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?