Thursday, July 16, 2009
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Kimmel: Best of Unnecessary Censorship
Too soon to have the MJ jokes posted (in defense of the clip, it posted on YouTube a couple of years ago), but if I didn't post it now, I'd forget.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Monday, July 13, 2009
2009 Movie Reviews; 2nd Qtr; S-Z
Star Trek—Film. J.J. Abrams’ long-awaited revamping of the Star Trek franchise hit the marks it needed to. As an interested fan (wouldn’t go so far to call myself a Trekker—or a Trekkie), I was dreading the “cleaning house” many people expected of non-fan Abrams, but he was incredibly respectful of previous material. He (and his screenwriters) found a great way to tell a new story with elements we’ve only heard about previously and tied them into what we already know of the characters.
But the film did take a few liberties with things—but smartly gave a good reason for that (the perfect plot-twister: time travel). I’m not sure I like the Big Change made to the mythos (as it should affect many, many previously told stories), but the franchise needed a relaunch, and this made sure it was different than what came before (but still can be glossed over as it shouldn’t affect every single being’s day-to-day).
Like I mentioned in an earlier post about the film, it started out wonderfully, by making us actually care about the characters we saw on the screen. I think Star Trek has been pretty good for most of its incarnations, but it’s also been pretty sanitary and cerebral. Opening this film with an unstoppable villain and then a heroic sacrifice (by a new father no less) shook me up like little else I’ve seen Trek-wise.
It’s not a perfect movie; it may not even be a great one, but it is more worthy of the name than many other films and series in the franchise. B+
Trailer Park Boys-- I haven’t seen the Canadian TV series this movie originated from, but I think I’ll eventually seek it out. The movie’s a bit hard to describe (compounded by not remembering many details about it 7 weeks later), but I will say it was pretty funny at the time. Three lowlifes who live in a trailer park try to pull off these ridiculous heists to net them a cool couple hundred dollars (breaking into parking meters, stealing gumball machine money). It could have been handled poorly—or at least in a Will Farrell/Adam Sandler “aren’t I acting obnoxious?” way—but this movie owned the ridiculousness of it all. They weren’t busy winking at the camera because they were living it. That’s a credit in this reality show trash world we live in. B-
Up—film. Another film I have posted previously about. Simply put: it’s brilliant. Great for kids; amazing for adults. One of the best films I’ve ever seen. Beautiful, funny, tender, unexpected. A
Wonder Woman— I’m gonna be honest and say I don’t remember hardly anything about this made-for-DVD movie. I do recall it was decent—bit not mind-blowingly good. I also recall the plot working very well (Wonder Woman has been notoriously difficult for writers to write for). I will say it made me bummed out that the Joss Whedon movie that was in the works for a short time isn’t going to be made because this proved that a good story could be told for the character—and she definitely needs a good “Wonder Woman” (as opposed to any other hero[ine]) story. C+
The Wrestler-- This is one of those tricky films for me: on one hand, it’s wonderfully written, acted, and directed; on the other hand, nothing really happened. It’s one of those films I call “slice of life” pictures that seem to be just a showcase for acting, writing, or directing as opposed to a film with a definite beginning, middle, and end.
I’m not trying to knock it too much. The acting (particularly by Mickey Rourke) was exceptional, and the story and directing were very well done. I was a big WWF/E fan back in the early part of the decade and did a lot of background (off-storyline) “research”, and I know very well what happens to many wrestlers that are past their primes. This film was incredibly true-to-life in those regards—as well as in regards to the absolute torture most of those wrestlers put themselves through to entertain the audience/get a paycheck.
I just wish something would have happened. I was hoping for some sort of climax/closure. B+
Zack & Miri Make a Porno— I watched this with a lot of trepidation because I’m not quite sure what I’ll get with a Kevin Smith movie anymore. Will it be old school Smith with thought-provoking ideas littered with scatological humor or new school Smith with tasteless jokes/characters with a hint of “something bigger” we never get? With the title, you can guess which way I leaned.
But I was wrong. Sure, the first half-hour led me down to the belief that we were going to get more poop jokes than heart, but the movie transformed itself as the titular porno was being shot. Smith deserves much of the credit, but I’ll credit Seth Rogan and especially Elizabeth Banks for giving this film the heart it needed. I think this movie really showed us what both actors are capable of.
It is unfortunate that Smith still needed to push the taste line a little. Had some of the more crude jokes/scenes been taken out, this could have been a great movie for just about anyone. B
But the film did take a few liberties with things—but smartly gave a good reason for that (the perfect plot-twister: time travel). I’m not sure I like the Big Change made to the mythos (as it should affect many, many previously told stories), but the franchise needed a relaunch, and this made sure it was different than what came before (but still can be glossed over as it shouldn’t affect every single being’s day-to-day).
Like I mentioned in an earlier post about the film, it started out wonderfully, by making us actually care about the characters we saw on the screen. I think Star Trek has been pretty good for most of its incarnations, but it’s also been pretty sanitary and cerebral. Opening this film with an unstoppable villain and then a heroic sacrifice (by a new father no less) shook me up like little else I’ve seen Trek-wise.
It’s not a perfect movie; it may not even be a great one, but it is more worthy of the name than many other films and series in the franchise. B+
Trailer Park Boys-- I haven’t seen the Canadian TV series this movie originated from, but I think I’ll eventually seek it out. The movie’s a bit hard to describe (compounded by not remembering many details about it 7 weeks later), but I will say it was pretty funny at the time. Three lowlifes who live in a trailer park try to pull off these ridiculous heists to net them a cool couple hundred dollars (breaking into parking meters, stealing gumball machine money). It could have been handled poorly—or at least in a Will Farrell/Adam Sandler “aren’t I acting obnoxious?” way—but this movie owned the ridiculousness of it all. They weren’t busy winking at the camera because they were living it. That’s a credit in this reality show trash world we live in. B-
Up—film. Another film I have posted previously about. Simply put: it’s brilliant. Great for kids; amazing for adults. One of the best films I’ve ever seen. Beautiful, funny, tender, unexpected. A
Wonder Woman— I’m gonna be honest and say I don’t remember hardly anything about this made-for-DVD movie. I do recall it was decent—bit not mind-blowingly good. I also recall the plot working very well (Wonder Woman has been notoriously difficult for writers to write for). I will say it made me bummed out that the Joss Whedon movie that was in the works for a short time isn’t going to be made because this proved that a good story could be told for the character—and she definitely needs a good “Wonder Woman” (as opposed to any other hero[ine]) story. C+
The Wrestler-- This is one of those tricky films for me: on one hand, it’s wonderfully written, acted, and directed; on the other hand, nothing really happened. It’s one of those films I call “slice of life” pictures that seem to be just a showcase for acting, writing, or directing as opposed to a film with a definite beginning, middle, and end.
I’m not trying to knock it too much. The acting (particularly by Mickey Rourke) was exceptional, and the story and directing were very well done. I was a big WWF/E fan back in the early part of the decade and did a lot of background (off-storyline) “research”, and I know very well what happens to many wrestlers that are past their primes. This film was incredibly true-to-life in those regards—as well as in regards to the absolute torture most of those wrestlers put themselves through to entertain the audience/get a paycheck.
I just wish something would have happened. I was hoping for some sort of climax/closure. B+
Zack & Miri Make a Porno— I watched this with a lot of trepidation because I’m not quite sure what I’ll get with a Kevin Smith movie anymore. Will it be old school Smith with thought-provoking ideas littered with scatological humor or new school Smith with tasteless jokes/characters with a hint of “something bigger” we never get? With the title, you can guess which way I leaned.
But I was wrong. Sure, the first half-hour led me down to the belief that we were going to get more poop jokes than heart, but the movie transformed itself as the titular porno was being shot. Smith deserves much of the credit, but I’ll credit Seth Rogan and especially Elizabeth Banks for giving this film the heart it needed. I think this movie really showed us what both actors are capable of.
It is unfortunate that Smith still needed to push the taste line a little. Had some of the more crude jokes/scenes been taken out, this could have been a great movie for just about anyone. B
Sunday, July 12, 2009
2009 Movie Reviews; 2nd Qtr; M-R
Marley & Me-- I read the book, and while it did get some guff for being a bit too sentimental, I didn’t think that at the time. How could a much-loved dog not be written about so fondly? Anyone who’s had a pet knows what they can mean to a person or a family. And, agree or not, you usually can’t find a better pet that gives unconditional companionship/love like a dog.
So, the movie: There was a lot of story to tell; almost too much for one film; so it felt a bit rushed at times. But the story of Marley and Me for both the book and the film was one about becoming a family, so we had to see the newlyweds picking out the first family member (Marley), then growing a little older, and moving jobs, and having kids, and just living. And Marley is “the world’s worst dog”, so we needed to see some of his antics (all of which were funny—and very well done, considering they involved animals).
About mid-way through the movie, things slowed a bit, and I saw something I hardly ever see in a movie: real parenting. TV and movies make being a parent seem like this thing where everyone is perfect (no crying babies, parents have unlimited time energy) or extremely dysfunctional (kids are wiseasses, parents either are too hard or too soft), or the family is forgotten about (where are the kids?). This one had America’s Sweetheart, Jennifer Aniston, looking like Hell with nerves frayed to their ends, at the brink of sanity/civility. That’s real life parenting little kids, people. It was the most true-to-life thing I’ve seen because I live it. I’m tired all the time, and I’m short with my family often enough to know it’s not a fluke. It’s hard being a parent—and this film showed it.
But I digress…
Anyway, we all know the story is about the time they pick up Marley to the time they had to put him in the ground, and that was as terribly depicted on screen as it was in the book; real and unvarnished. Dogs don’t live as long as people, and they had to adjust. I don’t care how cold-hearted you are; that was a tough thing to see on screen that should bring tears to your eyes.
Now for the part that has me on the fence: this film was heavily marketed for kids and was rated PG. But there were a few things that were a little older content than the elementary grade kids out there (although I know much of it would go over their heads). And the death of Marley was not a quick thing like you’d see in some movies (like say, The Lion King) that gets the plot moving; it happened at the end. It’s real life, and usually having a kid go through that in a movie before real life would be helpful, but I would expect there was more than one parent who probably had to explain things after the movie ended. I didn’t get a chance to see this with my kids, so I don’t know how they reacted (and it’s entirely possible they didn’t even see the ending considering their short attention spans).
All in all, this was a well-done, if a bit scattershot in tone, film. I have to say I was impressed by both Aniston and Owen Wilson’s work. They carried that movie yet let the story tell itself without getting in the way. B
The Mummy: Curse of the Dragon Emperor—Actually better than I expected it to be. It’s one of those “fun ride” movies that maybe not have always has realism in mind, but it was what it was supposed to be: fun and exciting. Brendan Frasier doesn’t get the respect he deserves for being able to pull this type of movie off (not many actors can), and Maria Bello is always a treat to watch (and unlike most women’s roles in this type of film, she held her own as a character). And, most importantly, not one person survived a nuclear explosion by hiding in a refrigerator. B
New in Town— I watched this with a great deal of trepidation. It’s about a ladder-climbing Miami executive who takes a management position in a small Minnesota town to whip the plant they just bought into shape (namely, change everything and lay off most of the employees). And then she meets a man… So, okay, the story is already a little familiar-sounding, and the thought that my native Minnesotans would be made fun of with their quirky personalities and accents (of which not many Minnesotans have) made me dread what I was going to see. But, you know, I smiled a few times at those quirky things like tapioca pudding and the sense of community I saw these characters had. It felt like home.
It’s not a great movie, and all respect to Renee Zellweger, the lead acting wasn’t stupendous. Zellweger did her thing, and she’s good at it; but it was the supporting characters (many of whom played by actors we’ve seen many times before in supporting roles) that stole the show. And I was pleasantly surprised to see a movie with such “good heart” to it—and not only did the film/community have it, but it’s was actually noteworthy, like it was important, and not just a little quirk the “flyover states” have that make them inferior to the coast states. B-
Nick & Nora’s Infinite Playlist-- This is a tough one. All the pieces were well-done, but the whole just didn’t amount to much. Michael Cera played his usual awkward character—a role he has down pat—in Nick, and Kat Dennings was very good (smart, funny) as Nora. The supporting characters (many played by familiar faces) also contributed well to the film. But there didn’t seem to be much purpose to it. I guess the best way to describe how I feel about it is: “It’s a good movie that I didn’t care about.” C+
Punisher War Zone—A movie that should have been good but wasn’t. It had a great cast (Ray Stevenson, Dominic West, and Julie Benz—some of my favorite TV actors) and the overall plot was perfect for the character, but it failed on so many levels. Stevenson managed himself fairly well, but some of the stunts/actions the film had him doing were ridiculous. The Frank Castle of the comics I’ve read would walk into a room and start firing his many guns, all with pinpoint accuracy. This film saw him take the time to move into weird positions that looked cool on screen while he dispatched his targets, often in close-up. Dominic West was horribly under-utilized. He either said, “Frak this” once he realized this film was gonna tank and decided to ham it up-- Tommy Lee Jones style (in Batman Forever)-- or he was cut off at the knees and given little more to do than laugh at the antics of his character’s brother. And Julie Benz didn’t have to be anything other than be the typical weak victim/mother that any actress could have been cast as. A complete waste of talent as it came to the actors.
The people who did get utilized well were the foley artists (who got to make many, many wet “splutch” noises that were heard when people were killed) and the people who mixed up the copious amounts of fake blood. My opinion is the studio had left over blood from some splatter movie and gave it to these producers at a discounted rate.
The film got a few things right: it was based in a big city (NYC, maybe) and most of the action took place at night (something the previous film starring Tom Jane failed in), but otherwise it was ridiculous. I imagine the tone of the film was based on Garth Ennis’ Punisher stories (I read that they were the comics Stevenson found the most interesting in his research), and that would explain it. But the thing is, Ennis writes over-the-top as a parody of violent comics. The creators of this film didn’t understand that it’s a joke. Frank putting his fist into—and almost through—a man’s face plays much better on the page than on the screen. Ennis (and his artists, most likely Steve Dillion and Darick Robertson in this case) masters of their craft, so we as readers buy into it. There’s a “shorthand” Ennis and his collaborators are afforded by readers because we know what kind of book we’re getting. The War Zone crew don’t have that relationship with us. They failed terribly.
And don’t even get me started on Micro. What a waste. D-
Religulous— I’ll say right now that I like Bill Maher. Say you will about his politics—or his beliefs—you have to admit he’s at least thoughtful with them (unlike many of our loudmouth political/religious commentators). I’ll also admit to being an atheist—although not what I’ve come to coin a “militant atheist” like Maher or author Christopher Hitchens. So I was very interested in this film.
But I kept hearing how controversial this movie was, and it really wasn’t. Maher was very thoughtful and more respectful than I think he needed to be (which was absolutely the right way to approach this film for him), but not very probing. I didn’t learn much from it, and that was very disappointing to me because I know Maher could have dug a little deeper without offending anyone.
His last monologue in the film was a work of art, though. He encapsulated much of the thoughts I know he has for religion and also explained why he has become more “aggressive” in his stance against it (and it also verbalizes how I feel about religion). That I can get behind. Watch the movie, but stay for the end; it’s worth it. B (B+ for the end)
The Rocker—Rainn Wilson playing a man-child is pretty much a no-brainer after seeing him on The Office. This movie could have used the connect-the-dots method most other movies of this type would follow, but this one had a lot of heart underneath the ridiculousness that helped it exceed expectations. Sure, Wilson’s “old man” drummer had his silly moments, but he pulled them off without ruining the tone of the movie. And I was also very impressed with Josh Gad’s work as the geeky Matt; he could have been a typical band nerd, but Gad really gave the character heart. C+
Role Models-- Another bad movie made better by the acting. First, the stellar Paul Rudd. That dude can do no wrong right now. Then Seann William Scott did his usual thing (hey—if it works, do it…). Christopher “McLovin’” Mintz-Plasse had, maybe, the toughest role (being a wimp, yet still likable). And Bobb’e J. Thompson in one of the funniest, most vulgar performances I’ve seen in a while. And let’s not forget the actress who’s quickly climbing to the top of my fave list: Elizabeth Banks. She didn’t have much to do, but what little she did was done well.
The film itself was a paint-by-numbers flick (you knew exactly where it was going), but there were enough surprises along the way to make this worthwhile. B-
So, the movie: There was a lot of story to tell; almost too much for one film; so it felt a bit rushed at times. But the story of Marley and Me for both the book and the film was one about becoming a family, so we had to see the newlyweds picking out the first family member (Marley), then growing a little older, and moving jobs, and having kids, and just living. And Marley is “the world’s worst dog”, so we needed to see some of his antics (all of which were funny—and very well done, considering they involved animals).
About mid-way through the movie, things slowed a bit, and I saw something I hardly ever see in a movie: real parenting. TV and movies make being a parent seem like this thing where everyone is perfect (no crying babies, parents have unlimited time energy) or extremely dysfunctional (kids are wiseasses, parents either are too hard or too soft), or the family is forgotten about (where are the kids?). This one had America’s Sweetheart, Jennifer Aniston, looking like Hell with nerves frayed to their ends, at the brink of sanity/civility. That’s real life parenting little kids, people. It was the most true-to-life thing I’ve seen because I live it. I’m tired all the time, and I’m short with my family often enough to know it’s not a fluke. It’s hard being a parent—and this film showed it.
But I digress…
Anyway, we all know the story is about the time they pick up Marley to the time they had to put him in the ground, and that was as terribly depicted on screen as it was in the book; real and unvarnished. Dogs don’t live as long as people, and they had to adjust. I don’t care how cold-hearted you are; that was a tough thing to see on screen that should bring tears to your eyes.
Now for the part that has me on the fence: this film was heavily marketed for kids and was rated PG. But there were a few things that were a little older content than the elementary grade kids out there (although I know much of it would go over their heads). And the death of Marley was not a quick thing like you’d see in some movies (like say, The Lion King) that gets the plot moving; it happened at the end. It’s real life, and usually having a kid go through that in a movie before real life would be helpful, but I would expect there was more than one parent who probably had to explain things after the movie ended. I didn’t get a chance to see this with my kids, so I don’t know how they reacted (and it’s entirely possible they didn’t even see the ending considering their short attention spans).
All in all, this was a well-done, if a bit scattershot in tone, film. I have to say I was impressed by both Aniston and Owen Wilson’s work. They carried that movie yet let the story tell itself without getting in the way. B
The Mummy: Curse of the Dragon Emperor—Actually better than I expected it to be. It’s one of those “fun ride” movies that maybe not have always has realism in mind, but it was what it was supposed to be: fun and exciting. Brendan Frasier doesn’t get the respect he deserves for being able to pull this type of movie off (not many actors can), and Maria Bello is always a treat to watch (and unlike most women’s roles in this type of film, she held her own as a character). And, most importantly, not one person survived a nuclear explosion by hiding in a refrigerator. B
New in Town— I watched this with a great deal of trepidation. It’s about a ladder-climbing Miami executive who takes a management position in a small Minnesota town to whip the plant they just bought into shape (namely, change everything and lay off most of the employees). And then she meets a man… So, okay, the story is already a little familiar-sounding, and the thought that my native Minnesotans would be made fun of with their quirky personalities and accents (of which not many Minnesotans have) made me dread what I was going to see. But, you know, I smiled a few times at those quirky things like tapioca pudding and the sense of community I saw these characters had. It felt like home.
It’s not a great movie, and all respect to Renee Zellweger, the lead acting wasn’t stupendous. Zellweger did her thing, and she’s good at it; but it was the supporting characters (many of whom played by actors we’ve seen many times before in supporting roles) that stole the show. And I was pleasantly surprised to see a movie with such “good heart” to it—and not only did the film/community have it, but it’s was actually noteworthy, like it was important, and not just a little quirk the “flyover states” have that make them inferior to the coast states. B-
Nick & Nora’s Infinite Playlist-- This is a tough one. All the pieces were well-done, but the whole just didn’t amount to much. Michael Cera played his usual awkward character—a role he has down pat—in Nick, and Kat Dennings was very good (smart, funny) as Nora. The supporting characters (many played by familiar faces) also contributed well to the film. But there didn’t seem to be much purpose to it. I guess the best way to describe how I feel about it is: “It’s a good movie that I didn’t care about.” C+
Punisher War Zone—A movie that should have been good but wasn’t. It had a great cast (Ray Stevenson, Dominic West, and Julie Benz—some of my favorite TV actors) and the overall plot was perfect for the character, but it failed on so many levels. Stevenson managed himself fairly well, but some of the stunts/actions the film had him doing were ridiculous. The Frank Castle of the comics I’ve read would walk into a room and start firing his many guns, all with pinpoint accuracy. This film saw him take the time to move into weird positions that looked cool on screen while he dispatched his targets, often in close-up. Dominic West was horribly under-utilized. He either said, “Frak this” once he realized this film was gonna tank and decided to ham it up-- Tommy Lee Jones style (in Batman Forever)-- or he was cut off at the knees and given little more to do than laugh at the antics of his character’s brother. And Julie Benz didn’t have to be anything other than be the typical weak victim/mother that any actress could have been cast as. A complete waste of talent as it came to the actors.
The people who did get utilized well were the foley artists (who got to make many, many wet “splutch” noises that were heard when people were killed) and the people who mixed up the copious amounts of fake blood. My opinion is the studio had left over blood from some splatter movie and gave it to these producers at a discounted rate.
The film got a few things right: it was based in a big city (NYC, maybe) and most of the action took place at night (something the previous film starring Tom Jane failed in), but otherwise it was ridiculous. I imagine the tone of the film was based on Garth Ennis’ Punisher stories (I read that they were the comics Stevenson found the most interesting in his research), and that would explain it. But the thing is, Ennis writes over-the-top as a parody of violent comics. The creators of this film didn’t understand that it’s a joke. Frank putting his fist into—and almost through—a man’s face plays much better on the page than on the screen. Ennis (and his artists, most likely Steve Dillion and Darick Robertson in this case) masters of their craft, so we as readers buy into it. There’s a “shorthand” Ennis and his collaborators are afforded by readers because we know what kind of book we’re getting. The War Zone crew don’t have that relationship with us. They failed terribly.
And don’t even get me started on Micro. What a waste. D-
Religulous— I’ll say right now that I like Bill Maher. Say you will about his politics—or his beliefs—you have to admit he’s at least thoughtful with them (unlike many of our loudmouth political/religious commentators). I’ll also admit to being an atheist—although not what I’ve come to coin a “militant atheist” like Maher or author Christopher Hitchens. So I was very interested in this film.
But I kept hearing how controversial this movie was, and it really wasn’t. Maher was very thoughtful and more respectful than I think he needed to be (which was absolutely the right way to approach this film for him), but not very probing. I didn’t learn much from it, and that was very disappointing to me because I know Maher could have dug a little deeper without offending anyone.
His last monologue in the film was a work of art, though. He encapsulated much of the thoughts I know he has for religion and also explained why he has become more “aggressive” in his stance against it (and it also verbalizes how I feel about religion). That I can get behind. Watch the movie, but stay for the end; it’s worth it. B (B+ for the end)
The Rocker—Rainn Wilson playing a man-child is pretty much a no-brainer after seeing him on The Office. This movie could have used the connect-the-dots method most other movies of this type would follow, but this one had a lot of heart underneath the ridiculousness that helped it exceed expectations. Sure, Wilson’s “old man” drummer had his silly moments, but he pulled them off without ruining the tone of the movie. And I was also very impressed with Josh Gad’s work as the geeky Matt; he could have been a typical band nerd, but Gad really gave the character heart. C+
Role Models-- Another bad movie made better by the acting. First, the stellar Paul Rudd. That dude can do no wrong right now. Then Seann William Scott did his usual thing (hey—if it works, do it…). Christopher “McLovin’” Mintz-Plasse had, maybe, the toughest role (being a wimp, yet still likable). And Bobb’e J. Thompson in one of the funniest, most vulgar performances I’ve seen in a while. And let’s not forget the actress who’s quickly climbing to the top of my fave list: Elizabeth Banks. She didn’t have much to do, but what little she did was done well.
The film itself was a paint-by-numbers flick (you knew exactly where it was going), but there were enough surprises along the way to make this worthwhile. B-
2009 Movie Reviews; 2nd Qtr A-I
Well, I'm off to a slow start this year. 21 movies from April-July. Just a little burned out on movies, I guess. But at least I got some legitimate A's this time.
Appaloosa—Well written, acted, and directed, but it felt like an Oscar-bait experiment more than a movie. It told a story, but there was never really any point to it. I know that’s terrible to say for a movie that was good in every respect, but I just didn’t “get it”. It’s not that there was anything complicated going on, I just don’t know why this story deserved the movie treatment. This is a tough grade. Technically, it earned a high B (or even a low A), but nothing grabbed me at all about it. B.
Disaster Movie-- I hate myself for borrowing (NEVER paying) these DVDs because they’re usually crap. This one was crap as well—but not as offensive to my sensibilities as I expected. By the time these films come out (and certainly by the time I get to them on DVD), the jokes are already old. Luckily, the Juno backlash didn’t happen right away, so those barbs were a bit more timely (if you even remembered Juno by that time). I was also happy to see some of my favorite MAD TV actors (Ike Berinholtz, Crista Flanagan, and Nicole Parker [I love Nicole Parker])in the film, playing numerous characters.
Mostly lame, but provided a few chuckles. D+
Earth— film. Like I mentioned in an earlier post, this film was visually stunning (no surprise as it incorporated many scenes shown on the eye candy TV miniseries Planet Earth of a few years ago) and must be seen on a big screen. I feel the same way now as I did then: it was simplistic (no “real world” tragedies—namely death—was shown), but very moving at times. I am still amazed at the shots that showed how big the planet is and then were transformed to show how small the planet is. There aren’t enough films out there that really show us the wonder of this planet. See this one. A-
Ghost Town—A “small” movie that worked well for what it was. A man with some relationship issues dies and tries to keep his wife from marrying another cad, all with the help of a dentist who can see the dead. Greg Kinnear went against his grain a little bit by playing the dead man who is not a very good person or husband, Tea Leone was great as the wife, and Ricky Gervais was perfect as the dentist. The film had some funny moments as well as some touching moments. It wasn’t great, but it’s definitely worth watching. B-
The God Who Wasn’t There—This documentary started out very interesting. It, actually, followed my line of thinking of Jesus and the Bible: the book is not literal, and Jesus may or may not have been an actual person. But the fundamental point of creating the Jesus character was as a metaphor for human existence. Jesus is actually a character like many other heroic characters in fiction. One folklorist/mythology scholar made a “test” for classic heroes, and found 22 points that many of them have in common. Jesus came in 3rd, with 19 of the 22 (behind Oedipus and Theses, I believe). Fascinating stuff. Then the doc went into the early history of Christianity (which I like finding out about; even as an atheist), and I was surprised to learn that Paul (a person I found a great affinity for in my teen years) was the only person spreading the Word of Jesus out to the masses at the time (the Gospels weren’t written until after 70 AD—40 years after Christ’s death). The funny thing about Paul—he didn’t believe (based on his writings) that Jesus actually lived on Earth. It wasn’t until later that people started believing this man was actually a God on Earth. I guess I didn’t catch that little bit of knowledge when I took an interest in him years ago. And I doubt it’s widespread knowledge in general as it defeats the purpose a little in church to have this great Christian not believe the essential “truth” of Christ: that he lived and died as a man.
There were other revelations for me, and one of the most interesting was when the documentary asked what people thought of Jesus the most. The result was people found the most meaning in a movie about Jesus’ suffering: The Passion of the Christ (or as my friend once brilliantly nicknamed it: “The Jesus Chainsaw Massacre”). Even as a person who is interested in the man (or the myth), I have never been interested in watching that movie. I find the teachings of Jesus (many of which are very great to follow, regardless of your religious beliefs) to be much more worthy of remembering than the suffering. Apparently, that’s not what sells the whole thing for Christians. Anyway, the doc tracked every instance of violence or blood in the film and then listed them out, per minute, for our knowledge. (For the record, something like the first 20 minutes were relatively blood-free, and then from minute 20 until the end, there were only six minutes that had no violent actions or blood. The doc also mentioned how director Mel Gibson had to have made conscious decisions to add some of the blood spurts because they don’t happen as the movie showed.)
So I did like this movie—up until the last ten minutes. Then I got to see that the creator had an axe to grind about his childhood (religious) school. He may have had a point; that kids are being indoctrinated to not ask tough questions about the religion that’s being spoon-fed to them. But all the fairly open-minded ideas he had presented earlier were forgotten as he asked questions of the high school principal that he knew would get a negative reaction. And then, at the very last ten seconds of the film, he went quite a bit over the top, and that killed the movie for me.
Listen, if you’re a Christian, you want no part of this movie. Faith is hard enough to justify, and having the facts presented to you like this will make it tougher (unless you subscribe to the “Devil planted doubt about Jesus centuries earlier than his birth, so no one would believe” theory that Christianity has to justify denying these “facts” as stated in the doc). But those of you who are on the fence about belief—or just would like to learn more about those beliefs and the historical significance of them—will find many things to ponder here. I did learn a lot. Obviously, the director had a point to make-- and he went about it the “right way” for nearly the whole thing—but he hurt his thesis by his antics at the end. I’ll give it a B for the most part, but it drops to a C+ with the ending.
Hulk Vs.— Two stories in one: First, we had Hulk Vs. Thor in a battle I’ve read countless times before in the comics. Secondly was Hulk vs. Wolverine, which was pretty much a retelling of Wolverine’s origin (didn’t the Wolverine film this spring take care of that?). Nothing new or exciting here except Deadpool. Now there’s a character I’d watch for 80 minutes (although I’m sure they’d make him way over the top; Deadpool is a great supporting character; probably “too much” for a lead role, though). C-
I Love You Man—film. A “chick flick” starring two guys. That, in itself, is pretty funny (c’mon, chick flicks are usually stupid—and almost always follow the precise formula of: great girl who can’t find a good man bumps into a guy and they 1. hit it off immediately OR 2. hate each other immediately—and then grow to like each other—and then get on a whirlwind, “nothing can stop us now” romance until a misunderstanding breaks them up, after which a passage of time takes place and they bump into each other/get set up by meddling friends and realize they are right for each other). That alone could have made the film work, but stars Paul Rudd and Jason Segal brought way more to this film than just that. Both actors “bring it” for every role I’ve seen them in, and they were on fire for this one. Those two made an okay movie into a good one. B
Appaloosa—Well written, acted, and directed, but it felt like an Oscar-bait experiment more than a movie. It told a story, but there was never really any point to it. I know that’s terrible to say for a movie that was good in every respect, but I just didn’t “get it”. It’s not that there was anything complicated going on, I just don’t know why this story deserved the movie treatment. This is a tough grade. Technically, it earned a high B (or even a low A), but nothing grabbed me at all about it. B.
Disaster Movie-- I hate myself for borrowing (NEVER paying) these DVDs because they’re usually crap. This one was crap as well—but not as offensive to my sensibilities as I expected. By the time these films come out (and certainly by the time I get to them on DVD), the jokes are already old. Luckily, the Juno backlash didn’t happen right away, so those barbs were a bit more timely (if you even remembered Juno by that time). I was also happy to see some of my favorite MAD TV actors (Ike Berinholtz, Crista Flanagan, and Nicole Parker [I love Nicole Parker])in the film, playing numerous characters.
Mostly lame, but provided a few chuckles. D+
Earth— film. Like I mentioned in an earlier post, this film was visually stunning (no surprise as it incorporated many scenes shown on the eye candy TV miniseries Planet Earth of a few years ago) and must be seen on a big screen. I feel the same way now as I did then: it was simplistic (no “real world” tragedies—namely death—was shown), but very moving at times. I am still amazed at the shots that showed how big the planet is and then were transformed to show how small the planet is. There aren’t enough films out there that really show us the wonder of this planet. See this one. A-
Ghost Town—A “small” movie that worked well for what it was. A man with some relationship issues dies and tries to keep his wife from marrying another cad, all with the help of a dentist who can see the dead. Greg Kinnear went against his grain a little bit by playing the dead man who is not a very good person or husband, Tea Leone was great as the wife, and Ricky Gervais was perfect as the dentist. The film had some funny moments as well as some touching moments. It wasn’t great, but it’s definitely worth watching. B-
The God Who Wasn’t There—This documentary started out very interesting. It, actually, followed my line of thinking of Jesus and the Bible: the book is not literal, and Jesus may or may not have been an actual person. But the fundamental point of creating the Jesus character was as a metaphor for human existence. Jesus is actually a character like many other heroic characters in fiction. One folklorist/mythology scholar made a “test” for classic heroes, and found 22 points that many of them have in common. Jesus came in 3rd, with 19 of the 22 (behind Oedipus and Theses, I believe). Fascinating stuff. Then the doc went into the early history of Christianity (which I like finding out about; even as an atheist), and I was surprised to learn that Paul (a person I found a great affinity for in my teen years) was the only person spreading the Word of Jesus out to the masses at the time (the Gospels weren’t written until after 70 AD—40 years after Christ’s death). The funny thing about Paul—he didn’t believe (based on his writings) that Jesus actually lived on Earth. It wasn’t until later that people started believing this man was actually a God on Earth. I guess I didn’t catch that little bit of knowledge when I took an interest in him years ago. And I doubt it’s widespread knowledge in general as it defeats the purpose a little in church to have this great Christian not believe the essential “truth” of Christ: that he lived and died as a man.
There were other revelations for me, and one of the most interesting was when the documentary asked what people thought of Jesus the most. The result was people found the most meaning in a movie about Jesus’ suffering: The Passion of the Christ (or as my friend once brilliantly nicknamed it: “The Jesus Chainsaw Massacre”). Even as a person who is interested in the man (or the myth), I have never been interested in watching that movie. I find the teachings of Jesus (many of which are very great to follow, regardless of your religious beliefs) to be much more worthy of remembering than the suffering. Apparently, that’s not what sells the whole thing for Christians. Anyway, the doc tracked every instance of violence or blood in the film and then listed them out, per minute, for our knowledge. (For the record, something like the first 20 minutes were relatively blood-free, and then from minute 20 until the end, there were only six minutes that had no violent actions or blood. The doc also mentioned how director Mel Gibson had to have made conscious decisions to add some of the blood spurts because they don’t happen as the movie showed.)
So I did like this movie—up until the last ten minutes. Then I got to see that the creator had an axe to grind about his childhood (religious) school. He may have had a point; that kids are being indoctrinated to not ask tough questions about the religion that’s being spoon-fed to them. But all the fairly open-minded ideas he had presented earlier were forgotten as he asked questions of the high school principal that he knew would get a negative reaction. And then, at the very last ten seconds of the film, he went quite a bit over the top, and that killed the movie for me.
Listen, if you’re a Christian, you want no part of this movie. Faith is hard enough to justify, and having the facts presented to you like this will make it tougher (unless you subscribe to the “Devil planted doubt about Jesus centuries earlier than his birth, so no one would believe” theory that Christianity has to justify denying these “facts” as stated in the doc). But those of you who are on the fence about belief—or just would like to learn more about those beliefs and the historical significance of them—will find many things to ponder here. I did learn a lot. Obviously, the director had a point to make-- and he went about it the “right way” for nearly the whole thing—but he hurt his thesis by his antics at the end. I’ll give it a B for the most part, but it drops to a C+ with the ending.
Hulk Vs.— Two stories in one: First, we had Hulk Vs. Thor in a battle I’ve read countless times before in the comics. Secondly was Hulk vs. Wolverine, which was pretty much a retelling of Wolverine’s origin (didn’t the Wolverine film this spring take care of that?). Nothing new or exciting here except Deadpool. Now there’s a character I’d watch for 80 minutes (although I’m sure they’d make him way over the top; Deadpool is a great supporting character; probably “too much” for a lead role, though). C-
I Love You Man—film. A “chick flick” starring two guys. That, in itself, is pretty funny (c’mon, chick flicks are usually stupid—and almost always follow the precise formula of: great girl who can’t find a good man bumps into a guy and they 1. hit it off immediately OR 2. hate each other immediately—and then grow to like each other—and then get on a whirlwind, “nothing can stop us now” romance until a misunderstanding breaks them up, after which a passage of time takes place and they bump into each other/get set up by meddling friends and realize they are right for each other). That alone could have made the film work, but stars Paul Rudd and Jason Segal brought way more to this film than just that. Both actors “bring it” for every role I’ve seen them in, and they were on fire for this one. Those two made an okay movie into a good one. B
Premieres and Notables; July 13-19, 2009
Monday, 7/13
Anthony Bourain: No Reservations; Travel. 9 pm. 5th Season Premiere.
Here Come the Newlyweds (ABC; 9:02 pm CST). Season Finale
Tuesday, 7/14
Miami Social; Bravo. 9 pm. Series Premiere.
Because Real Housewives wasn't enough...
Wednesday, 7/15
Leverage; TNT. 8 pm. 2nd Season Premiere.
Ah-- this show belongs in the summer. Just slightly tongue-in-cheek; not overly dramatic. Not great, but a lot of fun.
Dark Blue; TNT. 9 pm. Series Premiere.
Dylan McDermott leads a small team of undercover cops in this Jerry Bruckheimer-created series. I like McDermott, but I have a feeling this show won't be a hit.
Michael & Michael Have Issues; Comedy Central. 9:30 pm. Series Premiere.
First, they brought us the sketch comedy The State; then they brought us the more linear Stella. Now Michael Ian Black and Michael Showalter combine the two in this comedy about the behind the scenes of a sketch show.
It's bound to be juvenile, but it should also end up being funny-- and that's something Comedy Central shows have been missing lately.
Thursday, 7/16
Raising Sextuplets (WE; 9 pm). Season Finale.
Didn't this show just premiere a couple of weeks ago?
Friday, 7/17
The Chopping Block (NBC; 7 pm). Season Finale.
Catch It Keep It; Science. 9 pm. Series Premiere.
Contestants in this game build things to catch valuable items.
Martin Lawrence Presents 1st Amendment Stand-Up; Starz. 10 pm. Season Premiere.
Saturday, 7/18
Barefoot Contessa: Back to Basics; Food Network. 12:30 pm. Season Premiere.
The Bill Engvall Show; TBS. 8 pm. Season Premiere.
How is it even possible this turd keeps getting renewed?
Dirty Sexy Money; ABC. 9 pm. Return.
And ABC begins the end of this series. It started out okay last year but just seemed to spin its wheels this year before it got cancelled.
Sunday, 7/19
Doctor Who: Planet of the Dead; BBC America. 7 pm. Movie.
The end of David Tennant's run as The Doctor begins here.
Most Popular; WE. 9 pm. Series Premiere.
Host Graham Norton gives ten G's to the contestant the audience likes best in this popularity contest.
And I also want to point out that Nick at Night (Nickelodeon) is airing reruns of Malcolm in the Middle at 7 and 7:30 pm every weeknight. I forgot how funny and insane that show was in its early years until I started watching it with my kids.
Anthony Bourain: No Reservations; Travel. 9 pm. 5th Season Premiere.
Here Come the Newlyweds (ABC; 9:02 pm CST). Season Finale
Tuesday, 7/14
Miami Social; Bravo. 9 pm. Series Premiere.
Because Real Housewives wasn't enough...
Wednesday, 7/15
Leverage; TNT. 8 pm. 2nd Season Premiere.
Ah-- this show belongs in the summer. Just slightly tongue-in-cheek; not overly dramatic. Not great, but a lot of fun.
Dark Blue; TNT. 9 pm. Series Premiere.
Dylan McDermott leads a small team of undercover cops in this Jerry Bruckheimer-created series. I like McDermott, but I have a feeling this show won't be a hit.
Michael & Michael Have Issues; Comedy Central. 9:30 pm. Series Premiere.
First, they brought us the sketch comedy The State; then they brought us the more linear Stella. Now Michael Ian Black and Michael Showalter combine the two in this comedy about the behind the scenes of a sketch show.
It's bound to be juvenile, but it should also end up being funny-- and that's something Comedy Central shows have been missing lately.
Thursday, 7/16
Raising Sextuplets (WE; 9 pm). Season Finale.
Didn't this show just premiere a couple of weeks ago?
Friday, 7/17
The Chopping Block (NBC; 7 pm). Season Finale.
Catch It Keep It; Science. 9 pm. Series Premiere.
Contestants in this game build things to catch valuable items.
Martin Lawrence Presents 1st Amendment Stand-Up; Starz. 10 pm. Season Premiere.
Saturday, 7/18
Barefoot Contessa: Back to Basics; Food Network. 12:30 pm. Season Premiere.
The Bill Engvall Show; TBS. 8 pm. Season Premiere.
How is it even possible this turd keeps getting renewed?
Dirty Sexy Money; ABC. 9 pm. Return.
And ABC begins the end of this series. It started out okay last year but just seemed to spin its wheels this year before it got cancelled.
Sunday, 7/19
Doctor Who: Planet of the Dead; BBC America. 7 pm. Movie.
The end of David Tennant's run as The Doctor begins here.
Most Popular; WE. 9 pm. Series Premiere.
Host Graham Norton gives ten G's to the contestant the audience likes best in this popularity contest.
And I also want to point out that Nick at Night (Nickelodeon) is airing reruns of Malcolm in the Middle at 7 and 7:30 pm every weeknight. I forgot how funny and insane that show was in its early years until I started watching it with my kids.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)