RBR: The To Do List

After last year's quirky Safety Not Guaranteed, it became apparent that Parks and Recreations's Aubrey Plaza has the potential to be a leading lady in films. In The To Do List she tries her hand at the R-rated comedy genre. She plays Brandy Klark, an over-achieving high school grad who realizes that for all she knows, she's uninformed when it comes to sex. She sets out to learn everything that there is to know before she heads off to college and treats it in the same organized fashion that she would studying for chemistry or history. Surrounding her is a cast of funny regulars in films like these including Alia Shawkat, Donald Glover, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, and Andy Samberg. Working as a lifeguard for the summer Brandy encounters several guys who are more than willing to help her check off her list items. The movie plays out in a similar fashion as other "high schooler wants to get laid before college" movies, but this one just doesn't work like it should. Part of the problem is the disconnect between what the central character should be and what she really is. For as talented as Plaza is, she makes Brandy too poised and mature for a character that has supposedly had her nose in a book her entire life. She achieves her tasks too easily and hardly shows any awkwardness. Even though it's a natural setting for this type of film, I also question why he character would want to be a lifeguard. The bigger problem with the film is that too many of the jokes simply don't land. Some of the fault here lies with writer/director Maggie Carey. She's working with a solid idea but does not seem to know exactly how to mine it for the most value. The one exception of this is with Bill Hader, who runs the swimming pool that Brandy works at. He manages to produce laughs in every scene that he's in. This may be due to the fact that Hader is married to Carey. Given their relationship, she probably just let him loose and have his natural comedic talent shine. The rest of the cast though needed a bit more direction in order to make the material work. This is not a bad film, just one that did not live up to its potential. Hopefully 'make a better film' will be on Carey's to do list. Rating: *** 1/2

Bullet theory

In an interesting (and timely) bit of viral marketing, the people behind X-Men: Days of Future Past has created this video which reveals that Magneto was actually responsible for the Kennedy assassination. Check out the perplexing, yet well made video for yourself below.

RBR: The Hangover Part III

A lot of people spent a lot of time griping over The Hangover Part II, knocking it for being basically a carbon copy of the first film. While I felt the criticism was a bit overblown, I understood it given how much people loved the first film. Despite the complaints, the fervor for the series was still there to encourage everyone to make a third film. So it was to my surprise that Part III came and went with hardly any discussion at all. There was no anger, yet no proclamations of the series returning back to form. It seemed odd until I finally had a chance to watch the film for myself and see that this was basically a Hangover movie in name only. Sure the members of the Wolfpack are all back but there is no blackout drunkenness nor the hilarity that goes along with it. This plays more like a straight forward action thriller than it does a comedy. I almost wonder if director Todd Phillips made this film out of spite. As if to say that if people didn't want a repeat of the first movie then he would give them the complete opposite. The plot centers around Doug getting kidnapped by a drug dealer (John Goodman) who won't release him unless the rest of the Wolfpack brings him Mr. Chow, who has stolen a large amount of money from him. In their quest to find and capture Chow, the film attempts to provide some closure to the events of the first two films, but none of it yields very many laughs. In fact the biggest laughs come from the post credits scene which most closely resembles something you would have seen in one of the first two films (perhaps lending more credence to my spite theory). At this point, it seems that the book has finally closed the Wolfpack. It is a shame that they chose to do so in a way that leaves the audience feeling wounded and hurt rather than howling with laughter. Rating: ** 1/2

Murphy's law

From indians.com

CLEVELAND -- The Indians headed into the offseason with right field identified as an area to potentially upgrade. Cleveland believes it may have found a solution in veteran David Murphy.

According to multiple sources, the Indians have reached an agreement with Murphy on a two-year, $12 million contract that includes a club option for 2016. Murphy completed a physical with Cleveland on Thursday, but there are still steps to finalize in the signing process.

The Indians will likely make an official announcement on Monday.

The left-handed-hitting Murphy would project to be the primary right fielder for the Indians, who used Drew Stubbs in the starting role last season. Stubbs' offensive struggles, especially against right-handed pitching, combined with the fact that he is eligible for arbitration, make him a candidate to either be traded or non-tendered.

Should Cleveland choose to keep Stubbs in the fold, he could serve as a fourth outfielder, taking starts in right field against left-handed pitchers. Ryan Raburn, who filled that type of backup role last season, is also under contract for 2014 for the Indians. Left and center field are currently occupied by Michael Brantley and Michael Bourn, respectively.

The 32-year-old Murphy has spent parts of eight season in the Major Leagues between stints with the Red Sox and Rangers. He suited up for the Red Sox in the 2006 and '07 seasons, when Indians manager Terry Francona was the manager in Boston.

Last season, Murphy posted a .220/.282/.374 slash line with 13 home runs, 26 doubles and 45 RBIs in 142 games (476 plate appearances) for Texas, which used him as a part-time outfielder and pinch-hitter as the season progressed. It was a disappointing dropoff from Murphy's showing in 2012, when he hit .304 with 15 homers, 61 RBIs and an .859 OPS for the Rangers.

Murphy, who earned $5.775 million last season, has spent the majority of his career in left field, but he has experience at all three outfield spots. Over the course of his eight seasons, he has also posted a .280 average and an .816 OPS against left-handed pitchers, compared to a .249 average and .657 OPS against righties.

Interestingly, the signing was initially reported by Texas sportswriter Jamie Kelly, who was told by one of her followers on Twitter that Murphy's daughter was spreading the word at daycare. When Murphy arrived to pick her up, he confirmed the news to the teachers.

Stubbs -- acquired from the Reds in a three-team, nine-player trade last winter -- moved from center field to right for the Indians and hit .233 with 10 homers, 45 RBIs and a .665 OPS in 146 games. Stubbs hit just .216 (.637 OPS) against right-handed pitching on the season and slumped to a .192 average (.572 OPS) in September.

Through arbitration, the 29-year-old Stubbs earned $2.825 million last season and would be scheduled for a raise this offseason.

Raburn, who signed a two-year extension with the Indians in August, hit .272 with 16 home runs, 55 RBIs and a .902 OPS in 87 games as a role player last season. The right-handed-hitting utility man made 46 starts in right field and ended the season batting .308 with a 1.020 OPS against left-handed pitchers.

RBR: World War Z

I put the blame for how horrible Quantum of Solace was squarely on director Marc Forster. As a result, I had decided that I would not watch or support any future film he would do. But with enough time having passed and with a lack of better options at the time at Redbox, I decided to check out his latest film, the zombie apocalypse thriller, World War Z. This is not necessarily a genre I am particularly fond of, but when it offers something interesting, like the comedic take in Zombieland, I take somewhat of an interest. This is an adaptation from a popular book, but from what I understand it takes some significant liberties with the story. Brad Pitt stars as a former UN worker who gets roped back in to help find a way to solve this zombie problem. I give the film a lot of credit in that it does not waste any time in getting into the action and frenzy. Once it starts, it really doesn't stop until the end credits roll. Along the way we get a number of decent set pieces, but nothing really revelatory about zombies or why they've suddenly started attacking the planet. The end result is probably the most mainstream version of a zombie film that you will ever see. For those who loves these films, this will likely come off as a disappointment, but for those who know nothing of the 'walking dead', this is probably a good entry point. Forster's work does nothing to make me reconsider my stance of what he did on Solace, but I am certainly more open to seeing other films from him in the future. Rating: *** 1/2

The host with the Most

Kermit and the gang are heading back to the big screen and this time they are taking their adventures overseas. Here's the newest trailer for Muppets Most Wanted.

RBR: Identity Thief

Perhaps we shouldn't be surprise that a film with a premise all about stealing the identity of someone would so liberally steal elements from other movies. That's what happens though in Identity Thief, a movie with a ton of promise thanks to the casting of two extremely funny people and saddling them with a tired, rehashed plot that has been done so much better in the past. There are elements of Planes, Trains, and Automobiles, Midnight Run, and Taking Care of Business seen here but this movie strips away the humor, intelligence, and heart found in those films. Instead, this film focuses on car chases, action scenes, and a physical brand of humor that yields very few laughs. It is a shame that a film that features two comedic actors who I enjoy produced only one actual laugh from me. I quickly became disinterested in seeing how everything would get resolved. Not surprisingly the central story ends on a predictable note while other subplots get ignored or are paid off in an unsatisfactory manner. Given how successful the film was, I know that I am now one of the last people to actually see this movie, but if you have managed to hold out longer than I have, continue doing so because there's nothing here worth your time. Rating: **

James Bond's greatest victory

From comingsoon.net:

The long-running battle between Kevin McClory and his estate with MGM and Danjaq, who own the rights to James Bond and related characters, is finally over after fifty years with MGM able to acquire the rights to the 007 franchise that had been held by McClory, who helped come up with the story for Thunderball with creator Ian Fleming. In the process of doing so, McClory has claimed that he created many of the iconic characters from the world of James Bond, presumably Blofeld and SPECTRE, who would appear in successive movies following that.

The lawsuits started flying in 1961 when McClory sued Fleming and received partial copyright to Thunderball that allowed him to remake it with Sean Connery in 1983 under the title Never Say Never Again. Neither MGM nor EON Productions have ever included that movie in any of the many James Bond box sets, considering it to take place outside of canon. Sony tried buying the rights from McClory and were promptly sued by MGM and McClory and his estate continued to be a problem for MGM and Danjaq over the years.

What could this mean for the future of the James Bond franchise? Well, for one thing, Danjaq's production division EON Productions could now theoretically introduce a new Ernst Stavro Blofeld or reintroduce SPECTRE after having created the crime organization "Quantum" for the Daniel Craig reboot Casino Royale.

No details of the settlement or the amount paid have been released.

RBR: Monsters University

We have long known that Pixar spoiled movie goers with the quality of the movies that they put out for over a decade. Audiences and critics began to realize that producing classic after classic is not a given based on Pixar's recent streak of underwhelming efforts. It was not only taken for granted that each film they made would be great, but that even their sequels would be just as good as their original films. When you look at both of the Toy Story sequels, it is remarkable how they were able to maintain such excellence. A large part of that was likely due to them having a clear vision for what the stories should be for each of those films. We saw actual character development and a defined story arc related to life and mortality. The same cannot be said for Monsters University, a prequel to 2001's Monsters Inc.. Unlike with Woody and the gang, it seems as if the Pixar crew has no idea what to do with Mike and Sully. The concept of taking a look at them in college is intriguing, although a bit odd for a movie aimed at such a young audience. The fact that they essentially do a Revenge of the Nerds ripoff is disappointing. There are plenty of colorful characters and jokes that work regardless of how old you are, but none of this feels innovative or fresh. If this were merely a Saturday morning cartoon extension of the franchise, I probably would not be as hard on them. But for them to revisit these characters nearly a decade later, I expected something more worthwhile. From a technical standpoint, there's nothing wrong here. However, this film is more representative of a student who coasts through school on decent grades rather than the valedictorian who puts everything they've got into making sure they are the best. Rating: ***

Block busted

News hit earlier today that the remaining Blockbuster video stores will be closed, essentially ending its reign as the primary method of renting movies. While the writing has been on the wall for some time, the news is still sad as I feel a piece of my childhood has been taken away from me now. To mark this occasion, I am posting an article written today on Entertainment Weekly's website which nicely encapsulates the great things and not so great things about this former major corporation.

It was the McDonald’s of video rental chains. The company that squashed countless local mom-and-pop video stores; its ubiquitous blue-and-yellow signs blanketing the country, cities and suburbs alike, with the promise of a largely efficient, largely impersonal, sometimes painless video rental experience.

By 2004, Blockbuster Video had 9,000 remarkably similar-looking locations. By every retail business standard, Blockbuster Video had won. Then, slowly, as The New York Times put it earlier today, “Internet killed the video store.” Blockbuster eventually adapted to changing technology and consumer habits, but not fast enough. There were struggles. Netflix. Policy changes. No late fees! Store closures. Late fees are back again! Ownership change. And in January, the chain will be gone, shuttering its remaining stores and DVD mail service.

Some are posting fond remembrances of Blockbuster. You can’t spend that many hours of your life somewhere, especially if it was during your youth, and not have some emotional attachment to the place. But let’s face it: Blockbuster was never cool. It was never really the good guy, or a company you cheered for.

So let’s tell it like it really was. Here’s 10 things we won’t miss about Blockbuster Video:

1. The wrong movie is in the box. These first few entries listed could be said about video stores in general. But once Blockbuster Video conquered the known video rental world, Blockbuster Video was “the video store.” The company became synonymous with what a video store is, and its downfall is largely because it kept being just a video store. So these are fair game. So: You get home from Blockbuster. You have your overpriced 2-liter soda and movie-theater-sized box of Skittles and your movie. You go to the DVD player and open the box. And then: “WHERE IS STARSHIP TROOPERS? THIS IS FLATLINERS!”

2. The scavenger hunt. The clerk’s computer says there’s one copy of Office Space in the store. But its not where it should be on the shelf. Maybe it’s behind another movie? Maybe its stacked in the wrong category? It couldn’t be under “Drama” could it? “Where is it? You said you had a copy in stock. Where is it!?” So you go on a scavenger hunt around the store with the clerk trying to find that missing copy of Office Space because you’re really in the mood for Office Space and your heart was set on watching it. The best part of this is when the poor schlub clerk gets on his hands and knees and goes through the return bin to see if it’s buried under copies of Titanic. Then he finally says maybe Office Space was stolen. STOLEN. You know, like your time.

3. The unkind. Now we’re going way back: Blockbuster was normally pretty decent about staying on top of this, but we can’t do a post on video store gripes without mentioning those VCR tapes that were not rewound. “Be Kind, Rewind.” Also: Scratched /unplayable rentals.

4. The New Releases mirage. Blockbuster-specific gripes now: You think you’re not too late to get a copy of The Fellowship of the Ring even though its Friday night and it just came out this week, because there’s a whole section of the New Releases wall filled with copies of the film. But remember: The movie artwork boxes are hollow. The boxes with the actual discs are in the Blockbuster boxes behind the artwork boxes. None of the false-front boxes have movies behind them. It’s a trick! The display wall is a total mirage. Blockbuster succeeded in looking fully stocked with the latest movies, even when there’s not one copy in the store. Fooled you! Now go see if a copy of Legend is in, loser!

5. Late fees. Of course. Late fees. Once you rented a Blockbuster video, the clock was ticking. You better watch it the first night, especially if it was a coveted New Release. Those dollar-a-day fees stack up quick. And there’s an unholy checking-account-crippling $60-80 full replacement fee lurking if you ever actually lost one of those boxes. For all their brightly lit stores, Blockbuster Video operated like the grim gang in Goodfellas: “Oh you forgot to return a DVD by midnight? F–k you, pay me! You returned it with the wrong disc? F–k you, pay me!”

6. Prudishness. You had to get your porn elsewhere. Okay. But even NC-17 films of some artistic/entertainment merit were banned by the chain in the 1990s, which was yet another blow against studios looking for a way to distribute NC-17 films. In other words: If you really wanted to appreciate Elizabeth Berkley causing a minor tsunami in a swimming pool in Showgirls, you couldn’t get it at Blockbuster.

7. Indie/foreign film? Ha! It’s called Blockbuster Video for a reason, film geek. You want an art film, or something with something nutty like subtitles, you best go someplace else. But Blockbuster will have 71 copies of Enemy of the State.

8. Those uniforms. During its heyday, Blockbuster had Disney-style clean-cut rules for its employees, who also had to wear pretty dorky uniforms (rather than dress like, you know, normal people, like at indie video and record stores). A group of male employees actually sued Blockbuster for a 1994 policy that banned male employees from having long hair. Check out this Blockbuster employee training video. A creepily omniscient training manager who calls himself a “professional opportunist” gets rather inappropriate with a teenage clerk and prods her to date a customer’s son while harassing her for apparently committing the unspeakable sin of accepting Bon Jovi tickets. (If you find yourself obsessing about this amazing video, which is totally understandable, you’ll find a breakdown of it from an ex-employee here).

9. Stagnation. When it comes to resisting change, Blockbuster critics point to the company being too slow to react to the rise of DVD-by-mail services and online streaming (Netflix was operating for six years before Blockbuster got in the movie-by-mail service game — which is astounding). But the company was slow to embrace other changes too that made even its core business pretty lousy. From shifting from VCR tapes to DVD. From pan-and-scan format videos to widescreen/letterbox. From DVD to Blu-ray. Being a Blockbuster customer who actually loved movies, and therefore loved improvements in the way movies were formatted or displayed, meant always being frustrated or disappointed because the company seemed reluctant to stock titles and formats until most of their customers were demanding the new versions. You never really got the feeling Blockbuster, as a company, loved, or even understood, movies. It’s like the way rental discs were given to customers in generic Blockbuster boxes stripped of their original packaging — you felt like you were renting a product unit, not a piece of commercial art.

10. Then everything fell apart. First standards were allowed to slip a little. Remember how Blockbuster went from having every video displayed with the box cover facing toward you? And then all of a sudden stores starting stacking DVDs like library books to pile more in? And there was also the surge of video games, which was understandable. But then, during the final recent years of Blockbuster, the stores began to stock all sort of random items, whether they had something to do with movies or games or not. Posters, stuffed animals, T-shirts, toys. The stores went from creepily anti-septic and strictly regimented environments to random flea markets peddling anything to survive.

Now here’s the really odd part. The twist ending. I walked through a Blockbuster about a year ago. I was surprised how far the chain had drifted from its original concept … the videos and games stacked crazily everywhere, the dirty carpets, the random products all over the place, angry miserable employees who looked like they wandered in off the street. And I found myself … actually missing the old Blockbuster Video. Missing it a little, even with all these gripes still firmly recalled.

Nostalgia is funny like that. For years you go to a place. For years you don’t like it much. Then it’s gone. Then you miss it.

Hammer envy

Check out what happens when Loki tries to do some market research to find out who the better superhero is.

RBR: Grown Ups 2

I am developing quite the cognitive dissonance when it comes to Adam Sandler's films these days. As I watch more films and learn more about what it takes to make a great film, I increasingly notice the flaws that are found in his movies. And yet one fact remains (mostly) true whenever I watch him on screen - he finds a way to make me laugh. Given the sophomoric nature of the humor, I don't always take pride in the fact that I laugh, but what can I say? In this follow up to the successful film from 2010, we find Sandler and all of his buddies (Kevin James, Chris Rock, and David Spade) and their families all living the sweet life in suburbia. If you are looking for a plot here, do not bother. While story has never been a strength in the Sandler library, this one is particularly startling in how flimsy of a premise there is to string along these scenes. This is moreso a collection of scenes with Sandler riffing with his friends, as well as more tertiary friends (Tim Meadows, Colin Quinn, Nick Swardson, etc.). The sad thing is that among this collection of scenes you see some morsels of goodness that make you believe a better film could have been delivered by this cast if anyone was interested in putting in some effort. Both the adults and the kids (all of whom are back from the first film) have some nice moments. Ultimately, this is the perfect type of movie to watch on cable. You can turn it on in the middle, leave at various parts and come back again and watch some more later and never really miss a beat. During the times you watch, you're likely to find at least a few jokes you'll like but you also won't feel like you're missing out if you do not see every frame. For all of their weaknesses, this is a group of guys that I enjoy watching and hanging out with. This one won't be winning any awards (save for a few Razzies perhaps), but I'm ok with that. A steady diet of this would be too much, but there's nothing wrong with an occasional low-brow indulgence. Rating: ** 1/2