Hairy Plodder

3/5

Despite the sci-fi-fantasy appeal of the Harry Potter movies, which would normally draw me in, I had never watched any of the movies at the theater, until now. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince picks up where we left off in Order of the Phoenix. I think that it may be unproductive for many of you to actually have a synopsis, but I will layout the scene for the uninitiated. Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) is a specially chosen wizard who has been attending Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. He has become very close friends with two of his classmates, Hermine (Emma Watson) and Ron (Rupert Grint). He is regarded by both the staff and the student body as a talented wizard, even if he does manage to get tangled into tight spots with unusual frequency. Both because of his strong will and because of his natural talents he has also garnered some unsavory enemies. In the Half-Blood Price Harry has returned to Hogwarts for a 6th year; he attends a potions class where he attains a textbook that was once used by the self proclaimed Half-Blood Prince. This book helps win the favor of his potions teacher, Professor Slughorn (Jim Broadbent). Unfortunately for Harry trouble is brewing again and he must unravel the riddles laying before him to uncover who his new foes are and what they truly want... (And that's a really short description!)

Most of the Harry Potter movies could stand alone on their own, however the Half-Blood Prince does not have the story or strength to do so. Although it tells it's own story, it is mostly a set up for things to come in the final film (now films). This changes a lot of the film's "chemistry" when compared to the previous films. The most noticeable change is in the tone, which is much darker and more brooding. This story contains much more dialogue than the others, as well as more character development. While the previous films revolve around the central character, Harry, in most of the scenes he is accompanied by one of his close friends. In the Half-Blood Prince, Harry is usually going it alone or, if joined, he is with a professor.

Meanwhile, the supporting cast get much more screen time all to themselves to help continue to develop their characters. This is where the movie seems to drag. A large amount of time is spent lolly-gagging about with Ron and Hermine as they struggle to figure out their respective love interests. The investment in the characters does have it's rewards, but ultimately makes the movie feel too slow and too long. There was more of vested interest in the supporting cast than in any of the other films, but I am not entirely sure that all of the time spent around their stories was completely necessary or beneficial to the larger story arc(s). The time spent with them did provide valuable insight into their characters and the relationships they share, which was at times humorous and gave a softer touch to this otherwise darker movie.

One thing that felt very different to me was the performance given by Daniel Radcliff. Although I have very much enjoyed all of the previous movies, I always felt that he was just... I don't know... off. His facial expressions and some of his body language were often awkward or insincere. Most of these quirks were absent in this film, not to say that they didn't "pop" up from time to time, but the absence of these... forced expressions... seemed to help ground Harry and make him seem much more real.

Michael Gambon was on top of his game as he brought Professor Dumbledore to life once again. His role has always been linked to that of Harry, but is even more closely tied to the forward progress of Harry's story in this film. The screen time given to him is valuable and rewarding as he is the leading man in many of the more powerful scenes throughout the film. The performance he gave to his character was one of the greatest strengths of the Half-Blood Prince and brought my often wandering mind back into focus on the film.

Pros:
Great character development. Daniel Radcliff seems more honest and tangible this go around. Michael Gambon is wonderful and keeps the story captivating. The tone is much more sinister and helps to provide an excellent spring board for the final story (now stories), while at the same time having stronger comedic relief than the previous films.

Cons:
Very long and slow, primarily because of the large amount of time spent fixating over Ron and Hermine and their love lives. Not a very strong stand alone story.

Bottom Line:
If you haven't seen any of the previous movies, don't invest the time with this one until you do. If you have seen the others, I wouldn't fret too much if you didn't make it to the theaters (I felt like I was the only person laughing in the theater most of the movie). The pacing is similar to that of a very badly scratched CD, the music may be great, but there are some very big distractions and it's hard to continue to keep interest the whole time. I think when placed into the bigger picture this movie will hold more weight than it currently does, but as a standalone movie it suffers from too much to achieve greatness, despite some excellent performances from Michael Gambon and Jim Broadbent.

Truth and Lies

3.5/5

The Ugly Truth gives us plenty to sink our teeth into as we explore the world of men, women and relationships according to Mike (Gerard Butler), a small time cable show host. Introduced first to Abby (Katherine Heigl), a successful local television news producer, who has created a 10 fold list of requirements that a man must fulfill before she will even entertain the thought of a relationship. Obviously it goes without saying that this list has left her single and lonely. Finally a man (Eric Winter) who appears to measure up comes to her rescue. Thinking that he is the man she truly wants, but afraid that she may mess things up with her obsessive control issues and against her better judgment, she turns to Mike for guidance. Mike's advice seems to be helping to move things along quite well, however we realize that not all things may be as they seem...

The Ugly Truth at first seemed to be shaping up to be just another "awkward comedy". This made me a little nervous because although I love The Office and thought that I Love You, Man (read my review) was hilarious I wasn't sure that this movie could keep up. Though the movie had plenty of awkward moments, they were not what provided the most laughs. Shortly after Mike and Abby meet one another we move into stage 2 of the film; this part of the movie (which makes up the majority of the movie and laughs) reminded me a lot of Hitch, which I loved. Watching Abby force herself to do things she wouldn't normally do to keep her man while at the same time seeing the internal conflict build up was very well done and subtle enough that it didn't make me feel like the directors thought I was stupid.

Intentionally vulgar and bigger than life, Gerard Butler is a joy to watch. He keeps the movie together and moving forward. I didn't really know what to expect from the 300 star. His timing and delivery were surprisingly great, he definitely stepped up and took charge of this movie.

The supporting cast was wonderful. A comedy can easily fall flat with poor performances from the supporting cast. Georgia (Cheryl Hines) and Larry (John Michael Higgins) the anchors of Abby's show were especially delightful with all of their sidebar comments and facial expressions.

The Ugly Truth did, unfortunately, suffer from quite a number of forced and contrived scenes. One in the beginning when Abby calls into Mike's late night TV show seems like it was written as an after thought. Their interaction didn't reveal anything and wasn't used in any other part of the movie. There were several of these moments towards the end of the movie. I won't describe them because they reveal several plot points, but the scenes felt insincere.

Pros:
As with any great comedy, a wonderful supporting cast. Pulled from many different types of comedy, from the awkward to the goofy to the witty; a wonderful mix of different types of laughter.

Cons:
The language was strong, I expected it and it didn't throw me off, but it was still strong. However, unlike some movies with strong language where a lot of it doesn't seem truly conversational, it feels natural in The Ugly Truth. Some of the scenes felt slightly contrived.

Bottom Line:
A very funny movie that could go wrong in quite a number of directions, but manages to walk a very narrow line between too much and not enough. The cast is great and the script is intelligent while at the same time grounded. Even if Mike's relationship philosophy isn't entirely accurate or relevant it did provide some great moments and very funny lines.

Coming Soon

Because of the number of embedded trailers make sure you give time for them to load.

Some of these trailers are newer, some of them have been out for a little longer. All of them look like they have some amazing potential, so CHECK 'EM OUT!

District 9


The Book of Eli



Alice in Wonderland


Where the Wild Things Are

Critical Accuracy?

As many of you may know, I don't read the reviews of movies I intend to see and review. This has been, at times, a difficult challenge because I prefer to be informed before I go into a movie. That being said, I have found it interesting that nearly all of my reviews have fallen right in line with the "Tomatometer" from Rotten Tomatoes (which is my favorite resource for movie review information), in many cases my reviews have been within 5% points of the "Tomatometer".

My review of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen was the first movie that not only did not line up with general consensus, but was nearly opposite of most reviews. The "Tomatometer" for Transformers was a 20%, my review was a 80%. This extremely different opinion of the movie led me to thinking... What would cause such a wide gap between my opinion and that of a large group of others? I came to the conclusion that people's expectations going into a movie have a profound impact on how they respond to the movie they watch.

To help me illustrate how my expectations led me to my conclusion, here are several questions I asked myself (though not until after I had actually written my review). Is Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen loaded with action? Yes. Does it have tons of giant robots fighting? Yes. Are the Transformers recreated with amazing detail and reality? Yes. Does the movie have some highly memorable lines? Yes. These answer's allude to a movie that has quite a number of positive strengths. However, when laid against a list of different questions such as... Is Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen a perfect movie? No. Are there numerous plot holes? Yes. Is the CGI perfect? No. Is the acting anything to be praised? No. ...the movie seems to come up lacking.

Whatever a person's review of a movie is, including mine, the readers must remember that a review is simply a person's opinion as compared to their expectations. I think this is why many off the radar movies score so highly with the critics... They aren't expecting anything great, so they aren't disappointed. The opposite is also true, when their expectations are high the movie is nearly certain to disappoint on some level (as I addressed in my review of X-Men: Origins).

People weren't entirely sure what to expect with the first Transformers movie and it scored a 57% on the "Tomatometer". People had very high expectations of the sequel and were ultimately disappointed with it. However, I thought that despite it's flaws it was a much more full and impressive movie than the first. The few complaints that I did have with the first were much less apparent or completely corrected in the sequel. Yet, despite these improvements the movie is being criticized as a "mindless, souless sequel" or as one reviewer said "more robotic nonsense". I'm not going to say that any of these reviewer's opinions are wrong, but I think that going into the movie expecting a script of Shakespearean proportions and acting of the same caliber is pure nonsense.

I think that Michael Bay achieved what he wanted to with the film; an action packed thrill ride with huge robots and randomly inserted comic relief. Yet, despite all of these negative reviews it has still scored huge in the box office (currently sitting at over $360 million), so what do all the negative reviews really mean? Apparently not much to all the people that have paid $10+ to see it...

This isn't the first time where I've been at extreme odds with reviewers... This whole situation actually reminds me of another couple of movies that suffered fatally from overly heightened expectations, any one remember the Matrix sequels... Don't worry, I won't get started on that debate... :)

AUTOBOTS, ROLLOUT!

4/5

I apologize that it took so long for me to actually finish this review. I saw the movie midnight opening night and have since seen it two more times...

Transofmers: Revenge of the Fallen slowly unfolds as Sam Witwicky (Shia LeBeouf) is preparing to go off to college and moving past his days with the Transformers. However, before he leaves his house he discovers a shard of the cube that was destroyed in the first movie. Optimus Prime (voiced by Peter Cullen) has been hard at work partnering with a secret agency called NEST, which is being led on the ground by Major Lennox (Josh Duhamel). There mission is to find and destroy any Decepticons on planet Earth. The Decepticons know that there is still knowledge of the cube and that Sam has it. We follow Sam, Mikaela (Megan Fox), Agent Simmons (John Turturro) and Leo (Ramon Rodriguez) as they try to unlock the meaning of the knowledge imparted to Sam by the cube shard. Along the way we are teamed up with familiar faces as well as quite a few new ones.

One of the big complaints that I shared with many viewers of the first movie was the choreography and cinematography for the Transformer's fight scenes. Most of these scenes were filmed too closely and chaotically, which made it feel as though we were watching a bunch of scrap metal being smashed together. This complaint was fully remedied in Revenge of the Fallen. The many fight scenes are more well choreographed and also shot from a much wider perspective. This made them feel much more epic and helped show the massive nature of these alien robots.

Not all is well in this Transformers movie. Transformers, which finds it's roots in cartoons, should be a family friendly movie. I do understand that their target demographic is getting older and doesn't need the censorship that a younger audience should be given. However, I found myself being taken aback at the language in a number of scenes. Openly and unsurprisingly Hollywood is become more and more lax in their rating system. Though the language that I speak of isn't terribly strong, we must remember that this will be viewed by a large number of younger children who are quite impressionable by the characters they find inspiring or funny. The comic relief provided by "The Twins", Mudflap and Skids (voiced by Reno Wilson and Tom Kenny respectively), was at times filled with strong language. The "adult" content wasn't limited to the language either. There was some very strong sexual tension and not so subtle innuendo in a number of the earlier scenes. Both of these elements of the movie could have been approached in much different ways, especially considering the wide age range of the viewers. These two things did leave a slightly bad taste in my mouth.

I thought it was wonderful, however, that the Transformers moved in the direction of their origins by incorporating some (in my opinion) much needed smack talk during the fight scenes. This was a big part of the cartoons. Many of the characters would keep running their mouths as they were beating down or getting beat down. My personal favorite scene was one that had many of it's shots pulled into the trailers. Optimus Prime is fighting three separate Decepticons in a sparsely wooded area. The choreography and cinematography are near perfect and the dialogue is delightful. At one moment after felling his opponent Optimus Prime remarks, "Piece of tin." I found the addition of this smack talk to be delightful and moved the live action movies closer to the heart of the cartoons.

Pros:
Light hearted and full of action. Though the beginning is a bit slower in it's development once the action starts it doesn't give much room for breathing until the end of the movie. Although not an amazing script there are some wonderful lines delivered by some of the lead characters. One such line was quite powerful and moved me beyond the movie, "Fate rarely calls upon us at a moment of our choosing."

Cons:
Stronger than necessary language and sexual innuendo that was too strong for a movie with viewers of all ages. The movie left us almost exactly where we were when the first movie ended. Though this isn't a terrible thing, it just seems a bit lazy on the writers part. None of the Transformers, aside from two Autobots and two Decepticons, get much development or depth. If the Transformers are too be recognized as alien beings and not just robots they should have been treated with more respect as far as character development is concerned. Michael Bay has a strange affinity of circling the camera around his characters (go back and watch any of his previous films, he's done it in nearly all of them) this was not only pointless and done too many times, but in one scene I found my self reaching for a trash can. Lastly, although the CGI was very impressive the human/robot interactions were very poorly executed. I've seen many movies with much more convincing real/cgi interactions, they also had much smaller budgets.

Bottom Line:
EPIC! Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen doesn't fall victim to the all too common sequel short comings and delivers a funny, action packed powerhouse that will eat up all of it's summer competition. Michael Bay brings back two of the writers from the original Transformers and scores a movie that is bigger, badder and more explosive than the first. The action scenes are intense and satisfying. The CGI is even more impressive than the first and helps bring the Transformers to a level of intimate detail that truly blurs the line between fiction and reality, absolutely stunning. Unfortunately, the character's, both human and Transformer, get lost in the chaos of the action and feel more shallow than I would have liked.

Back to the Beginning, Sort of

1/5

Jack Black and Michael Cera join forces in their most recent film, Year One. Together Zed (Black) and Oh (Cera) leave their village and set off to create a new tribe. Quite soon after leaving their village they discover that it was raided shortly after their departure and Zed, who is in love with Maya (June Diane Raphael), decides to attempt to free her. Along their journey they cross paths with many familiar biblical faces. Finally landing them in a Roman controlled Sodom...

Year One desperately tries to be something that it largely isn't, funny. I have loved Jack Black and Michael Cera in the overwhelming majority of their movies. Yet, in Year One the script is so focused on trying to push it's political and sexual jokes down your throat that it just ends up tasting like throw up. The movie is thick with very strong sexual innuendo. Being a mildly conservative person, I thought that maybe I was just being unfair to the movie because of my discomfort. So I tried listening to the rest of the theaters responses to the "jokes". Theirs wasn't much different from mine, more squirmy discomfort than laughter.

There was also the very brazen mockery of the early Jewish church. It was bold and in your face. Though some of the lines that were delivered were funny (Abraham's sudden decision to "cut off the tips of our penis") they were often carried too far, and ended up falling short of being humorous.

Every once and a while Jack Black would deliver a great line that was given in true "Jack Black" fashion, but overall it didn't seem like he could really help save this uninspired script. The lead writer, also the director, Harold Ramis has delivered many excellent scripts that were turned into witty and intelligent movies, it's a shame that none of his previous talent was on display here.

Pros:
Jack Black and Michael Cera are both very enjoyable at times and can deliver some wonderful lines.

Cons:
Extreme sexual innuendo that was not only uncomfortable, but also not funny. Lacked any real story arc, practically a bunch of short films and failed one liners.

Bottom Line:
I think that if I were to watch this movie again I would enjoy it more the second time, but I'm not sure that I am willing to give it that second chance. Laden with overt sexual innuendo and early Jewish church mockery, this movie has the opportunity with talent and a good story idea, but fails to deliver anything other than some mild chuckles.

Forced Engagement

3/5

There are reasons why most companies have no fraternization rules in place. Most of us have an innate understanding of why they are there, apparently these rules don't exist in The Proposal. In this slightly darker romantic comedy (I'll explain what I mean by darker later) we are introduced to Editor-in-Chief Margaret (Sandra Bullock) and her executive assistant Andrew (Ryan Reynolds). Margaret is universally feared by everyone in the office, a point that is nearly beaten to death. Andrew is a diligent and hard worker who attends to his boss's every whim. After learning that she will be deported to Canada because of an expired visa, Margaret awkwardly announces her engagement to her bosses, much to Andrews shock and dismay. He grudgingly agrees, but only under the condition that she quickly promotes him to editor. After setting off together to Andrew's home town to celebrate his Gammie's 90th birthday they begin to see things about one another they had never seen before.

The uncomfortable situations and strange dialogue provide most of the laughs as Margaret and Andrew try to figure things and each other out (that is what I mean by darker comedy). The story and characters are mostly unoriginal (see Legally Blonde, The Office, Meet the Parents, etc) but, the movie still has legs strong enough to stand on it's own.

One area that the movie doesn't really come alive is in the two main actors chemistry. Understandably the story tries to make it seem implausible that a real relationship could ever form, but as it (obviously) does it doesn't seem natural or inevitable. Most of the more intimate moments seem forced or even worse scripted. I'm not sure upon whom the blame should fall for this. Honestly, I think that it could fall on both the script and/or the casting. There just didn't seem to be any real connection or chemistry between Ryan Reynolds and Sandra Bullock. Spoiler (highlight to view): I thought their was much more chemistry between Andrew and his ex-fiance, Gertrude (Malin Akerman). In one of their final scenes, I thought it felt more "right" for them to resolve their past and get together than for Andrew to pursue Magaret, but that's just my opinion.

Even if the main characters didn't always do it for me there was always Grammie Annie (Betty White). As she always is, Betty White was wonderful. I am being a bit biased, I think, because she reminded me so much of my own wonderful Grandmother, but I thought she nearly stole the show. Her strange comments and intentionally obvious "face language" (think body language, but just your face) really helped keep the movie especially light hearted and tender.

Pros:
Some very funny moments and great supporting cast make for continuous giggles.

Cons:
Lack of chemistry between Ryan and Sandra. A couple of the scenes and jokes were a bit drawn out and lost their humor along the way.

Bottom Line:
An awkwardly funny romantic comedy that pleases. Though insincere at times and not always convincing The Proposal manages to forge ahead. Overall a movie that most will enjoy. I would just wait and rent it, my wife says I only say that because it's a chick flick and though their is truth to that statement I wouldn't say that in a review of all chick flicks (most, I admit, but not all).

Movie of the Lost

1/5

I'm not even sure I have the heart to give a synopsis... Dr. Rick Marshall, PhD (Will Ferrell) has discovered a type of energy which if... Well, basically he and two other people (Anna Friel and Danny McBride) go through a space-time hole to another dimension, a dimension full of really whacked out stuff. There's lizard people and monkey people and dinosaurs and motels and all sorts of other stuff you'd find in a space-time hole (at least I'd guess).

There is nothing positive to say about this sloppy, disjointed failure of a movie. I usually love Will Ferrell and root for him even when he's in a mediocre movie, but I could barely tolerate a single moment of this movie. Nothing works, the jokes are nearly all duds, the CGI is sub-par, the characters are all shallow and lack any depth or appeal. I've watched movies where every joke was in the trailer, Land of the Lost is similar in this fashion, however at least the jokes were funny in the other movies. I'm sorry if I am at my most negative in this review, but I can't find anything to praise in this film.

Pros:
Will Ferrell, though at his very worst, is still a funny guy at times.

Cons:
Mediocre CGI. Boring, unrelatable characters. Horrid costume design. Terrible script.

Bottom Line:
Land of the Lost is a hopeless wreck. I wouldn't even recommend this one as a rental.

Away We Go

5/5

Pixar's last movie Up tells the wonderful story of Carl (voiced by Edward Asner) who has lived his whole life deeply in love with Ellie (who is only voiced as a young girl by Elie Docter). After her passing, he decides to go on the adventure that they had dreamed about their entire lives. He is accompanied by an uninvited guest, a young boy scout named Russell (voiced by Jordan Nagai), who through his innocence and devotion wins Carl's heart despite Carl's coldness and forced solitude. Together they embark upon a fantastical journey to South America, along the way meeting talking dogs and a huge bird named Kevin.

Up contains it all, action, adventure, humor and tender hearted moments. After an initial introduction of Carl and Ellie as children we are given a movie montage of their lives together, with nearly no spoken words. It is so compelling and well shot that it carries power through the rest of the movie. The action/adventure scenes are well shot and just tense enough to satisfy one's appetite while not overwhelming any younger viewers. All of the characters are given opportunity to deliver some cleverly written and witty remarks that keep them the movie's atmosphere light hearted and grounded.

I saw the movie in 3D and did not get what I expected from the 3D elements of the movie. Most 3D movies throw their 3D fists in your face (quite literally at times), but Up doesn't do this. Instead the 3D is used to enhance an already beautifully crafted world. There are moments where things jump out of the screen, but the overwhelming majority of the movie's 3D is simply to give a sense of depth and scope. Though the characters in Up are not intended to look "real", the rest of the movie gets pretty close. The lighting and texture of objects, both in the foreground and background are wonderfully brought to life. Everything in the movie has a great amount of detail, it seemed as if I could have reached out and felt the individual fronds on a fern or the stubble on Carl's chin or even run my fingers through Doug's (one of the talking dogs) hair.

Pros:
A wonderfully crafted world, populated with delightful characters that have depth and honesty. Completely different take on what a 3D movie is and still massively appealing on this front. Simple, yet deep, character driven story that captures our attention and our hearts. The voice talent is well delivered from every character both big and small.

Cons:
None

Bottom Line:
Pixar cannot fail. Quite simply put Pixar's newest movie "Up" is brilliant. It is funny, adventurous and sentimental. It accomplishes everything it intends to and more. A delightful movie for the whole family. If you haven't jumped on the 3D bandwagon yet, here's your invitation. Not unnecessarily throwing objects in your face the 3D helps take an already beautiful movie to the next level.

A Night to Remember

4/5

The Hangover follows Phil (Bradley Cooper), Stu (Ed Helms) and Alan (Zach Galifianakis) as they desperately try to find Doug (Justin Bartha) who was lost during the world's craziest bachelor party. Opening with a clip of Phil telling Doug's soon to be bride (Sasha Barrese) that they're not going to make it to the wedding on time then going back three days and getting a brief set up to the partying that would ensue, we witness the destruction of their hotel room the morning after...

I haven't cried at a movie in quite a while and this movie brought tears to my eyes. Watching each of the three groomsmen wake up to their hotel room laid waste was absolutely hysterical. I haven't laughed so hard in a looooong time. The rest of the movie was equally as funny. The three main characters were wonderfully fleshed out, each actor brought so much to their respective roles. It was delightful grimacing as the three misfits try so hard to recover their lost groom, all the while only getting into more and more trouble.

The supporting cast were all nicely filled in, all of them either helped give depth to the main characters or helped move the story along. Jon Lucas and Scott Moore wrote a wonderful script that had you roaring in laughter at nearly every new turn. I did have a couple of complaints though. The language, though not as bad as other movies I've seen, was quite strong. I was surprised at how "mild" the rest of the content was until... the pre-credit clips. These took a movie with a weak R rating and nearly turned it into a NC-17 romp. The movie didn't benefit from these at all. Spoiler (highlight to view): At the end of the film the characters find a digital camera containing pictures of their misadventures, they decide to view the pictures once then delete them. The characters' initial reactions of horror and disgust is exactly how the audience responds as we see pictures of strippers, throw-up and a couple of Alan getting "pleasured" in a elevator. The credits could have simply rolled after we saw the characters' reactions to it. That would have been more than enough.

Pros:
Excellent casting. Invested characters and with depth and realism each of which brought something very unique to the story. Very well written script.

Cons:
Pre-credit clips, completely unnecessary. One brief bit of nudity during the movie that again didn't do anything for the story or characters, why do directors do this? Unless it's alluded to in a preview it's not going to sell any extra tickets so again I ask, why?

Bottom Line:
HILARIOUS! This movie is easily one of the funniest movies I've ever watched. The director, Todd Phillips, brings to the table exactly what he did in Old School and again scores big with the audience. I can't say it's a must see in theaters, but anyone who enjoys awkward and/or mildly crude humor will find their sides cramping from laughter by the movies end.

Kevin James: Security Guard

2.5/5

Paul Blart: Mall Cop tells the story of a hypoglycemic, single parent, mall security gaurd. Paul Blart is a dedicated member of the security team at his local New Jersey mall. Shortly after training a new employee and falling for a girl who works at a kiosk in the mall, the mall is taken hostage. Instead of abandoning Amy (Jayma Mays), the object of his affection, and the mall, Paul decides to fight back.

Paul Blart: Mall Cop is the type of comedy I like to file under brainless humor. Don't misunderstand me, it is quite an amusing movie. However, the movie doesn't accomplish anything except setting up small jokes over and over. I have enjoyed Kevin James in nearly all of the movies which I've seen him. And Mall Cop was no different. Unfortunately for Kevin the movie and the rest of the cast can't quite seem to keep up. This isn't to say that the other talent don't provide some laughs throughout the movie, because they do, but they aren't nearly as well delivered as most of Kevin's laughs.

I understand that the focus of this movie was on Paul Blart and not on the band of thugs that take over the mall, but this group of bandits are poorly written and under played. They are appparently a team of free runners (see Free Running if you're not sure what free running is) who have joined forces to rob the mall. Thankfully for Paul they are all idiots and completely inept at doing anything aside from jumping and running.

Pros:
Kevin James' character is a delight to watch and well built up. Some creative "maneuvering" to give Kevin's character the upper hand.

Cons:
Not a strong supporting cast, not bad, just not very strong. No development of any secondary characters. A couple of unfunny repeat jokes that could have been left out and not affected anything.

Bottom Line:
A funny, light hearted movie that brings enough laughs to keep it from being just plain stupid. Kevin James is always entertaining, but the same can't be said for everyone else.

Salvation of What?

3.5/5

The post apocalyptic future for humanity foretold in the previous three Terminator movies is finally brought to life. In the latest installment we meet John Connor (Christian Bale) as a passionate and aggressive military leader of the last remaining survivors of mankind. The story revolves around John's need to save Kyle Reese and his conflict with trusting a mysterious cybernetic man named Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington).

Terminator Salvation is filled with intense action from beginning to end. McG's (Charlie's Angels, We Are Marshall) use of both steady cam and free cam was very well executed. The decision to use both methods of cinematography helped you be a participant during the action sequences and a viewer during the rest of the film. I hope that the rest of Hollywood's action directors take note of this and follow suit, because frankly I am tired of listening to dialogue while the camera has seizures.

It has been quite a long time since I watched a movie that seemed to move the action genre forward in any direction. And though Terminator doesn't accomplish anything truly revolutionary, it brings (what I feel) is a fresh feel to action scenes. I was amazed with a number of the action scenes. What was so new and amazing? It's actually something simple, objects have weight. This isn't anything new, but in most action movies most objects seem to have no weight to them, primarily because they are indeed made of styrofoam. This was achieved in two different ways. The main reason were the sound effects. They were intense. When there was an explosion, you felt it. When something crashed to the ground, it shook. The other thing that really helped was the camera work. Whenever something would indeed rock your vision, the camera shake was noticeable enough without becoming the focus.

Though the previous two things were great, it wasn't all... None of the characters were developed at all. We didn't really get to know anyone at all. All of us that had watched the previous movies knew John Connor, but even his character wasn't really explored thoroughly. One of the worst examples of this was Bryce Dallas Howard's character, Kate Connor. Unless you read the credits it would only be an assumption that she was his wife, because they never explored that at all (or that fact that she was apparently pregnant with his child). Then there were the multinational leaders of the world's military. Who gave them the positions they had? Because apparently they didn't even have enough clout to convince anyone in the movie that they had any authority...

Pros:
Excellent cinematography, mixing free cam and steady cam effectively (especially the helicopter crash in the beginning).

Cons:
No character development. Some special effects aren't that great. Spoiler (highlight to view): Arnold's digitally created face was quite... terrifying.

Bottom Line:
A well shot action movie with little to no character depth. Filled with intense and gritty action scenes from beginning to end. Hopefully the next movie about John and Kate's child (just a guess) will have better character development and still maintain the same intensity in all of it's action sequences.

Still Lost...

Warning this entry contains Spoilers. This is not a review, it is rather simply my attempts to reason at what I've just witnessed.

After 5 seasons, we're all still Lost... Last night's episode, "The Incident", was full of some interesting new revelations. Although, revelations might be too strong a word for it, maybe simply new information might be more accurate.

Beginning with a scene of two men, one of whom we find out is Jacob, both witnessing an older ship off shore (possibly the Black Rock). Then we also see the full statue, which to this point we had only seen it's foot. Jacob, like Richard, doesn't appear to age. Throughout the episode we witness him traveling to quite a number of time periods. Including Kate and Sawyer's childhood and the not so distant past with Hurley the day before returning to the island, among others. One must wonder if Jacob was aware of the events that were to pan out some 30 years later when he visited Kate and Sawyer or if he had actually managed to either A.) time travel to visit them or B.) shift through space and manifest himself there, while not actually being there "permanently". Without knowing exactly what Jacob is will leave these questions unanswered.

Jay Glatfelter had some interesting insight into who Jacob and his partner are here:

We open to a scene introducing the simple life with Jacob. We are also introduced to what seems to be an adversary/friend. He remains nameless but the striking divide between the two is one is wearing white (Jacob) the other black (Anti-Jacob?).

I am already getting theories that this Anti-Jacob is named Esau after the Genesis tale of Jacob and his brother Esau (Ee-Saw). It is a tale of the elder son Esau starving, selling his birthrights to his younger twin brother Jacob for a bowl of red lentil soup. Jacob also tricks his father Isaac (son of Abraham the founding patriarch to the Jew's, Christians, Muslims, and founder of monotheism) to give his deathbed blessing to Jacob instead of Esau. Esau told Jacob that he wanted to kill him, for what he did. Jacob went on to be renamed Israel by God and founded the Israelites tribe. Esau formed his own tribe of people the Edomites, they became associated with Romans/Europe by Jewish history.

So is Esau (I'm going to call the Anti-Jacob Esau this just because its nice to give him a name) evil? This episode pegged Jacob as the "Good Guy." I'm just not sure. The "good guy-bad guy" lines have been thrown so many ways. I'm just not sure who to trust. Also, we found out that the self-assured re-born Locke doesn't seem to be re-born at all.

On the note of time travel, if the prevailing theory coming into this episode regarding time travel is true (as I believe it is), then nothing that the Losties do will change anything. Unless all of the theories that the Lost writers have composed regarding the time space continuum were just theoretical mumbo-jumbo, if the bomb were to go off they would all just die... That be it. Buh-bye. At least according the the preeminent theory held by many that it is impossible to change the past because you are merely arriving at a point in time that you "already arrived at", just not as your present self... At that point it was actually your future self. Now that you're there as your present self you can only do what you already did. This seems quite complex, but really isn't. There is only one contingent. The understanding that there is only ONE present. If there is only one present, then nothing in the past can change because it has all already happened. When you take your present self back in time when you arrive there you are not changing history, you are setting history up for what already happened. As Mile's said, "You just haven't experienced it yet."

If, as we are to believe, Juliet has detonated the bomb then all of their present time characters would simply die. They would not revert to their past selves, they would simply be dead. However, I'm not sure that Juliet has actually detonated the bomb. I think that the electromagnetic energy was released and much like we saw during season 3 when the hatch "blew up" there was a release of energy that caused penetrating light and sound. I am uncertain what happens if this energy is released. If you remember, Desmond was in the same spot as Juliet is (more or less) and all it did to him was blow his clothes off and give him the ability to see Charlie's inevitable death (in several different scenarios).

There are still quite a number of unanswered questions. Here are a couple that I have.

1. Did the explosion at the end of the episode destroy the statue and the island's inhabitants?
2. Is "Esau" manifesting himself as Locke to convince Ben to kill Jacob? (As well as all the other manifestations of dead people we have seen....)
3. Who was Jacob refering to when he said, "They're coming"?
   
4. Who really is Jacob? And what's up with Richard? (I know, still, right?)
5. What's up with all the Egyptian references?
   
6. Was Daniel's first or second theory on time travel correct?

Lost Season Finale Sneak Peeks!

The Season Finale for Lost airs this Wednesday at 9PM on ABC. Here are a couple of clips to get you all excited.

The Final Frontier

4.5/5

What J.J. Abrams has accomplished in his big screen prequel to the series Gene Roddenberry created is a very rare thing. He has successfully brought to life a film that is both faithful to it's origins and accessible to those not invested in the series steep history.

The entire cast and crews' dedication to bringing this world to life is evident from the opening scenes until the final moments of the film. Every character is portrayed faithfully while at the same time feeling fresh and new.

The focus of this film revolves around two different characters, both of whom are main characters in their own right. James Kirk (Chris Pine) a brilliant yet pompous and rebellious son of a star ship captain and Spock (Zachary Quinto) a half human, half vulcan who feels much internal conflict as he struggles to find a true identity. Just like nearly every character in the film, these two actors bring their own style to these classic characters and still manage to stay very grounded in the roots of who Captain Kirk and Spock were in the original series. All of the supporting cast were wonderfully chosen for each of their specific roles. The prosthetics, makeup and costume design were all executed with precision, which helped minimized some of the strange moments movies can have with alien races (although the annoying 20 somethings sitting behind me thought every non-human was quite amusing).

Not knowing what the story was going to be I must admit I was expecting more cameos. This was only mildly disappointing. Although, having Leonard Nimoy reprise his role as Spock "Prime" was delightful and very well written. Nearly all of the great catch phrases could be found throughout the movie and were wonderful to hear once again. Spoiler (Highlight to view): One of Leonard Nimoy's lines regarding a Star Trekism was particularly wonderful, "I would salute you in our customary manor, but oddly it would seem self serving." Which was said in reference to the Vulcan salutation, "Live long and prosper."

Although so much was done right in this movie, there were a couple of things that frustrated me. Primarily, some of the camera and lighting work. Movies, especially action movies, have moved away from steady cams to free cam filming. This method of filming isn't normally very noticeable and serves as a method to make the movie seem more "natural" (apparently we're all bobble-heads). However, for several of the actions sequences in Star Trek it felt as though the camera was being held by an overly caffeinated teen. This was tolerable, but what was not were the constant len's flares. During quite a large number of scenes there were so many lens flares that it became very, very distracting. Instead of drawing me in and giving a heightened sense of realism (as I assume was intended), I found myself distracted by the lighting and not completely immersed in the moment.

Pros:
Excellent casting. Very well done makeup and prothsetics. Wonderfully told story. Faithful to it's origins and still very relevant.

Cons:
Some of the cinematography was frustrating. Annoying len's flares.

Bottom Line:
J.J. Abrams has done it! Bringing Star Trek to the big screen in a way that will please the faithful and still draw in those not invested in the series. The action fits well into a universe and story that are already very rich in history. The dialogue and characters are delightful in their faithfulness and originality. Chris Pine's James Tiberious Kirk and Zachary Quinto's Spock are wonderfully cast and soundly portrayed.

O-M-GEE

I am so pyched for these two movies and they just came out with trailers that blew my little bootie socks off! I had posted trailers for both of these before, but these new trailers are REE-DIC-U-LUS!Check em out!

Transformers

G.I. Joe

The Wolverine Story

2.5/5

I'm not sure why I allowed myself to become hyped up over yet another movie. Sometimes after I finish watching a movie that did not live up to my unrealistic expectations my judgments quickly swing in the opposite direction and I become hyper critical. I enjoyed my time watching the movie, but because of my overly heightened expectations I left with a sense of longing. There have been several movies in the past that have exceeded my expectations, but they have been few and far between.... And alas, X-Men Origins: Wolverine is not one of them.

The opening credits were wonderfully stylized and edited, possibly my favorite part of the movie. The cinematography was often times very epic in scale and there were quite a number of great panning vistas that laid out the next "battlefield". However, as the movie wore on the grandiose landscapes became less of a focus and the special effects took center stage. And this was one of my first gripes, with all of the money that was spent to create this movie some of the special effects moments were very poorly executed. In one scene Wolverine is looking at his "new" claws for the first time... And though we've seen them in three other movies and already seen them in this movie, for just this scene they look terribly fake.

As an action movie I was hoping for more action. Though the action scenes are plentiful, most of them were short and didn't draw me in. Again, the opening credits had more machismo and appeal than did the rest of the movie. The choreography for the fighting was adequate at best, but especially with talent like Hugh Jackman and Ryan Reynolds both of whom have experience with fighting and action sequences I expected much more. I did find Gavin Hood's decision to do a low angle, close up of Sabretooth and/or Wolverine's claws coming out nearly every fight scene to be an interesting one. At one point I thought to myself, "Enough is enough, but then again it's still pretty cool."

The dialogue was quite well written and unlike many movies of this genre which can have lines or moments that completely remove you from the reality they are trying to create, never once did I feel detached because of the script. Many of the humorous moments were very well written and nicely tied into the different characters' personalities. Some of the earlier dialogue that both Wolverine and Wade Wilson have was clever and wonderfully delivered.

It is important to remember that this was a "Wolverine" movie, not an X-Men movie or even a "mutants" movie and because of this many of the peripheral characters suffered. It was great to see so many other characters on screen (Agent Zero, Wade Wilson, Gambit, Wraith, The Blob and others), but none other than Wolverine and Sabretooth have any depth at all. Even the attempt at giving Styker's character some depth seemed too shallow.

Whenever anything is adapted for the silver screen there is an expectation that things will change. In X-Men Origins: Wolverine the changes were plentiful. Some were quite frustrating (even for a non-diehard like myself), others were smaller and easier to overlook. The changes to the character of Deadpool was the most irritating. Ryan Reynold's character of Wade Wilson was dead on, but the story given to him and then ultimately the character of Deadpool were so far removed from the existing canon that it may have been better to have given him a different name.

Pros:
Well shot cinematography, especially earlier in the movie. Wolverine's character was very well fleshed out. The script was at times very engaging and humorous.

Cons:
Poor special effects. Adequate fight scenes. Shallow peripheral character development.

Bottom Line:
Wolverine is like three boxes of puzzles thrown together and each puzzle is missing pieces. There are elements of the movies that are enjoyable and there are other parts that are quite lacking. Unfortunately none of them seem to piece together very well. If you find yourself caring enough at the end of the film there are two post credit clips.

Wife quote:
"It was great, great, but it was really nice just for the Hugh."

I loved it, man

4/5

I Love You, Man tells the story of Peter Klaven (Paul Rudd), a real estate agent with a girlfriend turned fiancé (played by Rashida Jones) who realizes that he has no male friends. Peter is a truly likable guy, his problem is that he doesn’t understand most of the normal social nuances of male bonding. He frantically goes on several man dates in an attempt to find both a best man for his wedding and someone to keep him from become a nightmarishly clingy husband. When Peter meets Sydney Fife (Jason Segel) there is an instant “bromantic” connection. The strange one-liners and forced awkward moments make up the majority of the laughs as we continually hope that Peter will “just get it” at some point and become best buds with Sydney.

Paul and Jason have a very strong chemistry on screen, despite the many awkward moments that they share. You continue to cheer for Peter’s character while at the same time grimacing as he awkwardly tries to do the “cool” thing. Even at end of the movie Peter is just as socially awkward as the beginning and yet, it’s still funny. All of the supporting actors are wonderfully cast and wonderfully fill in all of the main characters' very strange ensemble of friends and family. Without their smaller stories and jokes, it would have felt as though we were watching the same two jokes on repeat for 1 ½ hours. The climax of the movie builds upon a very solid foundation and some wonderful plot twists, but then seems to resolve itself too quickly as the end of the movie approaches.

One of the things that was oddly missing was any real soundtrack. While the two main characters' story was partly driven by a shared obsession with the band Rush there was a strange absence of any real soundtrack. Much of the movie had no music playing, which was usually fine, but occasionally when the music finally did kick in it seemed strange and slightly out of place.

In recent years movies have had more and more product placement. Michael Bay, for example, (Transformers, Bad Boys) has seemed to have been one of the biggest believers of this new means of marketing. There are some very strangely placed product placements in this movie. In one scene Peter wants to play his fiancé Zooey a song on his computer, his line of “Let me play it on iTunes” (paraphrased) seemed very forced. As well as a moment where Peter is asking Sydney to return his Lost Season 2 DVDs where he says “Zooey just wants to find out what’s going on inside that hatch” (paraphrased).

Pros:
Excellent casting, especially the support cast. Well executed repeat jokes and smaller plot twists.

Cons:
Lack of soundtrack made the existing music seem out of place. The repeated jokes some times don’t work as well as other times.

Bottom Line:
Judd Apatow has made a name for himself producing movies filled with fart jokes and profanity. Director John Hamburg’s touch made this movie seem a little softer around the edges than some of Judd’s other movies. At times I felt as though I was watching a low brow comedy, at times I felt like I was watching a date movie and at times I felt like I was watching a test in how many times the same jokes could be repeated. This bromatic comedy seems to work on these different levels and could appeal to many for different reasons. Ultimately a satisfying movie providing enough laughs (albeit smaller more frequent chuckles rather than larger more infrequent laughs) and well fleshed out characters that all seem honest and relatable.

Chuckinator

I'm sure that many of you have heard the many "Chuckisms" there are, and if you have they probably came from me. I thought I would share several of my favoritos and let you know where I've gotten many of them from...

Chuck Norris can kill two stones with one bird.

Chuck Norris doesn't play god. Playing is for children.

There is no such thing as natural selection, just a list of animals Chuck Norris has allowed to live.

Children wear Superman pajamas to bed. Superman wears Chuck Norris pajamas to bed.

When the Boogeyman goes to sleep every night, he checks his closet for Chuck Norris.

Chuck Norris has counted to infinity... Twice.

Chuck Norris doesn't do pushups, he pushes the Earth down.

Chuck Norris's tears cure cancer... Too bad he never cries.

Chuck Norris always knows exactly where Carmen SanDiego is.

Chuck Norris is the reason why Waldo is hiding.

Don't blame the Bush Administration for thinking there were WMDs in Iraq then not finding any. Chuck Norris was only there for a couple of days on vacation.

Chuck Norris recently went on vacation to the Virigin Islands. In related news, the Virgin Islands are now known as "The Islands".

With the rising cost of gasoline, Chuck Norris has begun to worry about his drinking habit.

After taking a steroids test doctors informed Chuck Norris that he had tested positive. He laughed and said, "Of course my urine tested positive. What did you think steroids were made from?"

Chuck Norris Facts

Upcoming... Movies!

EDIT: The titles of the movies are actually links, if you wanted to see the previews.

I actually have every intention of using this blog to give reviews of movies I watch, in addition to other more "personal" entries. I have already watched a movie or two since I decided that this was something I wished to do. However, I am beginning to realize that watching a movie for "pleasure" and watching a movie to "review" it are two entirely different things. That being said, it will take some time before I even trust my own feelings about movies... That may seem like a strange thing, but I think I will arrive at that point shortly.

So, until I do begin reviewing movies I thought I would post some links to some movies that I am anticipating watching. Some of these movies are already out in select markets, others are arriving in theaters shortly. I am also including some links to some movies that I may never watch, but intrigued me. Without any more rambling and in no particular order...


X-Men Origins: Wolverine, Tells the story of Logan (a.k.a. Wolverine) and his involvement in the infamous Weapon-X program. It also introduces several new characters to the movie franchise, including Gambit, The Blob, Silver Fox, Agent Zero, Wraith and (the one I am looking forward to) Deadpool.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, The Decepticons reunite and wage war against humanity and the Autobots.

Terminator Salvation, John Connor, joined by the mysterious Marcus Wright, lead humans against Skynet and its army of Terminators

Star Trek, The story of the maiden voyage of the U.S.S. Enterprise.

G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra, The elite G.I. Joe team fights an international war against terrorist and faces the growing threat of Cobra Commander and his mysterious organization.

9, A group of "dolls" created by humans are charged with saving the legacy of human kind as they wage war in a post apocalyptic world left by the humans.

Where the Wild Things Are, Based on the book of the same name, Where the Wild Things Are tells the story of a rebellious boy who wishes he could always do as he pleased. When this wish becomes a reality, he is not so sure it's really what he wanted.

Funny People, A stand up comedian is given only a short amount of time to live. When he befriends an unlikely person it creates a bond that will change both of their lives.

Year One, Taking place in the ancient world, two lazy tribesman fight their way to the women they love. Though it takes them on quite a few detours along the way.

Land of the Lost, A Doctor is sucked back into time and with nothing but his wits and two sidekicks, he must figure out how to return to "present time" or be forever stuck in ancient history.

UP, Carl Fredricksen fulfills his lifelong dream of a great adventure. However, he also has an accidental stow away. Russell, a overly optimistic 8 year old, and Carl must battle unexpected animals and return Russell home.

Ice Age 3: Dawn of the Dinosaurs, If you don't know this franchise already... Shame on you.

Planet 51, Planet 51 is invaded... By HUMANS! Captain Charles Baker, an american astronaut, thinks he is the first person to step foot on Planet 51. Very quickly he realizes that the planet is inhabited by little green people.

The Hangover, Two days before Doug's wedding, he and his three friends drive to Las Vegas for his bachelor party. The confusion that ensues the following morning and their attempts to recover Doug and get him to his wedding on time create a crazy trip that brings them all together.

The Ugly Truth, Abby Richter is in search of Mr. Perfect. Unfortunately, she scares off any would be candidates. When Mike Chadway, a tell all TV host, is introduced as the TV personality on the show she produces, she loses it... But gains something she never had.

Is Anybody There?, A retired magician reluctantly moves to a family run old age home. A unlikely friendship is formed between the old magician and the young son of the home's owners.

Away We Go, A less than well off couple travel the country to find a place they can call home.

Gigantic, A young mattress sales man, who has yet to find his place in this world, is trying to adopt a baby from China. He gets swept up in a romance with a young and slightly misguided woman when she comes into his store and falls asleep on one of the beds.

The Hurt Locker, The story of the elite members of EOD (Explosive Ordnance Disposal). These army soldiers have volunteered to battle insurgents and disarm the bombs the insurgents have left.

Defiance, During WWII a band of Jewish refugees fight against the Germans in the forests of Russian.

Blood: The Last Vampire, This is kinda an odd ball on this list, but I saw the preview and thought it looked pretty nifty (hehe, nifty...). Saya, a 400 year old "half-blood" appears as though she is only 16. Obsessed with ridding the world of vampires while at the same time fighting her inner demons she comes face to face with Onigen, the patriarch of all vampires.