2012

The movie 2012 is extremely disappointing. Coming from acclaimed disaster movie auteur Roland Emmerich, director of Independence Day and The Day After Tomorrow, one would expect 2012 to take the destruction of the world to a whole new level. The movie hits most of the same notes as Emmerich's other disaster movies, but spends too much of its time on bullshit science and inspirational speechifying; and misses the entire point of its own existance.

The world of science fiction has no shortage of pseudo-inspirational and -scientific rubbish. Your average episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation has better speeches and less offensive technobabble. A person goes to a movie like this to see shit get blown up real good. For about half an hour in the middle of things, 2012 delivers like no movie before it. The sequences of limosines and RVs and airplanes tearing around through giant earthquakes, giant volcanoes and giant dust clouds are fantastic, some of the best you'll ever see. It hits us with 3 of 4 of the elements, but doesn't reach the potential of the 4th.

Much more drama and action could have been milked from the giant-ass tsunamis that roll around the world. Instead we see "computer simluations" of waves and their radi of destruction while the scientists talk about how the earth's crust and magnetic fields are rolling around like the baggy skin over your grandma's knee. The south pole is somewhere in the middle of Wisconsin and China moves 1000 miles west into the Pacific ocean. Gee, that sounds neat, doesn't it? It would have been nice to see, too. The movie needed something more exciting in its final act, but never tops the thrill ride it takes us on in the beginning.

Cost/Benefit analysis: I saw this one on opening night and payed a whole 10 bucks to get in. If I could get a do-over I would wait until it showed up on tv somewhere, watch the chase scenes and be done with it. If you're really into disaster movies, don't pay more than 5 bucks to see this one.

Final notes: the writers missed a fantastic Leathal Weapon call back concerning President Danny Glover and the level of shit he is able to handle at his age.

Awesome random actor: the captain of the ark our heroes end up on is the same guy that played the bartender in The Shining and the head of the Tyrell Corporation in Blade Runner. I didn't know he was still alive! Awesome! He didn't look like he'd aged a day! Go him!

Sunshine

Sunshine is an awesome serious science fiction movie, a rare breed that only emerges from the crowds of superhero, horror, space opera and other related genres. Really a science fiction / psychological thriller, this movie shows the way a small crew on a long haul in a dangerous mission vital for the survival of the human race handles themselves when everything goes wrong. The psychological aspect seemed realistic to me, as did much of the space stuff, but macguffin seemed a little sketchy.

Sunshine is a treat for the eyes and ears. After just 15 or 20 minutes I was already amazed at the use of color, blues and grays and greens inside of the ship and violent yellow and white for the sun create a strong contrast and give insight to the strange dichotomy of stress and boredom that must come along with a long trip to save the world when you have only one chance to do it. The music is great and helps create much of the drama during spacewalks and other such moments. I actually had to turn down the volume during a couple parts so I would be able to handle it better.

Cost/Benefit Analysis: I didn't pay to see it, but I would love to see it on a big screen with a great sound system behind it. I would gladly pay full price to see it.

Moon

Moving from the Sun to the Moon, here is another great serious Sci Fi movie. This is what you call "soft" science fiction, I guess, one of the movies that is more about ideas than it is about future technology or spaceships. SPOILER ALERT: there is a twist and pretty common one at that, revealed and then dealt with in a casual and unconventional manner. The movie is full of sci fi tropes, but subverts them left and right, especially with the robot character. Refreshing.

Sam Rockwell is great. He has a lot of charisma, charm and chemistry with the cast. His laid back demeanor is a comfortable alternative to the take-charge assertive protagonists often seen in Star Trek and other more operatic space adventures.

The special effects are kind of strange strange because they often look like scale models or toys bouncing around on a model of the moon, but they still look good. Maybe I'm remembering things incorrectly, but these shots look like they were recorded from a satillite orbiting the moon or a with a high-quality moon security camera, a great move to make (if it was made at all) considering the anti-corporate tilt the movie has.

Cost/Benefit Analysis: I actually paid to see this one in the theater. Totally worth it, and I dragged two friends along to give more money to serious science fiction.

Food, Inc

Food Inc. is a crash-course in all of the things that suck about the food industry today and should be required viewing for everyone that eats food. Inspired by the writing of Michael Pollan and Eric Schlossinger, Food Inc. covers the industrialization of animals and crops, the sins of Monsanto (patenting genes), congressional/governmental infiltration by food company people, the profliferation of corn, loss of diversity in food product manufacture, treatment of slaughter house workers, etc. If you've read those authors before, then this is a refresher course, but if you're a freshman-level foodie, there is some eye-opening stuff here.

Although the movie is fairly entertaining as far as documentaries go, it is still very obviously portraying one group as good (organic farmers, the two writers) and another evil (food industry). The two groups as presented are similar to the kind of Good vs. Evil seen in The Lord of the Rings. Based on similar documentaries I have seen on the subject, the film makers could have shown footage much more damning, but I think that they protect their message this way.

When you were little, you were undoubtedly told, "Don't put that in your mouth, you don't know where it has been." This is why everyone should see this movie. You may not feel the need to change your eating habits to avoid industrial food (but you certainly might), a responsible person should know.

Cost/benefit analysis: I saw this in the theater, but my dad paid for my ticket (yay family fun) so I paid nothing. It's not the most ground-breaking message, so wait for Redbox or Netflix to see this one.

Yellowbeard

Yellowbeard is a late 70's or early 80's comedy with an incredible cast, a bunch of pirate ships and fake facial hair, and a completely nonsensical plot. Starring Graham Chapman, Eric Idle, John Cleese, Peter Boyle, Marty Feldman, Madeline Kahn, plus Cheech and Chong, the movie worth seeing just for the cast alone, but that's pretty much the only reason to recommend it.

Sometimes strong acting can overcome a stupid script. Horrible acting also has a way of doing this. Sadly, the cast is too good for the movie to slide into so bad it's good territory, but they don't seem to care enough to put in the effort it would take to make the script work, leaving Yellowbeard a collection of half-baked jokes from the least-funny member of Monty Python.

I would see this movie only if you are intrigued by the cast. I can't recommend it as either a good or bad movie.

Cost/Benefit analysis: I paid nothing to see this movie, but I got to see some people I hadn't in a while and I got a good free meal. I'd gladly do that again if I was watching a different, but just as bad movie but I hope I never have to see this movie again.

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

I don't care what anyone says about how slow this movie is, it will always be one of the best. But, it does have a meandering plot, there is no way to deny that. To be fair, I am reviewing this movie based on the extended edition, which seems extra-meandering, but is apparently what you're getting when you get the Special edition DVD. Who knew?

But once you get past the crawling plot, there's nothing stopping you enjoying everything about this movie. Except for the dubbing over of the Italian actors, which is usually pretty bad. I guess they used the money they saved by filming in Italy to make the rest of the movie so fantastic.

From the first moment you see Clint Eastwood, you know that he is a badass. From the first moment you see Angel Eyes, you know that he is an evil bastard. From the first moment you see Tuco, you know that he is a scoundrel. The three main characters are perfectly cast, and even though Clint manages to become the coolest person in the world just though lighting a cigar, Tuco is probably the best character, and the most perfectly cast. Not to say that he's really all that ugly, but he's the soul of the movie and is such a joy to watch that he makes you forget what a horrible person he is.

Also of note is the is the film's score. Everyone knows the 8 note main theme or motif or whatever and as awesome as it is, the music at the end of the movie is where they really turn on the good stuff.

Cost/Benefit analysis: I watched a DVD that my uncle gave me for Christmas a couple years ago, so this cost me nothing. However, I would pay the cost of rental or the price of admission to see this in an a theater late at night or something like that.

Final notes
Best scene: Clint Eastwood plays with the kitten that he keeps in his hat
Best costuming: the poncho

Master and Commander

This movie is very good. It has fantastic music, engaging characters, beautiful photography of an awesome boat sailing around and a solid story to tie it all together. The most exciting thing for me, being a big old nerd, is that it is basically a Star Trek movie. As a matter of fact this review is an admission of nerd-guilt more than it is a valuable critique, but no one reads this blog so it's no big deal.

It's just like The Wrath of Khan or The Undiscovered Country or First Contact. One of the good (even-numbered) movies where the Enterprise goes up against a stronger foe, and has to use their brains to make up for missing brawn, reconciling their dedication to exploration and discovery with their commitment to defend their territory from the invading offenders. In the Star Treks, they're up against the Borg or the Klingons (or Ricardo Montalbon) and they use special sensors they had for documenting gaseous anomalies to let their missiles take out the invisible Klingon ship. Or something like that.

As the Enterprise often does, Russell Crowe's crew must choose between personal and professional loyalties. The Spock to Russell Crowe's Kirk is the ship's doctor. Like Kirk and Spock, these two share a close bond despite their difference in rank. They play delightful cello and violin duets and argue when the doctor wants to play Darwin and Russel Crowe needs to prepare the ship for battle.

The battles are exciting, gritty and carry a certain substance and weight that is missing from the ship battles in the Pirates of the Caribbean movies. The good guys defeat their foe through clever tricksy-ness that basically amounts to disguising their warp signature to make the Klingons think that they are something they are not.

Cost/Benefit Analysis: Definitely worth the cost of a rental. The sound and photography are so good that I would totally pay to price to see it on the big screen if I ever get the chance. The last little duet they play alone makes it worth while.

Bottle Rocket

Imagine yourself in a time gone past; a time when Bob Saget was the wholesome, forced host of a mail-in blooper show for family videos, back when Ellen Degeneres was straight and The Simpsons did more than ape Family Guy's style. It was the early ninties. Then, all of a sudden, something changed. A bright young screen writer teamed up with his brother and an ambitious filmmaker ready to make his mark on a movie industry intent on churning out indistinguishable action and comedy movies to make the most ground-breaking, convention-shattering movie in the history of American cinema. That movie was Bottle Rocket.

In a post-Bottle Rocket world, movies ceased to concern themselves with explosions and special effects. Instead, they piled quirk on top of Daddy issues, and spiced everything awkwardness and bad hair with soundtrack by David Bowie. It's true that Bottle Rocket feels a bit like "My First Movie" by Wes Anderson and the Wilson Brothers, but the casually paced story offers a lot, especially for those curious about the progenitors of modern Cinema.

Cost/Benefit: I paid nothing to see this movie, but I would have been ok paying rental/budget prices.

Watchmen

Watchmen is a pretty good movie. It is one that I would see again, anyway. Watchmen is based on a genre-defining and defying graphic novel, and as such had been declared "unfilmable." I imagine that it was largely a group of graphic novel apologists saying this, but I'm not sure that anything is actually "unfilmable." Maybe unfilmable as a traditional Hollywood-style/structured film, but when those limitations are removed, I think anything could work on film, even Watchmen.

The movie works pretty well despite a number of flaws, especially when you consider the especially dark and not-so-much fun source material, a director with a pretty dubious track record, and a cast that features Billy Crudup as its biggest star. The film's biggest success is its soundtrack, with its roots set deep in 60's folk rock. The movie is at its best when the action is covered completely by "The Sound of Silence" or "All Along the Watchtower." When these scenes end and the actors start flapping their mouths away, the quality of the film takes a big nose dive.

The acting is all over the place. Some of the characters are perfectly cast and some are so bad that I can't think of a proper metaphor right now to express it. When you cast a movie based on looks alone, that's what you get. Seems like they should have spent less time working on Dr. Manhattan's wiggler.

However, my biggest complaint is that the violence was way over the top. I know that this is a comic book movie and the characters are super heroes, but the whole point of the book is that all but one of the superheroes are(as they say in Us Weekly) regular people, just like us . When The Comedian's head breaks through his marble counter top just to keep on a-fightin', it takes away from that message.

The end of the movie is significantly different from the end of the book, but I thought that the book worked much better. Thematically the two endings are pretty much the same, but it is much less of a wtf moment than it is in the book.

Book vs. Movie: Book

Cost Benefit Analysis: I got into the movie using one of those discount tickets people buy through work, so I only paid $6.50. This was a pretty good price, and the all of the special effects razzle dazzle makes Watchmen worth seeing on the big screen. There were not many awesome moments, though, so it's probably worth seeing for 6 bucks or less.

Changeling

Changeling had me thinking of an episode of This American Life that I've heard a couple times called "The Ghost of Bobby Dunbar." Both stories are about children taken from their parents and then returned, but maybe not to the correct parents and there are other switch-ups and stuff. I guess this stuff was always happening in the thirties.

Clint Eastwood's movies don't seem to have any thematic elements in common, but they all have a lot in common stylistically. Changeling is a long, well paced and sparse movie, just like every other Eastwood movie that I've ever seen. It is also quite good.

For all of the star power concentrated in Angelina Jolie and John Malkovich, I thought that the most compelling character was the mostly anonymous detective guy who finally cracks the case, allowing Malkovich and Jolie and the lawyer that should have been played by Clint to stick it to the jerks in charge of the Los Angeles Police Department. Jolie never struck me as much of an actor, and she doesn't impress here, despite the cute hats she gets to wear. Similarly, Malkovich wears some really comfy sweaters, although I would prefer them in different colors. A big surprise for me was the girl who played (and probably will again play) Holly on the Office as a patient of the nut house the cops throw Jolie into. Girl's got chops. I knew she could crack a dorky joke with the best of them, but I didn't know that she could disappear into a movie like this so well.

Cost/Benefit analysis: I didn't pay anything to see this movie, but it is well worth a rental. I wanted to see it in the theater, and I don't think I would have been unhappy paying full price. I don't think I'd ever buy the DVD, though.

I don't get why Angelina worried so much about her kid. It's not like Kenya is going to run out of kids for her to adopt.

Atonement

Atonement is an older movie. It came out in 2006 and was nominated for a 2007 Best Picture Academy Award. It is a good movie. Before I saw it, I totally thought it was going to be right up the same alley as Nicholas Sparks' crap-fest The Notebook because I thought they were both love stories that were set around World War II, but luckily I was wrong.

I was initially confused by the way the story was told, with certain scenes being told again and again with additional information coming into play each time. For a movie set in the 30's and 40's it was a surprisingly modern choice, but I think that it worked very well.

The movie drags from time to time, and introduces new story elements without introducing them properly. I don't think these sins are worth condemning the movie, but they're great enough that I don't know how it got the Best Picture nod. It's a slow, relaxing movie that probably works best late at night.

Atonement ends with a twist that I won't mention even though I know no one will read this blog. I can imagine this is the kind of twist that some will hate, but I really liked it. Probably because it played to my English major sensibilities. It

Cost/Benefit analysis: I didn't pay anything to see this movie, but it is worth a rent, fo sho.

Unforgiven

This is an old movie that I saw. It is a good movie. I'm a sucker for movies that are stacked with sweet actors, so when I heard about a western movie starring Gene Hackman, Clint Eastwood, Morgan Freeman, and Richard Harris, I knew I had to see it.

Clint Eastwood plays the classic reluctant western movie hero, a retired killer coming back for one last job, but the movie doesn't rely on many of the western archetypes. Clint isn't the sheriff, he's a killer reformed by his late wife that hasn't touched a drop of liquor in ten years and needs a double-barreled shotgun to hit a tin can from 20 feet. The movie never really says who the good guys and bad guys are, and any of the characters could probably fit into either role.

There's a weird subplot with Richard Harris's character that never seems to go anywhere. I guess it's a chance to show the darker aspects of Hackman's character, but that could have been done without going into a dead end. The other thing I'm a little hung up on is the Jackie Chan-Drunken Master turn the movie takes at the very end, where Clint gets back on the wagon (or is it off?) and becomes a super-cowboy again. It was disappointing and is the kind of ending that I was afraid Gran Torino would have.

Cost/Benefit analysis: I downloaded this movie for free, so it didn't cost me anything. It's totally worth a rent for fans of westerns and suckers for big casts .

Robin Hood: Men in Tights

This is an old movie that I saw. It is horrible. It is a lazy collection of embarrassing, half-baked ideas and jokes that fall flat left and right, each more soul-stealing than the last.

The jokes are mostly Carrot Top-y anachronisms like the tele-fox or old jokes recycled from Mel Brooks' other movies. What makes it all worse is that the actors are constantly breaking the 4th wall, mugging at the camera like they've just dropped a comedy a-bomb.

Cary Elwes, who plays Robin, probably saw his career die upon the release of the movie which is really too bad, because he is a lot of fun in Hot Shots and The Princess Bride, and deserves a resume that isn't littered with anime voice acting. Dave Chappelle made it through with his sanity intact. I wonder if his backwards Robin Hood hat with baseball cap-style size adjuster bothered him as much as it bothered me?

Cost/benefit analysis: I watched this with some friends on DVD, so it was free. You'd have to pay me before I saw it again, but I'd probably need to have a couple drinks first. Seriously, don't watch this movie.

Gran Torino

Gran Torino is a good movie. It is predictable and leans on more than a few cliches and tropes, but still manages to be entertaining. Clint Eastwood's grumbles and sneers are hilarious and make the movie worth seeing. They also make the movie much lighter than I was expecting it to be. Where I thought I would find a dark, gritty movie about race and age and war and stuff, I saw Clint teach his neighbor how to be a man, and learn what a Huh-Mong is. That's not exactly a knock against the movie, I'm just expressing my betrayed expectations.

That's not to say that I don't have a couple of knocks against the movie. The first is maybe more of a personal problem because the ability to suspend disbelief varies from person to person. In my eyes it was far too easy for Clint to go from bitter old grump who can't spare a kind word for his own kids, let alone all of the damn gooks that have taken over the neighborhood to chumming around with a table of Hmong Grandmas.

The movie gives a number of reasons for this change. There's the spunky Hmong girl next door, Clint's declining health, the persistent young priest, the uncanny Hmong shaman and maybe some others. If you've ever seen a movie where an old white guy learns about young colored people, you can probably make them up yourself. It could be that in real life we never have the moments of singularity that change us, but I don't think that's what they're trying to get at here.

Movies that are driven by unbelievable concepts often have solid scripts and actors to back them up. We accept that Batman does all the stuff that he does, because a world has been created that allows those things to happen, and it is presented to us by strong actors. This is where Gran Torino fails. Apart from Clint all of the actors are nobodies. If the playing field was a little more even I might have had a better time with this movie.

The other side of this coin is that the dialogue is a little overwritten, which is an unforgivable sin for me. It's not quite Juno, but there were still many times when I was annoyed by a phrase that was just over the no one would ever say that line.

Cost/benefit analysis: I paid ten dollars to see this movie. I have few complaints about that price, but I would have been happier paying 5 bucks. There's nothing about this movie that needs to be on the big screen in a theater with stadium seating so it would be ok to hold off until it ends up in the second-run theaters or on dvd.

Final note: Some one told me today that Gran Torino is pretty much a Hallmark movie with Clint Eastwood in it. This infuriates me because I wish that I had come up with it first. Ignoring Clint's hugely entertaining performance, this is pretty on the nose.