Monday, 5/4
Cook Yourself Thin; Lifetime. 4 pm CST. Series Premiere.
Three chefs teach how to lose weight by cooking differently.
Tuesday, 5/5
The Apprentice UK; BBC America. 7 pm. Series Premiere.
Good grief-- this show will never die.
At least Trump's not starring in this one...
The Real Housewives of New York City (Bravo; 9 pm). Season Finale.
Wednesday, 5/6
Scrubs (ABC; 7 pm) Series Finale.
The show with more lives than a cat finally ends.
Or does it? ABC hasn't commented lately, but there are about even odds the show may return-- with a nearly completely different cast (except for some minor characters-- and possibly the rookie doctors introduced this year).
Thursday, 5/7
The Family Guy's Stewie makes an appearance on Bones (FOX; 7 pm). For real...
Millionaire Matchmaker (Bravo; 8 pm). Season Finale.
Alan Alda guest stars on 30 Rock (NBC; 8:30 pm).
The Fashion Show; Bravo. 9 pm. Series Premiere.
Since Bravo lost Project Runway, they elected to just make another fashion designer competition show.
Friday, 5/8
Everybody Hates Chris (CW; 7 pm). Season Finale.
Could very well be series finale. Catch it while you can.
Dollhouse (FOX; 8:01). Season Finale.
Same here: most likely series finale.
Saturday, 5/9
Ace of Cakes (Food Network; 8 pm). Season Finale.
This time, they're making cakes for Lost's 100th ep.
Sunday, 5/10
Sandra's Money-Saving Meals; Food Network. 11 am. Series Premiere.
The title is kinda self-explanatory...
The Amazing Race (CBS; 7 pm). Season Finale.
The Celebrity Apprentice (NBC; 7 pm). Three-hour Season Finale.
Yes, people, I said three hours. Now who feels bad that the network is in the shitter with these kinds of brilliant programming choices?
The No. 1 Ladies Detective Agency (HBO; 7 pm). Season Finale.
Somehow, the How I Met Your Mother gang make an appearance on Family Guy (FOX; 8 pm).
The Alzheimer's Project; HBO. 8 pm. Mini-series Premiere.
This four-part documentary focuses on seven patients with the illness.
Cold Case (CBS; 8 pm). Season Finale.
The Unit (CBS; 9 pm). Season Finale.
Brothers & Sisters (ABC; 9:01). Season Finale.
What are the odds it'll contain overdone drama?
Saturday, May 02, 2009
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
I Think It's Love
Now imagine Foxx as his Wanda character on In Living Color...
He'll "rock your world"...
2009 Movie Reviews; 1st Qtr: P-Y (the end)
Paul Blart: Mall Cop—; film. Another case of a movie ending up better than it should have been. Kevin James has done essentially the same shtick in most everything I’ve seen him in, but it worked here. He really made this movie his own, and even though there was very little new here (the usual schlub meets a girl and he tries to win her over plot), James made it shine. And aside from a very few things (I can’t even remember what they were now), this very-much-inspired-by-Die Hard-movie was very kid-friendly—while still making it entertaining for adults. B
[And a side note: watching this movie reminded me I need to start publishing my ideas. Yet another brilliant thing I thought up years ago and never told anyone has been released to the world (the whole Die Hard in a mall thing).]
Run Fatboy Run—I barely remember this one. I know it should have better, considering the talent involved. But instead of trying to win the race, they elected to just finish it. (You like how I did that little analogy?) C-
Star Wars: The Clone Wars; DVD and Film. – Originally conceived as three episodes of the animated series on Cartoon Network, and it felt just like the series as I watched it the first time on DVD. It’s not a bad thing, but it was definitely a let-down knowing it was released as a film in theatres. Unlike, say, The Simpsons Movie, there was nothing that made this special enough to warrant the Big Picture treatment. But a month later, I watched it in the theatre (on not only the big screen, but a screen about 35% larger than average), and was pretty caught up in the beginning battle sequences. Lots of characters and explosions (in Dolby Surround Sound or whatever they have in theatres) definitely made this a better movie to watch in the theatres at first. But after the big battles, it got slower and “smaller” and didn’t work any better than on TV by the end. But it was fun enough to be worth the $2.50 I spent (with free popcorn). C (DVD); B- (in the theatre).
Tropic Thunder—Depending on your point of view, this was either a great film or a piece of crap film. I think those who may know about the filmmaking process (that goes deeper than the "exclusive behind-the-scenes" dreck that “entertainment shows” like Entertainment Tonight give the masses) or can enjoy a great acting performance can really get into this film. Those who just want a “fun ride” probably won’t (a friend of mine walked out halfway through the movie). Writer/director/actor Ben Stiller tried walking a tightrope between the two worlds, but I think the best stuff may have been too “inside” for the average person (and that’s not a knock; not everyone soaks up the moviemaking). But unlike most of the Oscar-Bait films out there, this one was pretty hilarious at times (although there were plenty foul-mouthed lines in it for those who came for that). And Robert Downey Jr had the role of the year with his performance as a white Australian method actor who underwent skin darkening treatments to play a black man (and if that doesn’t sound funny to you, then you probably aren’t one of those people this film was made for). The only gripe I have for this film is that some parts were just too far over the top and brought me out of the experience a few times. I’ll give it a B+; but for someone who may not be looking for the “inside” bits, it’ll probably rate a C.
Wanted—Painful to watch. This started out as an adaptation of a comic book series, but rumor has it they didn’t retain much of the original plot (I haven’t read the comics yet). The special effects were sometimes cool, but the level of violence was just moronic. I think I now understand what “torture porn” means. I’ll give the movie credit for trying to have some sort of plot (which just ended up lame), but that didn’t come until well after the half-way mark. Who needs plot when you can just show more and more violent ways to break bones or die? D-
Yes Man— film; Jim Carrey back to doing what we originally loved him for: going completely gonzo. His character was, at his core, a normal man, but the story allowed him to get crazier and crazier. It wasn’t a deep movie, but it did try to make a great point: it’s okay to say yes to new things. We sometimes forget that yes is an option in our lives. B-
[And a side note: watching this movie reminded me I need to start publishing my ideas. Yet another brilliant thing I thought up years ago and never told anyone has been released to the world (the whole Die Hard in a mall thing).]
Run Fatboy Run—I barely remember this one. I know it should have better, considering the talent involved. But instead of trying to win the race, they elected to just finish it. (You like how I did that little analogy?) C-
Star Wars: The Clone Wars; DVD and Film. – Originally conceived as three episodes of the animated series on Cartoon Network, and it felt just like the series as I watched it the first time on DVD. It’s not a bad thing, but it was definitely a let-down knowing it was released as a film in theatres. Unlike, say, The Simpsons Movie, there was nothing that made this special enough to warrant the Big Picture treatment. But a month later, I watched it in the theatre (on not only the big screen, but a screen about 35% larger than average), and was pretty caught up in the beginning battle sequences. Lots of characters and explosions (in Dolby Surround Sound or whatever they have in theatres) definitely made this a better movie to watch in the theatres at first. But after the big battles, it got slower and “smaller” and didn’t work any better than on TV by the end. But it was fun enough to be worth the $2.50 I spent (with free popcorn). C (DVD); B- (in the theatre).
Tropic Thunder—Depending on your point of view, this was either a great film or a piece of crap film. I think those who may know about the filmmaking process (that goes deeper than the "exclusive behind-the-scenes" dreck that “entertainment shows” like Entertainment Tonight give the masses) or can enjoy a great acting performance can really get into this film. Those who just want a “fun ride” probably won’t (a friend of mine walked out halfway through the movie). Writer/director/actor Ben Stiller tried walking a tightrope between the two worlds, but I think the best stuff may have been too “inside” for the average person (and that’s not a knock; not everyone soaks up the moviemaking). But unlike most of the Oscar-Bait films out there, this one was pretty hilarious at times (although there were plenty foul-mouthed lines in it for those who came for that). And Robert Downey Jr had the role of the year with his performance as a white Australian method actor who underwent skin darkening treatments to play a black man (and if that doesn’t sound funny to you, then you probably aren’t one of those people this film was made for). The only gripe I have for this film is that some parts were just too far over the top and brought me out of the experience a few times. I’ll give it a B+; but for someone who may not be looking for the “inside” bits, it’ll probably rate a C.
Wanted—Painful to watch. This started out as an adaptation of a comic book series, but rumor has it they didn’t retain much of the original plot (I haven’t read the comics yet). The special effects were sometimes cool, but the level of violence was just moronic. I think I now understand what “torture porn” means. I’ll give the movie credit for trying to have some sort of plot (which just ended up lame), but that didn’t come until well after the half-way mark. Who needs plot when you can just show more and more violent ways to break bones or die? D-
Yes Man— film; Jim Carrey back to doing what we originally loved him for: going completely gonzo. His character was, at his core, a normal man, but the story allowed him to get crazier and crazier. It wasn’t a deep movie, but it did try to make a great point: it’s okay to say yes to new things. We sometimes forget that yes is an option in our lives. B-
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
2009 Movie Reviews; 1st Qtr: G-N
Get Smart—I have so little recollection of this film (even though it’s only been, at most, three months since I watched it) that I can’t even give it a proper review. But then, I guess, with the acting talent involved, not remembering anything about it pretty much sums up the movie. C
The House Bunny— I’ve railed on a few movies already for being bland or predictable, and this one could have easily fallen into that same trap. The story is old (Revenge of the Nerds and hundreds of others follow the same pattern), but the “losers” were pretty funny, and Anna Faris really was the glue that held the film together. She could have easily gone through the motions, and no one would have thought less of her as we’ve seen that all so many times before. But Faris was engaging, and even though her character was as dumb as a box of hammers, she conveyed a sweetness that made her fun to watch. B
Justice League: New Frontier—A direct-to-DVD adaptation of one of the seminal super-hero comic book mini-series of this decade. Taking a retro (1950-60s) approach to DC Comics heroes we all know and love and putting all the various pieces together to make a complete story was a tough task, to be sure. But it worked well. Nothing really groundbreaking about this (other than it was above-average quality when compared to recent comic book animation DVDs). And the extras in the 2-disc set were a nice bonus. B
Leatherheads—I love how George Clooney is perfectly happy to go against the grain and do movies in the style of older classics. This is a “screwball classic” as was made in the ‘40s and ‘50s. The only issue I have is sometimes there is no reason to make a film like a classic other than what seems to be as just as an experiment. There’s nothing much that makes this film stand out other than to see the actors try something different, which isn’t bad in and of itself, but it did feel a little forced to be a style.
But I really did like the attention to detail. The football scenes really were different than what we’re used to seeing—even how the players ran differently then than they do now. And, of course, you could just see how much fun Clooney was having by his presence on the screen. That dude is truly a star, and there are very few of them right now, no matter what People magazine or Entertainment Tonight would have you believe. B
Meet Dave—Strictly looked at as a kids movie, it worked well. My guys (5 & 6 years old) enjoyed it. But as an adult, it didn’t do much for me. I’d give it a C+, with a bump to a B- because it had Elizabeth Banks.
Mongol: The Rise of Genghis Khan-- I found this film to be beautiful to watch, and it told a nice story, but I was hoping to get more of a history lesson about the man. This felt more like a pre-origin story (he was not once referred to as Genghis Khan because it was so early in his life). Maybe the story is true, but the filmmakers could have easily just told the story and there didn’t have to be anything at all to indicate this was Kahn. B-
Monsters vs. Aliens –film; I saw this in 3-D, and it made for a more exciting experience, although, at its most basic, it wasn’t much better than any other animated material out there. Meaning: 3-D may be exciting at first, but the film itself will be what lasts through time. I think it tried to serve too many masters, and unlike the superior Pixar products or even shows like Phineas and Ferb, it just couldn’t find a common ground that entertains both children and adults simultaneously. I’ve said this too often this quarter, but it makes it no less true this time: this was pretty standard fare. (Bonus points to Seth Rogan, who was perfect for B.O.B). B-
My Blueberry Nights—had all the makings of a good movie, but I think it diverted too far off any one tone to make to coherent. It’s not to say it was complicated to follow, it just felt like different movies at times. Norah Jones was impressive in her only acting role (according to imdb.com) to date—and played the lead. David Straithairn and Rachel Weisz also brought a great emotional quality to their characters. Jude Law and (most sadly) Natalie Portman’s characters probably could have been played by most anyone. I had higher hopes for this one as it looked like a better movie (and got decent reviews from the places I read about it). B-
Next Avengers: Heroes of Tomorrow—Another in the increasing number of animated Direct-to-DVD movies featuring Marvel superheroes. This one is definitely aimed at a younger crowd (some of the earlier movies were not) as the tone is much lighter. But I can’t understand why the need to create the next generation of superheroes (the offspring of the current Avengers) when Marvel already has so many heroes to offer for this sort of thing. The only thing I can think is Marvel doesn’t have many child heroes, and they wanted to tell this story. I guess it wasn’t a bad movie, and long-time Avengers fans would get some of the “Easter Eggs”/mentions, but this movie is for the youngsters Marvel needs to get excited about comics. If this movie is someone’s first exposure to superheroes, then it might be successful; otherwise, it’s pretty standard. C
The House Bunny— I’ve railed on a few movies already for being bland or predictable, and this one could have easily fallen into that same trap. The story is old (Revenge of the Nerds and hundreds of others follow the same pattern), but the “losers” were pretty funny, and Anna Faris really was the glue that held the film together. She could have easily gone through the motions, and no one would have thought less of her as we’ve seen that all so many times before. But Faris was engaging, and even though her character was as dumb as a box of hammers, she conveyed a sweetness that made her fun to watch. B
Justice League: New Frontier—A direct-to-DVD adaptation of one of the seminal super-hero comic book mini-series of this decade. Taking a retro (1950-60s) approach to DC Comics heroes we all know and love and putting all the various pieces together to make a complete story was a tough task, to be sure. But it worked well. Nothing really groundbreaking about this (other than it was above-average quality when compared to recent comic book animation DVDs). And the extras in the 2-disc set were a nice bonus. B
Leatherheads—I love how George Clooney is perfectly happy to go against the grain and do movies in the style of older classics. This is a “screwball classic” as was made in the ‘40s and ‘50s. The only issue I have is sometimes there is no reason to make a film like a classic other than what seems to be as just as an experiment. There’s nothing much that makes this film stand out other than to see the actors try something different, which isn’t bad in and of itself, but it did feel a little forced to be a style.
But I really did like the attention to detail. The football scenes really were different than what we’re used to seeing—even how the players ran differently then than they do now. And, of course, you could just see how much fun Clooney was having by his presence on the screen. That dude is truly a star, and there are very few of them right now, no matter what People magazine or Entertainment Tonight would have you believe. B
Meet Dave—Strictly looked at as a kids movie, it worked well. My guys (5 & 6 years old) enjoyed it. But as an adult, it didn’t do much for me. I’d give it a C+, with a bump to a B- because it had Elizabeth Banks.
Mongol: The Rise of Genghis Khan-- I found this film to be beautiful to watch, and it told a nice story, but I was hoping to get more of a history lesson about the man. This felt more like a pre-origin story (he was not once referred to as Genghis Khan because it was so early in his life). Maybe the story is true, but the filmmakers could have easily just told the story and there didn’t have to be anything at all to indicate this was Kahn. B-
Monsters vs. Aliens –film; I saw this in 3-D, and it made for a more exciting experience, although, at its most basic, it wasn’t much better than any other animated material out there. Meaning: 3-D may be exciting at first, but the film itself will be what lasts through time. I think it tried to serve too many masters, and unlike the superior Pixar products or even shows like Phineas and Ferb, it just couldn’t find a common ground that entertains both children and adults simultaneously. I’ve said this too often this quarter, but it makes it no less true this time: this was pretty standard fare. (Bonus points to Seth Rogan, who was perfect for B.O.B). B-
My Blueberry Nights—had all the makings of a good movie, but I think it diverted too far off any one tone to make to coherent. It’s not to say it was complicated to follow, it just felt like different movies at times. Norah Jones was impressive in her only acting role (according to imdb.com) to date—and played the lead. David Straithairn and Rachel Weisz also brought a great emotional quality to their characters. Jude Law and (most sadly) Natalie Portman’s characters probably could have been played by most anyone. I had higher hopes for this one as it looked like a better movie (and got decent reviews from the places I read about it). B-
Next Avengers: Heroes of Tomorrow—Another in the increasing number of animated Direct-to-DVD movies featuring Marvel superheroes. This one is definitely aimed at a younger crowd (some of the earlier movies were not) as the tone is much lighter. But I can’t understand why the need to create the next generation of superheroes (the offspring of the current Avengers) when Marvel already has so many heroes to offer for this sort of thing. The only thing I can think is Marvel doesn’t have many child heroes, and they wanted to tell this story. I guess it wasn’t a bad movie, and long-time Avengers fans would get some of the “Easter Eggs”/mentions, but this movie is for the youngsters Marvel needs to get excited about comics. If this movie is someone’s first exposure to superheroes, then it might be successful; otherwise, it’s pretty standard. C
Ray J Tries to Use His Heat Vision to Melt Danger...
I just read the title I wrote above. Wouldn't it be cool had I actually used real names instead of the dumbass nicknames these two use?
Monday, April 27, 2009
2009 Movie Reviews; 1st Qtr: A-F
Hey, it's that time again to give my quick reviews of the movies I watched from January to March this year.
I was a bit disappointed as a whole. I didn't watch my normal amount (too busy watching really great television shows on DVD like Battlestar Galactica and The Wire), but usually I hit two or three really great movies every quarter. Not this one. Saw a number of good ones, but no great ones.
Not to give anyone any reason not to read the next few days of review posts; just want to prepare you.
As always, an "A" (which you won't find this time) is a great film in almost all areas.
A "B" is very good.
A "C" has flaws, but is ultimately enjoyable (I'll usually give the strong/weak points in my review).
A "D" may have one good performance or enough decent lines to make it worth watching if there's absolutely nothing else to watch.
An "F" is pure shit with no redeeming value.
And, as always, these are movies I watched on DVD unless I note otherwise. Why's that important? Movies I see in the theatre tend to get about a half-grade higher just because of the entire experience. A mediocre movie can seem pretty good on the big screen (at least the movies I tend to spend my good money on).
And, finally, these are just my gut feelings. Sometimes it's 2-3 months since I've watched a movie before I write the review, and I try to be as honest as I can (there were 2 or 3 movies I outright admitted I could barely remember-- but keep in mind: if it was worthwhile, I'd remember something about it). I also try to group them by grade, so if I remember liking movie "A" more than movie "B", I grade it higher. Over the course of the quarter, I think I rank them pretty well compared to each other.
Okay, here goes:
Batman: Gotham Knight—An anime-inspired look at the Dark Knight in an anthology form. I’m not an anime-hater (as little as I’ve been exposed), but the art did nothing for me. As with most anthologies, there were one or two good stories mixed in with the mediocre ones, but none of them really stood out. And even though they got people from another culture to work on the character, they all felt familiar to stories I’ve seen/read before. Could have been worse—but could have been better. C+
Burn After Reading—Like many Coen Brothers movies, this one had great acting, great dialogue, and a plot that seems to be held together by nothing more than chewing gum. It was tricky to follow at times, but I think that helped show how all these various parties ended up being affected by each other when they don’t travel in the same circles. I also thought the ending was great—but could only work in a movie like this. The Coens walk a tightrope, and while this movie wasn’t brilliant, their work—as well as the great actors who turned it up a notch for them—made this one worth seeing; even if it’s not always easy to follow. B
Driving Lessons— Nice enough story, but I feel I’ve seen it before. Nothing memorable about it. C-
Expelled— I wasn’t sure what to expect at first as I believe in evolution, and this documentary tried to explain that “Intelligent Design” needs to be a part of the conversation. I’m not against that, actually; I believe that the world would be a better place if religious people and non-religious people could just find some sort of common ground. Ben Stein, the star/co-writer of this doc seems to agree. The main thesis of the doc was that Intelligent Design could easily explain some of the issues with Darwin’s findings (many of which have been refuted or “corrected” by scientific finds since then), so it should also be considered when discussing the origins of life. I have no problem with that other than I don’t want investigation of the beginning of life to end just because the point is reached that it can’t be yet explained, and the scientific community just chalks it up to ID. Science expands our knowledge of life every year, so what we don’t know now may be discovered later.
Anyway, this movie claims that people who mention Intelligent Design in their papers and work get fired or taken off projects just for speaking their minds. As more and more instances were related, the movie tried to explain that this is more and more like how the Nazis behaved. The point hit a crescendo when Hitler’s beliefs in a superior race were explained and found to be copacetic with the basics of Darwinian evolution (which is pretty absurd; Hitler was a nutcase, and most people who believe in evolution are not). If humans helped along the “survival of the fittest” by exterminating disabled or “inferior” races, then the result would be a “perfect” race. That may be what Hitler believed, but I doubt many scientists would agree to do that.
Just at the point where I was compelled to turn off the movie (what’s worse than Hitler?), the tone of the movie made an abrupt shift and basically asked why can’t ID be a part of evolution? Finally, a rational argument. But it came too late. I admit to learning that ID is not strictly a religious matter, and that most ID proponents don’t like how some of the Fundamentalists have co-opted the belief , but the movie basically did what I grew tired of in the early 2000’s— used fear to get their point across. No one should be shut out of the conversation, but I’m sure there are very good reasons why ID can’t always be considered, if only for the thing I mentioned above: it’s an “easy out”. C+
The Fall— Beautifully shot. This film was amazing to look at. But the plot was hard to follow at times. I had no idea what was real or not some of the times, or how it all tied together. Also of note was the acting by Catinca Untaru, who was only nine years old when the film was released (probably eight, at most, when it was being filmed). She really had to hit some emotional things actors much older than her would have trouble with. B
Forgetting Sarah Marshall—One of those Judd Apatow-like movies about men who still act like boys; but one that didn’t cross as many lines (and thusly allowed me to just enjoy the movie). There were awkward moments that could have derailed the momentum of the film, but writer/star Jason Segal kept everything together as few actors could. This film followed the usual guy gets dumped and meets new girl and then loses new girl, etc plot, but there was enough unique moments in between that it didn’t feel stale. Plus, the film showed me what Russell Brand is capable of in a comedy (I wasn’t terribly impressed watching his stand-up routine on Comedy Central). Good stuff. B+
Fred Claus—A kid movie that could have easily been watered down, but somehow, it was pretty watchable as an adult. You probably wouldn’t think of Vince Vaughn to star in your PG-rated movie, but he had his usual film persona (if toned down for the PG rating), and it gave a bit of an edge to the film. And Paul Giamatti (who was his usual excellent self) got a bit of a break by being St. Nick, so he didn’t have to play the Type-A dick he mostly plays. And while Elizabeth Banks has been in quite a few films lately, she’s always great to watch work (even if she didn’t have a big role). B+
I was a bit disappointed as a whole. I didn't watch my normal amount (too busy watching really great television shows on DVD like Battlestar Galactica and The Wire), but usually I hit two or three really great movies every quarter. Not this one. Saw a number of good ones, but no great ones.
Not to give anyone any reason not to read the next few days of review posts; just want to prepare you.
As always, an "A" (which you won't find this time) is a great film in almost all areas.
A "B" is very good.
A "C" has flaws, but is ultimately enjoyable (I'll usually give the strong/weak points in my review).
A "D" may have one good performance or enough decent lines to make it worth watching if there's absolutely nothing else to watch.
An "F" is pure shit with no redeeming value.
And, as always, these are movies I watched on DVD unless I note otherwise. Why's that important? Movies I see in the theatre tend to get about a half-grade higher just because of the entire experience. A mediocre movie can seem pretty good on the big screen (at least the movies I tend to spend my good money on).
And, finally, these are just my gut feelings. Sometimes it's 2-3 months since I've watched a movie before I write the review, and I try to be as honest as I can (there were 2 or 3 movies I outright admitted I could barely remember-- but keep in mind: if it was worthwhile, I'd remember something about it). I also try to group them by grade, so if I remember liking movie "A" more than movie "B", I grade it higher. Over the course of the quarter, I think I rank them pretty well compared to each other.
Okay, here goes:
Batman: Gotham Knight—An anime-inspired look at the Dark Knight in an anthology form. I’m not an anime-hater (as little as I’ve been exposed), but the art did nothing for me. As with most anthologies, there were one or two good stories mixed in with the mediocre ones, but none of them really stood out. And even though they got people from another culture to work on the character, they all felt familiar to stories I’ve seen/read before. Could have been worse—but could have been better. C+
Burn After Reading—Like many Coen Brothers movies, this one had great acting, great dialogue, and a plot that seems to be held together by nothing more than chewing gum. It was tricky to follow at times, but I think that helped show how all these various parties ended up being affected by each other when they don’t travel in the same circles. I also thought the ending was great—but could only work in a movie like this. The Coens walk a tightrope, and while this movie wasn’t brilliant, their work—as well as the great actors who turned it up a notch for them—made this one worth seeing; even if it’s not always easy to follow. B
Driving Lessons— Nice enough story, but I feel I’ve seen it before. Nothing memorable about it. C-
Expelled— I wasn’t sure what to expect at first as I believe in evolution, and this documentary tried to explain that “Intelligent Design” needs to be a part of the conversation. I’m not against that, actually; I believe that the world would be a better place if religious people and non-religious people could just find some sort of common ground. Ben Stein, the star/co-writer of this doc seems to agree. The main thesis of the doc was that Intelligent Design could easily explain some of the issues with Darwin’s findings (many of which have been refuted or “corrected” by scientific finds since then), so it should also be considered when discussing the origins of life. I have no problem with that other than I don’t want investigation of the beginning of life to end just because the point is reached that it can’t be yet explained, and the scientific community just chalks it up to ID. Science expands our knowledge of life every year, so what we don’t know now may be discovered later.
Anyway, this movie claims that people who mention Intelligent Design in their papers and work get fired or taken off projects just for speaking their minds. As more and more instances were related, the movie tried to explain that this is more and more like how the Nazis behaved. The point hit a crescendo when Hitler’s beliefs in a superior race were explained and found to be copacetic with the basics of Darwinian evolution (which is pretty absurd; Hitler was a nutcase, and most people who believe in evolution are not). If humans helped along the “survival of the fittest” by exterminating disabled or “inferior” races, then the result would be a “perfect” race. That may be what Hitler believed, but I doubt many scientists would agree to do that.
Just at the point where I was compelled to turn off the movie (what’s worse than Hitler?), the tone of the movie made an abrupt shift and basically asked why can’t ID be a part of evolution? Finally, a rational argument. But it came too late. I admit to learning that ID is not strictly a religious matter, and that most ID proponents don’t like how some of the Fundamentalists have co-opted the belief , but the movie basically did what I grew tired of in the early 2000’s— used fear to get their point across. No one should be shut out of the conversation, but I’m sure there are very good reasons why ID can’t always be considered, if only for the thing I mentioned above: it’s an “easy out”. C+
The Fall— Beautifully shot. This film was amazing to look at. But the plot was hard to follow at times. I had no idea what was real or not some of the times, or how it all tied together. Also of note was the acting by Catinca Untaru, who was only nine years old when the film was released (probably eight, at most, when it was being filmed). She really had to hit some emotional things actors much older than her would have trouble with. B
Forgetting Sarah Marshall—One of those Judd Apatow-like movies about men who still act like boys; but one that didn’t cross as many lines (and thusly allowed me to just enjoy the movie). There were awkward moments that could have derailed the momentum of the film, but writer/star Jason Segal kept everything together as few actors could. This film followed the usual guy gets dumped and meets new girl and then loses new girl, etc plot, but there was enough unique moments in between that it didn’t feel stale. Plus, the film showed me what Russell Brand is capable of in a comedy (I wasn’t terribly impressed watching his stand-up routine on Comedy Central). Good stuff. B+
Fred Claus—A kid movie that could have easily been watered down, but somehow, it was pretty watchable as an adult. You probably wouldn’t think of Vince Vaughn to star in your PG-rated movie, but he had his usual film persona (if toned down for the PG rating), and it gave a bit of an edge to the film. And Paul Giamatti (who was his usual excellent self) got a bit of a break by being St. Nick, so he didn’t have to play the Type-A dick he mostly plays. And while Elizabeth Banks has been in quite a few films lately, she’s always great to watch work (even if she didn’t have a big role). B+
Sunday, April 26, 2009
See EARTH
Hey-- Just a quick one, here.
I watched Earth yesterday, and it's, by far, the best movie I've seen yet this year (I hope to have my 1st Qtr reviews up in a few days). Normally I'm slow on saying "Watch this movie" (mainly because I rarely seen them in theatres or just after the DVD release), but this is worth seeing-- and it helps to watch in a theatre, where one can see the planet on a big screen.
Sure, there are lots of documentaries you can watch on Discovery or History or many other channels, but this is in the theatres, and DisneyNature (with the BBC) pulled out the stops on this one.
There were brilliantly distant shots showing the massive amounts of animals migrating together, and there were also many moments where a single family of animals were all alone for miles around. We got to see how large-- and how small-- the world truly is.
I'm glad Disney decided to start doing their nature documentaries again. I remember watching Wonderful World of Disney when I was a kid (in the '70s) and seeing similar pieces. This film is very much in that vein.
And while the film was edited for younger eyes (no lions tearing apart elephants), it made it clear that those things do (and must) happen in the wild.
Good stuff. Absolutely beautiful camera work. It was a bit simplistic (designed for kids and all), but it is the only "A" movie I've seen yet this year.
I watched Earth yesterday, and it's, by far, the best movie I've seen yet this year (I hope to have my 1st Qtr reviews up in a few days). Normally I'm slow on saying "Watch this movie" (mainly because I rarely seen them in theatres or just after the DVD release), but this is worth seeing-- and it helps to watch in a theatre, where one can see the planet on a big screen.
Sure, there are lots of documentaries you can watch on Discovery or History or many other channels, but this is in the theatres, and DisneyNature (with the BBC) pulled out the stops on this one.
There were brilliantly distant shots showing the massive amounts of animals migrating together, and there were also many moments where a single family of animals were all alone for miles around. We got to see how large-- and how small-- the world truly is.
I'm glad Disney decided to start doing their nature documentaries again. I remember watching Wonderful World of Disney when I was a kid (in the '70s) and seeing similar pieces. This film is very much in that vein.
And while the film was edited for younger eyes (no lions tearing apart elephants), it made it clear that those things do (and must) happen in the wild.
Good stuff. Absolutely beautiful camera work. It was a bit simplistic (designed for kids and all), but it is the only "A" movie I've seen yet this year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)