acting, directing, and screenplay choices. So my question for this movie is, what was he thinking?


I'm going to get straight to the point: the acting was terrible, Clint Eastwood talked like Batman from "Dark Knight" and the story was halfway believable. Eastwood's acting wasn't bad, but every other actor in the movie looked as if they had just graduated some online acting academy. During the movie, I just kept asking myself if the movie was SUPPOSED to be cheezy, b/c it was certainly coming off that way. I didn't count, but it seemed like half of the movie was Eastwood curling up one side of his lip and letting out a grunt or growl (which really only accomplishes him looking like he's trying to squeeze out a bowl movement).

Overall, I'd say not to bother with this movie. I'd like to see how it's done with better actors.

movie side note: I recently had the "privilege" of going to Chick Fil A with 15 middle schoolers. If you've never gone out for a meal w/ middle schoolers, you should really try it. It's kind of like walking on hot coals, skydiving, and other things of that nature: you want to try it even though it scares the poo outta you and might even kill you. I don't know what parents are doing, but 12 and 13-year-olds have no idea how to order food. They know how to stare at the person at the register. They know how to ask obvious questions like, "is it my turn to order?" and they even know how to stand in the doorway when people are trying to get in and out of the restaurant. But ask them to make a choice on what to order at a restaurant that they've been to 1,000 times and they freeze. So do it. Consider it a social experiment. Take 4 middle schoolers out to eat (if it's all girls, then you're really livin') and watch as the confusion sets in. fascinating

"Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen"

Spoiler Alert: I can't do a review of this movie w/out giving some things away....So here we go...

DANG IT! This movie let me down so much that I could almost cry. I had HUGE expectations going into this movie; 1. Because "Transformers" is one of my favorite movies of all time and 2. because all the hype leading up to it was all positive. So when I finally saw the whole movie, I couldn't help but be disappointed.

Here's the breakdown: The transformer fight scenes were great. They looked more human-esque in how they died. Optimus Prime is way cooler in this movie than in the 1st. Starscream's character was well done. That's about all the positives I have to say. The writing was absolutely terrible. For some reason they decided to try and make this movie more of a comedy. The jokes were vulgar, simple, and way too frequent. How many times can you show dogs humping? I think T2 showed it 4 times. There are two twin autobots in the movie that play a major role. They almost ruined the movie all on their own - their jokes are stupid and so are their characters. The parents were in it way too much. They tried to make the mom a comic relief, but again, she was more annoying than anything else. Towards the end of the movie, the parents play a role in the story and it's completely pointless.

There's not much to say about this movie that hasn't already been said by critics. The movie was rushed to be made and it felt like that. The movie was way too long - 2 1/2 hours. It's a movie that should be made for 10 year olds that adults can enjoy and it never felt that way. If I had a child under 13, I wouldn't want them to see it.

The worst offense of all...they stole a line straight out of Star Wars. There is no greater offense. When Fallen said it, I literally got angry.

Overall, I'd give this movie a C-. But b/c I'm a huge nerd, I will probably buy it the day it comes out on DVD. What's wrong w/ me?

"Paul Blart" - Rewrite

After considering my blog, talking to friends, and re-watching a part of "Paul Blart," I felt compelled to re-write a review of this movie. In my first review of it (which I kept on my blog), I tried to find the positives. However, I've realized that diplomacy, when it comes to movie reviews, is for the birds. "Paul Blart: Mall Cop" is a terrible movie. At best, it should have been released in a straight to DVD format. Kevin James does his best to salvage an otherwise terrible movie with some attempts at physical comedy, but falls short. The casting is bizarre. They cast Keir O'Donnell, better known as the "creepy" brother from "Wedding Chrashers" as the villain. Rick Thorne, who is a professional BMX rider - not an actor, was also cast as one of O'Donnell's cronies.

If I had to say one word about this movie, I'd say it's amateur. I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone. I hope Kevin James rebounds. I am a big fan of his. He needs to forget about this one and just move on.

"Defiance"

Who's it for: those looking for a more serious movie. Movies like "Glory" and "Saving Private Ryan" would be of similar interest. Don't watch this movie for its lighter moments - there are none.

Did I like it: Yes I did. For those that don't know, "Defiance" is a movie about 3 brothers who are trying to hide themselves and other hundreds of Jews from the Nazi regime in the Belarusian Forests. It stars Daniel Craig, who I'm becoming a fan of, mostly due to "Layer Cake" and despite his roles as James Bond. I liked this movie for it's depiction of the story, the actors portrayals, and the Religious undertones that were in the very script of the movie. One thing that annoyed me was that Liev Schreiber played almost the same role as he did as Sabertooth in "X-Men Origins: Wolverine" short of fangs, long fingernails, and incredible leaping ability. It certainly doesn't ruin the movie, but if you've seen "Wolverine," it might make you smirk a little bit.

This movie is for the more serious movie watcher. Don't rent "Defiance" if you're looking to kill an hour and a half b/c there's nothing on TV.

"Up"

Who it's for: everyone

Why I like it: I'm a huge fan of Disney/Pixar. I don't remember a movie that they've put out that I didn't enjoy ("Monsters Inc", "Finding Nemo", "The Incredibles", "Cars" etc). "Up" is no exception. The story is incredibly creative, the animation is, of course, amazing, and the humor is awesome.I love movies where the best jokes are in the background, the 1-liners you have to listen for. "Up" has plenty of these. This movie IS for everyone. If you're one of those people that can't admit when a "children's" movie is good, then you probably also didn't cry during "Simon Birch" which therefore means I don't want any part of you. Go see "Up." And if you're looking to show off for your wife like I did then see it in 3D - it was cool. Get there early too so you can see the 6 minute short film that precedes the movie.

movie side note: if you're a fan of nostrils, DON'T see this movie. Apparently all the people of "Up" breath through their mouths b/c the noses are sans nostrils. Noses without nostrils opens up an interesting debate. The other day I was at a friends house where he had fed his dog wet food that morning (the dog normally has dry food). To keep things from getting too crass, let's just say the new diet was not agreeing w/ the k9. I would've gladly gone w/out nostrils that day.
However, now my pretty wife is baking brownies - my favorite dessert, and it smells delicious.
Then again, I've played ultimate frisbee w/ a Polish lad who didn't wear deodorant - not good.
But...I've also driven down Penman Road and smelled the air that brings me back to when I was 8-years-old and headed to the soccer fields.
It's a tough one. For me, give me the nostrils. I'll smell dog toots and Polish B.O. any day as long as I get those great smells as well. I'll leave the debate up to you.

"Valkyrie"

Ugh, I have no idea why, but I actually had high hopes for this most recent Tom Cruise dud. "Valkyrie" had every opportunity to be a good movie, but it managed to miss every one of those opportunities. I suppose if you're dying to see this movie, go ahead. It's not a complete waste of time, but don't expect for this to be Tom Cruise's "comeback" movie. He hasn't comeback...at all.

You might be wondering how I can think "Paul Blart" was a good movie and "Valkyrie" not. In movies, though, you have to consider them in context. Who has expectations for a movie named "Paul Blart?" Not me. Therefore, it wasn't that bad, b/c it was never supposed to be "good." "Valkyrie" however, took itself very seriously. It had several different characters played by accomplished actors. The problem is, the characters never really developed and the movie just seemed to fall short. Watching this movie, if anything, is merely scratching the itch. If you're curious about Tom Cruise's latest, go ahead and watch it. But don't expect much. Tom Cruise isn't terrible in it. The movie just doesn't hit. There's something missing. If you want to see a great Tom Cruise movie, watch "Tropic Thunder" instead

Overall, I'd give it a: don't skip "The Duel" for it
- Goose and Mav taking notes on how to be 'cool like James'

"Paul Blart: Mall Cop"

Everyday at 4:00pm, I'm at home, feet propped, watching me some "King of Queens." I know it's not the funniest show ever (it doesn't even hold a candle to "Seinfeld"...what does?...did i just make that saying up "hold a candle to..." or is that legit?) but I think Kevin James is hilarious. Usually my afternoons are uninterrupted, unless Garrett calls to tell me how he just learned to snap, or how at the ripe age of 29, he's finally learned how to shoot a basketball like a normal person. But that's neither here nor there.

Whether it's stand up comedey or sitcoms, Kevin James is funny. That is why I enjoyed "Mall Cop." The movie is PG, so don't expect any Judd Apatow type humor. I suppose b/c we live in a world where comedic movies are based on how many times you can show male nudity, drop the F-bomb (or even have kids use that language), etc, I find it refreshing that some movies DARE to be funny w/out resorting to those tactics. "Paul Blart: Mall Cop" is a pretty good movie. There are a few funny scenes, not very long, and clean. If you like Kevin James, you'll enjoy this movie. It's not a movie you're going to be quoting the next day, but it's perfect for watching after a big meal, when you're barely conscious (which was my state). Also, if you enjoyed "Bedtime Stories," you'll probably enjoy this as well.

Overall, I'd give it a: sure, why not?

movie side note: watch out for actor Adhir Kalyan. I doubt you'll recognize him from anything. He plays the character "Pahud." I only mention him b/c the 2 or maybe 3 scenes he is in are hilarious. I wish he had been in it more.
Also, if you too are a fan of Kevin James and have often thought to tell your spouse to "Shutty"...DON'T. Every time I've tried it w/ my wife, it results in me getting punched, kicked, or...pinched - and that's the worst.

"Taken"

I am extremely biased towards actor Liam Neeson b/c of his role as Qui-Gon Jinn in "Star Wars Episode 1: Phantom Menace." His hair was long, the force was strong in him, and I'm pretty sure he was the first to the netherworld.
Having said that, no biased needed here when critiquing "Taken." If you are a fan of any "Bourne" movies, then you will enjoy "Taken" as well. The action scenes don't take long to get to. They are fast moving, highly choreographed, entertaining, and hinge on the edge of believable. You will have to throw out some realism as countless bullets whizz by Neeson's body, himself going unharmed.

When this movie was in theaters, all I kept hearing was how great this movie was. Maybe b/c it was released when there were no other good movies out, but that was the general consensus for this movie. So going into it, my expectations were high. Maybe that's why I'm not ranting and raving about it now. It was really good, don't get me wrong but I wouldn't call it amazing. It's definitely a movie more for guys than girls.
Overall, I'd give it a really good (w/ some predictability).

movie side note: don't worry, this doesn't give anything away: at the beginning of the movie, Neeson gives his daughter a karaoke machine. Reminded me of when my mom gave my dad the same gift (although, I think he was turning 57 when he got his gift). My dad, high on the thrill of Karaoke, decide it best to use it while sitting atop a picnic table...alone...in the middle of the woods. His audience? the random squirrel, the occasional jumping mullet, and whatever family member decided to walk out onto the cabin porch and yell sarcastic remarks at him. I'm pretty sure my cousin Ian wanted to go poke him w/ a stick, but that never happened.

"Last Chance Harvey"

I almost didn't write a review on this movie simply b/c it left me with nothing to say. It's not a bad movie, it's not a good movie. It's just kind of...there. Predictable? Yes. Entertaining? A little. I don't think I would recommend it to too many people, but if someone said that they just rented it, I wouldn't chastise them for wasting their time/money. Here are probably the best conditions for this movie: 1. a rainy day 2. You don't want to have to think too much 3. Nothing good on TV.

Don't get me wrong, Dustin Hoffman and Emma Thompson are both in it, so it can't be all bad. Some might say the worst thing a movie/book can do is make you indifferent towards it and that's exactly how I feel towards this movie. I watched it and then forgot about it the second it was over. If your day fits the above criteria, then give it a whirl.

Overall, I'd give it an "ehhh" w/ a shoulder shrug

movie side note: I got nothin'. I'm still thinking about "Star Trek."

"Star Trek"

I've finally seen a movie that surpasses its hype. "Star Trek" was incredible. It's right at 2 hours long, and there isn't one lull in the entire movie. The story is great, the special effects are great, how they introduce the characters is great. In my mind, the goal of these type of movies (like "X-Men," "Lord of the Rings," "Star Wars," "Batman" etc) is to make you feel like a kid again. "Star Trek" accomplishes this. It's a movie that I left saying, "I'm going to buy that the day it comes out on DVD." This movie entertains both trekies and the casual movie goer. I can't say enough good things about, so I'll just stop now.

The only qualm that I might have w/ the film is that it actually has me legitimately comparing "Star Trek" with "Star Wars." I never thought this day would come. If you picked out one of the 6 "Star Wars" movies and compared it to "Star Trek," Trek would win hands down. That fact has shaken the very ground that I walk on. Fortunately, the story of "Star Wars" along w/ its creativity put it over the top.

Overall, I'd give "Star Trek" an A++. Go see it.

ps. see if you can find one of the soldiers of Rohan in the movie.

movie side note: I told my friend Sarah that if she and her husband Dave went to see "Star Trek" w/ my wife and me, that I'd mention them in my review. Now though, after experiencing Dave's driving, I find myself reluctant to go through w/ my promise. I'm just kidding. It was actually one of the funnest rides I've ever been on (and I just spent a weekend in Orlando visiting 2 different theme parks). We were catching air over speed bumps (that I didn't think he knew were there), fishtailing around several corners, and were lost half the time (and we were only going a few miles down the road. How he was able to get us lost was the most impressive part). You would have thought he was doing all this on purpose but I'm pretty sure all he was thinking about was why he didn't grab a second piece of pizza when leaving the house and whether or not his little brother really could beat him up now. The only ride I've been on that made me more nautious was "Cat in the Hat" at Islands of Adventure. It's a kiddy ride that'll make you puke your lunch.

"Benjamin Button"

Going into this movie, I had these preconceived notions:1. it's an Oscar nominated movie, so it's going to be more on the boring side. 2. it is going to be way too long 3. i can run faster than brad pitt.

Turns out I was wrong about 2 of the 3 (eat my dust brad pitt). "Benjamin Button" is a great movie. While watching it, I finally felt like I was watching a real movie; a movie that didn't rely on special affects and lead actors shirtless and growling at the moon. This movie told a unique story, used color brilliantly, was set in the early 1900's, had local color, etc.



The length of the film is just shy of 3 hours. It didn't feel long at all. I must admit though that I did stop an hour into it to watch the first 3 innings of the braves vs mets game (and I'd do it again...braves won 8-3, c'mon.) I'll tell you this about the length: I only watched an hour and a half of "Australia" b/c I couldn't bare the thought of having to endure another 90 minutes of that junk. The almost 3 hours of "Buttion" felt half as long as the 1 1/2 hours of "Australia."



Overall, I'd recommend this movie to any and everyone. It's terrific. Great story, great actors playing great characters. I loved it.





movie side note: since this movie is too good to make some stupid quip about, I'll use this time to vent on the incredibly lengthy "Biggest Loser" (or 'fat show' as I call it) season finale. If you want to talk about 3 hours being wasted, try watching NBC's show stretch out (pun intended) a weigh in verdict that could have been over after 10 minutes. Instead, we had to watch as one contestant after another fell way short of beating Jerry (who appeared half crazy / half mentally ill) in the "at- home challenge." After the obligatory hug from conquered contestants, Jerry would stare into space as if wondering where he was, who all those people were that kept hugging him, why drool kept dripping down his chin and onto his shirt, and what he was going to do w/ the 8 lbs of fat that was dangling from his underarms.

It was pathetic. It was such pointless dribble that I'm honestly considering not watching next season. THAT is how you waste 3 hours.

"Marley and Me"

The following accounts are completely true: My family has not had a great history with dogs. They are as follows: 1. Before I was born, my family had a dog. I don't remember its name. I never knew it b/c, while my family was gone, it got eaten by an alligator on the front porch of our house (in Palm Valley). 2. We had a dog named Sugar. It got the cops called on it more than once by our senile neighbor. My parents told us they took it to a farm to live. I believed that lie until I was about 18. (I discovered the truth while watching TV. On the show, the parents fed their children the same lie and I thought to myself, "what idiot would believe that." I was that idiot.) 3. My sister got a dog when I was about 13. I don't remember its name either b/c we only had it for about a week. My sister claimed that it was too hyper because, and I quote, "I think it's getting drunk off wild berries in the back yard." Let's review: dog #1 gets eaten by an alligator, dog #2 was a criminal, dog #3 got wasted in the backyard off wild berries.

Having said all that, after watching "Marley and Me" I want a dog. It was a good movie. I was expecting a kid movie, but there were more "real life" situations than I expected. It's not a movie that's going to change your life, but it's pretty good. It might be about 15-20 minutes too long and parts of it take itself too seriously but overall, it's worth a watch. I didn't know that Alan Arkin was in it. He was great. My favorite part might be when they try and make Owen Wilson look 5-7 years older by simply parting his hair in the middle. It was awesome. I'm used to seeing Wilson in "Bottlerocket" or "Wedding Crashers." So seeing him as a father figure was a bit of a stretch for me. Jennifer Anniston was excellent as always. Overall, I'd say it's worth a watch.



movie side note: If "marley and me" combined with "lake placid", then they'd have something. Dog verse alligator: I know how that story ends. But it's still worth exploring.

"X-Men Origins: Wolverine"

I don't see a lot of movies in the theater simply b/c it's too expensive. But with summer blockbusters here, I have to splurge every once in a while. Wolverine was one of my acceptions. I saw it Saturday night and wasn't too impressed. The first 20 minutes or so are awesome. It tails off a bit after that. I was impressed by how many times they figured out ways to have Hugh Jackman in a scene without his shirt on. Matthew McConaughey must be pissed. I suppose my expectations were a bit too high. The movie is probably better than I'm leading on, but I had high hopes for this one. Between wolverine being topless and saying "grrr" everytime he got mad, I just thought it lacked in several areas. Gambit was a great character. I wish he had been more involved in the story. I think whatever movie follows this one will be a lot better. Overall, I'd give it a pretty good.

extra movie note: it's unfortunate that Hugh Jackman plays a tough character like wolverine, he's super jacked, and people still question his sexuality. Reminds me so much of my friend Garrett when we were in high school. The closer I look, the both kinda look alike.

"Twilight"

I'm not too sure what say about this movie. It wasn't as terrible as I thought it was going to be. I'm not too sure if that's a complitment though. When my friend Carey played golf for the first time with me, his game wasn't as terrible as I thought it was going to be, but he still shot around a 145 (which is, in fact, terrible). But based on the fact that he runs like a chicken, I was expecting a lot worse. Same goes for this movie. From what I heard about it, I thought it was going to be on the same level as "Catwoman" or "Daredevil" but I honestly didn't think it was that bad. My wife loved it, so maybe it's for those sentimental types who cry during sensitive tissue commercials. I don't know. I certainly wouldn't recommend "Twilight" to anyone, but I also wouldn't laugh in their face if they were being forced to watch it by their girlfriend or wife. Overall, I'd say it was just above ok.


Movie side note: If you want a good laugh, watch for when "Edward" carries the girl up the mountain on his back. Might be the weirdest looking thing I've seen in a movie in a long time. He looked like an Irish step dancer. His upper body was completely still while his lower legs flailed around like a worm trying to get off a hook.

"Frost vs Nixon"

I watched "Frost vs Nixon" the other day, mainly b/c it was directed by Ron Howard and pretty much everything he directs is worth a watch (excluding "Davinci Code.") Not having grown up in the time of Nixon, I thought this movie would be over my head but it wasn't. I loved it. Ron Howard knows how to tell a story. There were great acting performances by all sides. I'm not going to go into anything technical like cinematography b/c I happen to think that word's made up. I recommended it to my parents and they both loved it. My mom was quoted as saying, "Favorite child, you really know a good movie when you see one. Here, I made you some banana bread." If you shy away from slower paced movies, I would still give this one a try. It's worth a watch. Also, if you like this, try watching "Bobby."


Movie Side note: My wife didn't like this movie because Sam Rockwell was in it and she thought his character in "Snowangels" was... "ickey." So now any movie he is in will be a complete failure in her eyes.

Introduction

Hello all who are bored enough to read this. My name is James McDonald and after much procrastination, I have decided to start a movie review blog. I know there are tons of these out there in internet world, so why not add one more to the mix. I love movies, I don't pretend to know everything about them, but if you say a movie is bad that I think is good, I'll punch you in the throat.


I feel I should tell you a few of my favorites so you will know if our tastes align. I refuse to say what movie is my "all time favorite" b/c I think that's an impossible question to answer. There are too many different genres, too many different moods for different types of movies. "Shawshank Redemption" is nothing like "Spaceballs," but I love them both equally. I also love "Pulp Fiction," "Snatch" and the entire "Star Wars" collection. "Not Another Teen Movie" might be one of the greatest films ever made, along with "Teenwolf," "Transformers," and all 3 "Austin Powers" movies. If I happen to be flipping channels and I come across "Oceans 11" or "Inside Man," I'll watch 'em. Anything by Wes Anderson I'll watch and like, except "Darjeeling Limited." I hated that movie. I'm not pretentious enough to pretend I liked it.


There are too many to list, really. My hope is that as you continue reading this blog, you will gain a better understanding of my tastes.


One thing you should know as you read my reviews is that I will NOT give anything away as far as the plot goes (a huge pet peeve of mine). I don't pick "deep" movies to make me feel smarter (i'm incredibly smart, i don't need movies to prove that) and I am handsome. That has nothing to do with movies either, but I feel it adds to my credibility.


I hope this blog helps you enjoy your movie watching experience.