Booby prize

I had another opportunity to see a sneak preview at the campus theater. This time it was Adventureland, which is coming out on April 3rd. As with any of my early reviews, spoilers ahead!

Having spent several summers working at my city's recreation center, I know a thing or two about lousy summer jobs. They're low paying, thankless, and usually involve you having to work alongside a bunch of other deadbeats. But somewhere amongst that misery, you find you gain a lot of good stories and fond memories. You may not want to have that job for the rest of your life, but you end up grateful for the opportunity nonetheless. I was hoping to see a similar situation emerge in Adventureland, the new film directed by Superbad's Greg Mottola.

The film, set in 1987, centers around James Brennen (Jesse Eisenberg), a recent college grad whose plans for a trip to Europe over the summer are dashed when his father receives a demotion. In order to make money so he can go to grad school, Brennan takes a job at the local amusement park.

The park employs a number of interesting characters including SNL's Bill Hader and Kristen Wiig, who run the place, Ryan Reynolds as the park's maintenance man, and Martin Starr (Knocked Up). All of these characters are great in their limited roles. There are even a couple other lesser known actors who also shine in their brief appearances. Each of these characters in their own way provide a lot of humor to their scenes.

If only the film had managed to stay in the park longer, this would have been an instant classic. Instead, the film opts to place most of its attention on Brennen's attraction to Emily (played by Kristen Stewart), who also works at the park. I have no problem with including a love story into the film as a subplot. I also wouldn't have minded if it was the central focus if you provide the audience with a rooting interest in the characters. However, in this film the romance really drags the film down.

The central flaw in this love story is the character flaws of both characters. Brennan is an indecisive virgin who unnecessarily opens up to anyone who will listen. Emily comes with a ton of baggage and may not be as pure as Brennan thinks she is. If done right, you can make a romance between flawed characters work, but their flaws just seem incompatible. By the end of the movie they seem smart enough to recognize their flaws but eschew improving on them and instead just settle with being together.

Brennan's lack of growth is particularly frustrating. You would think that with the way the story is structured, his time spent at Adventureland would have provided him with the life lessons needed to improve himself and better handle this relationship. Instead, it appears the carnival setting was just a mere prop to inject some humor into a film centered on a flimsy love story.

It's hard to be completely critical of the film because when it chooses to be funny, it really succeeds. Mottola once again shows that he can create realistic depictions of teenagers that are embarassing, awkward, and still hilarious. I just wished he would have embraced it more. This almost seems like two movies put together. The stuff at the carnival works, everything else doesn't.

In the end, the film is just like the rigged games you'd find at an amusement park like Adventureland. You're easily drawn in by the flashy lights and big prizes, but once it's over you feel like you've been ripped off. I'll give the film a mild recommendation based on the strength of its hilarious supporting cast. However, you may be best to wait until DVD for this one. I have a feeling a lot of good stuff found its way onto the cutting room floor so that more time could be spent on a mopey romance that fails to set off any Fourth of July fireworks. Grade: B-

In the beginning...

You saw the teaser during the Super Bowl, now here's the first full trailer for the prehistoric comedy, Year One, starring Jack Black and Michael Cera and directed by Harold Ramis due out this summer.

Movie magic

Three movies came out this past weekend that I put on my Top 30 to see in '09 list, yet I ended up seeing something else this weekend. Thankfully, I wasn't disappointed. The Great Buck Howard is currently out in limited release in theaters, but it's also available already On Demand through your cable provider, which is the way I saw it.

Those that know me, know that I have been a fan of pro wrestling for almost all of my life. Being a fan, I'm frequently asked why I bother watching it. I've heard all the complaints and criticisms, and yet I still watch it. I've given up trying to rationalize it, I simply say that I'm a fan and will always be a fan. I thought about my love for a fake sport as I watched The Great Buck Howard.

Buck Howard, played by John Malkovich, is a aging mentalist who's main claim to fame is that he performed on The Tonight Show 61 times. Even though, he doesn't receive the coverage he once did, he still performs in tiny theaters around the country. We see this latter part of his career through the perspective of Troy (Colin Hanks), a law school dropout who is hired as his road manager in order to make some money.

Malkovich does a great job with this character providing him with the right amount of showmanship energy that makes it realistic that he could still entertain audiences. Of course, like most beyond their time celebrities, there's also this bubbling anger that occassionally emerges when he's not treated with the celebrity status he believes he still has.

Colin Hanks does a nice job of responding to Buck in the same way most people watching the film would. Buck brings us to the brink of repulsion but keeps drawing us back in by creating a sense of whimsy and awe over the tricks he's able to do. As a result, I found myself drawn to Hanks' character and interested in how he would continue dealing with such a combustible boss.

The film is strengthened by a couple of decent supporting roles as well. Emily Blunt does a nice job as the love interest for Troy. In the few things I've seen her in, I've been impressed and I hope she continues to get larger roles, as I feel she definitely has a future. She provides a good balance of cute and confident. Colin's father is played by his own father, Tom Hanks (who also has made out with Emily Blunt on screen, in Charlie Wilson's War). In a small role, he comes in at just the right moments to urge him to go back to law school, which only helps remind him why he's taking this thankless job in the first place. That reason being is that he's on a search to find something that he loves to do.

That brings me back to my point about being the wrestling fan. The film does a good job of establishing the message to do what you love to do. Troy doesn't want to be in love school because he doesn't love it. Seeing Buck refusing to retire even though convention says no one cares about him anymore inspires Troy to eventually get his dream job of being a writer.

This is a message that easily could turn the film into a schmaltzy mess, but that never happens. You find yourself getting caught up in Buck's, and by extension, the film's magic. The film takes you on a fun ride and leaves you feeling happy afterwards, something that should be seen in more films these days.

The film is a little too small in scale to truly feel significant. But for a smaller film, it succeeds at virtually everything it sets out to do. Buoyed by some great performances, The Great Buck Howard is a real treat. It doesn't take a mentalist to figure out why this a fun film. I have no doubt that if you see it, you too will quickly be engaged by the magic of Buck Howard. Grade: B+

KU's Cole = UD cold

The Flyers' tournament came to a close earlier today after losing to Kansas. I have mixed feelings over the game. Our defense played great, but we just couldn't get anything going on offense, thanks mostly to Kansas' Cole Aldrich just dominating the middle and blocking everything in sight. I wish UD could have gone further, but they had their first NCAA tournament win in almost twenty years, so I'm happy about that. There were a lot of positive things about this season for UD, so I'm hoping that they can build on this and have an even better season next year!

New boss deleted scenes

#3


#2


#1

NMR: Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist

Wow, I cannot recall the last time I saw a movie this bad. This was just downright terrible. There were several times where I thought about just shutting it off, but I kept waiting to see if things would get better. Thankfully the movie was only 90 minutes, although it felt much longer than that. This movie was just a representation of everything that I'm not: indie music, New York nightlife, teenage drama. The whole thing was just an unappealing mess. About the only thing I enjoyed were the random cameos by SNL cast members like Seth Meyers and Andy Samberg. I get why there are some that would be really into this movie, but if you're anything like me, you will not enjoy this in the least. Strong recommendation to avoid this one! Rating: *

Shall we dance?

March Madness is upon us once again! And while I'm excited, it's been tempered a bit by the fact that I've got so much work to do and probably won't have time to watch many of the games outside of Dayton's first round game Friday afternoon. Here are my Final Four picks though: Louisville, Missouri, Villanova, and Oklahoma. I have Louisville beating Oklahoma in the finals.

And if you're not excited about the tournament yet, here's a video to get you in the mood. If students are putting that much on the line in a meaningless game for the College Basketball Invitational, just think what they'll do when everything is on the line.

Quick review: Better Off Ted

So after weeks of quirky promos for the show, I decided to give ABC's latest sitcom, Better Off Ted a chance last night. I haven't watched a sitcom regularly on ABC since the heyday of TGIF back when I was 10. Well scratch that, I did watch The Knights of Prosperity back in 2007 for all 6 of its episodes that actually aired. Anyways, this show about a mysterious company Verdian Dynamics and the people that work there provided enough laughs for me to give it a second shot. I'm always happy to see Arrested Development cast members get work, so it was nice to see Portia de Rossi here as Ted's blunt boss. And even though it's cliched, I bought right in to the office romance that's developing between Ted and Linda (Andrea Anders). This is not a perfect show, but probably the best new sitcom this year. If you missed it, you can watch the first episode on ABC.com and the show airs regularly on Wednesdays at 8:30, right before Lost (which had another killer episode last night. I'm loving the new take charge Sawyer, or excuse me, LaFleur).

NMR: Super terrific review

I have never really seen the original Superman movies in their entirety and since almost all of them were available for instant viewing on Netflix, I decided to partake in a little marathon.

Superman: The one that started it all. You can see why this one is still used as a standard bearer to compare newer comic book films. Director Richard Donner just did a fantastic job here. The cast was absolutely perfect. Reeve does a great job of doing nerdy as Clark and heroic as the Man of Steel. The star though is Gene Hackman who is awesome as Lex Luthor. I used to think that 2006's Superman Returns was bad because Superman is an uninteresting character, but this film has a great energy level to it, making Returns just a bad movie. This may not have the visual sophistication of today's comic book films, but it's still a great movie. Rating: ****

Superman II: Still a fun movie, but definitely a notch below the original. It's really apparent, at least to me, that there were changes made mid-stream during this film. If you're unfamiliar with the backstory, director Richard Donner got into a fight with the studio and was replaced halfway through. As a result, Marlon Brando is completely gone from the film and Gene Hackman is missing from a large chunk in the middle. I plan on seeing the Donner cut that was released a few years ago to see how significantly different it is. FYI, this is the only one for some reason that is not available to instantly view. Rating: ***

Superman III: The quality level significantly drops off here. After the Donner incident, Gene Hackman didn't return for this one and Margot Kidder (who played Lois Lane) is only in it for literally five minutes. In place of them we get Robert Vaughn, Richard Pryor, and Annette O'Toole. They're all fine actors but sorry replacements for the characters we've come to love. The story here is really stupid and the whole film is way too comedic. That is for one of the final scenes where a woman is turned into a machine. I saw that scene when I was a kid and it scared the shit out of me and seeing it today still gives me the willies. Overall, this is just a plain awful movie. Rating: **

Superman IV: The Quest for Peace: This provided the death knell for the series and is often slammed, but I found myself enjoying this one a lot more than III. Most of the original cast was back and they all seem to still be giving it a go, which helps. Sure, the film comes off a bit preachy with its whole nuclear disarmament storyline, but I wasn't bothered by it, maybe because I'm seeing it so long away from the time when this was a major issue. The battle between Superman and Nuclear Man is also pretty cheesy, but I've also seen worse. One thing that's surprisingly though is that the visuals in the film look really cheap. Visually the films seemed to regress over time, which isn't a good thing. I also felt the story could have been bolstered more; this is the only film in the series that clocks in under 2 hours. So while it's an imperfect film, I'd recommend it over III. Rating: ***

Also available for instant viewing on Netflix is a 1 hour documentary that aired last year on the Starz channel called Starz Inside: Comic Books Unbound. It covers the history of comic books and their film adaptations. It's an interesting look at the genre with a lot of interviews with people from the industry. At only an hour long though, the coverage is fairly superficial. It may not provide a lot of surprising information, but it's still a cool look at a genre that was once ignored by Hollywood and has now become one of its biggest cash cows. It's worth a look if you've got the time.

Golden Ticket deleted scenes

#3


#2


#1

NMR: Beerfest

I know this movie has already reached cult status with certain viewers, but I just wasn't digging it. Perhaps I needed to be on something to enjoy, but being stone cold sober, I just didn't find it particularly funny. I thought the coolest part was seeing all of the different competitive events that were part of Beerfest, but those are really only seen in the last fifteen minutes of the film. The whole training for the competition, which is the bulk of the film didn't make any sense and just drug on forever. I didn't find any of the protagonists to be funny, nor did they make me have a rooting interest in them. If you want a funny, wacky sports tournament movie, just go re-watch Dodgeball for the millionth time. Rating: **

and the trailers keep rolling in

I tell you, this is the week for new trailers. Here's a sample of some previewing some of this summer's biggest releases:

Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince


Up


Star Trek


The Hangover

Beauty and the bleak

As mentioned before, I decided to go see the midnight screening of Watchmen. I should have remembered before I bought my ticket that this movie was 243 mins. long, because I may not have been as eager to catch such a late showing. Luckily though I'm a night owl (no pun intended) so I made it through all right.

Full disclosure upfront, I have never read the widely loved graphic novel which the film was based on. I had minimal knowledge of the characters and story, but I always enjoy an event film, so I wanted to see why this was such a big deal for comic book fans. To say I was shocked by what I saw would be an understatement. This film earns every bit of its R rating as it is bloody, gruesome, and sometimes downright vile. And what's most shocking is that many of these deplorable actions are committed by the 'heroes' of the story.

If, like me, let me set up the premise of the story. The year is 1985, but very different from the one we remember. After winning the Vietnam war, Richard Nixon remains president of the United States. The country, however, is still entrenched in a Cold War with Russia and nuclear holocaust seems imminent (this is represented by a Doomsday clock set at five minutes to midnight). While there used to be several superheroes protecting our country, the President has banned all masked heroes and now most of them are retired. The film starts with the murder of one of the former superheroes and it appears someone is trying to kill them all off. The remaining heros band together, somewhat, in order to figure out who's behind this.

That's a lot of story, and yet it barely scratches the surface of what this film covers. Director Zach Snyder (300) is to be commended for making such a strong effort to remain faithful to the original story in this film. Again, while I've never read the comic book, based on what I've read this seems to closely resemble the novel's events. This is a mixed blessing for the film. While it is likely to please rabid fans, it gives the film too much of a structured feel. You can tell where segments of the book began and finished as the film covers each of the main character's backstories. At times it plays more like an anthology than a fluid narrative.

And while most of the characters are fleshed out through their histories, the story still seems somewhat incomplete. There were parts of the film that I wondered why the scenes were included and other plot points that I wished were explained better. The story itself is not terribly confusing, but for a neophyte to these characters, it can be difficult to get into the story.

The other problem for outsiders that I briefly mentioned before is the shock factor. Watchmen puts the graphic in graphic novels. There are scenes of dismemberment, mutilation, and abuse of women. There's also an extended sex scene that didn't really have to be included as well. Given that so many of these acts are done by the superheroes themselves, you begin to wonder who you're supposed to have a rooting interest for in this movie. The more you know about this story and these characters before watching the movie, the better off you'll be.

I ended up having a similar detached feeling while watching this film as I did watching the Lord of the Rings films. In both cases, I had never read the source material before seeing the films. I was also able to see why the stories were loved by fans because of the rich characters and intricate themes that the respective authors had created. While gruesome, Watchmen does provide a lot of interesting discussion points on issues like nuclear war, religion, responsibilty, and corporate greed.

As important as those issues are to discuss and unpack, I don't feel the film allows for that as much as the book. Unless you're already familiar with the material, you're more likely to be consumed by the visuals of the film than its themes. This is not necessarily a knock against the film. It should be noted that this is an extremely well made film. The production is top notch and is visually stunning. The final product is the end result of someone who was clearly passionate about this project.

The acting here is a mixed bag. Some deliver solid performances. For instance, Jackie Earle Hayley brings an amazing about of intensity to his performance as the enigmatic Rorshach. Other actors are subpar at best, like Patrick Wilson as the nerdy Night Owl. His performance reminded me too much of Bob Odenkirk, which in this case wasn't a good thing.

In the end, this is a well made film but a difficult film to enjoy. If you have read and loved the novel, you don't need me to tell you to run out and see this. You've waiting a long time for this film and you likely won't be disappointed. For the rest of the world, brace yourself. This is an acquired taste that may not sit well with everyone. If you're the squemish type or if you just don't want to see the concept of what is a superhero turned on its head, then you may want to enjoy it. As for me, I'm glad I saw it, but I'm not likely to be making any repeat viewings of it in the near future. Grade: B-

Blood Drive deleted scenes

#3


#2


#1

The German job

I would have had this review up last night, but I chose to instead also see the midnight showing of Watchmen, so look for that review up later today. But for now, our next review is of Tom Cruise's latest, Valkyrie.

I had a hard time figuring out what to expect with this film. Originally set to open last July, it went through a number of release dates before settling on last December, a time that didn't seem to fit with the tone of the movie. Then despite that, and despite Cruise really, the movie ended up doing fairly well at the box office.

Valkyrie marks director Bryan Singer's first film since his overbloated, boring Superman Returns. Thankfully, this is a better effort although still not a great film. The plot centers around General Claus Stauffenberg (Cruise) and several other German officers devising a plan to kill Hitler. Unhappy with the way Hitler was running things, Stauffenberg and company planned to kill Hitler and then fake a coup in order to stage their own coup.

While the basic events are based on one of the several attempts at Hitler's life, the movie plays like a true Hollywood film. The film lacks the authentic feel to create a sense that you're watching history unfold before your very eyes. From the dramatic soundtrack to Cruise's cartoonish eyepatch, the film is more Indiana Jones than History Channel documentary.

Clearly, the filmmakers were more concerned with making a good movie than trying to thrust the audience into 1940s Germany. This is perhaps best evidenced by the decent supporting cast that the film boasts. Valkyrie includes great actors like Tom Wilkenson, Bill Nighy, and Kenneth Brannagh, yet none of them, nor Cruise, speak with a German accent, let alone actual German. If Hitler were not the target, this film could have easily taken place in any other country around the world.

Now while I'm quick to criticize the film for lacking authenticity, I cannot aruge that it does do a good job of creating drama and tension. Every attempt that this crew makes to off Hitler comes off well and would be really suspenseful if you didn't know how it ended. I knew the events and still found myself on the edge of my seat a few times.

The film takes a while to get going as we're introduced to a bevy of characters that were at times difficult to keep straight. But once we get into the actual assassination attempts, things pick up nicely. It's a shame the aftermath of their actions wasn't longer or more interesting in real life, because I felt the film could have used a bigger ending.

One wonders, though, why a film about this was even made. It's not like this was the only attempt to kill Hitler (although it was the last). You could make some crude comparisons between Hitler and Bush and the idea of standing up against power for what you believe is right. But they aren't fleshed out enough to make it a worthy consideration.

Given the way the film plays out, I almost wished they would have just created a fictional story of about a Hitler assassination. If the producers want a Hollywood war movie, why restrain yourself with historical facts. You just box yourself into a corner doing that.

The bottom line here is that the movie is entertaining. It has enough action and drama to keep anyone entertained. And if you haven't seen many World War II films or aren't real familiar with the events, then the film's historical accuracy won't be a big problem. If you're looking for something with a little bit more meaning, then you may want to pass on this one. Valkyrie is nothing more than the fast food equivalent of a history lesson. Grade: B

Sink your claws into this

The latest trailer for the new Wolverine movie has just hit the net. It could be good, but for a film that supposed to be an origin story, this seems to have a whole lot of bang and not a lot of talk.

NMR: Trifecta

No regular movie review today, so instead, here's a trio of brief reviews for films I recently caught through Netflix.

Bigger, Stronger, Faster: This was the documentary on steroids released last year that caught the attention of a lot of wrestling fans. The film was made by Chris Bell, who along with his two brothers, was a bodybuilder. Bell lays it out early on how torn he is on the subject because he didn't feel it was right to take steroids but he kept discovering all of his childhood heros (Ah-nuld, Hulk Hogan, Sly Stallone) had all taken them. Bell does a really good job at presenting arguments on both side of the issue. However, Bell's own non-commital stance on the issue grows wearisome as the movie progresses and you'd like him to pick a side. This is not a great documentary, but if you have any interest at all in the subject, it's probably worth a look. This one is available to watch instantly. Rating: ***

The Invasion: This was yet another remake of Invasions of the Body Snatchers that came out back in '07. I was initially interested in it as it was going to be one of Daniel Craig's first post-Bond films. However, the film kept getting delayed and there always seemed to be more re-shoots. Soon the writing was on the wall that this wasn't going to be very good, and for the most part that's true. There are a handful of good scares in the film, but it provides nothing new to this classic story. There are hints of what could have been (the idea of the possibility of world peace if the pod people completely take over), but all of that is loss for generic action scenes. The end result is a film that had more knives put to it than Joan Rivers. Rating: **

The Heartbreak Kid: Another '07 release that had some promise but turned out to be a dud. Ben Stiller re-teamed with the Farrelly brothers in this remake of a 1972 comedy. While providing some occasional laughs, this one ends up being too crass and stupid. It's another one of these Three's Company comedies where simple communication would have prevented all of the conflicts. The film doesn't do itself any favors by including in its supporting cast unfunny guys like Carlos Mencia and Danny McBride. Little known actress Malin Ackerman (soon to be seen in Watchmen) seems talented though, so hopefully she'll continue to get more roles. This film, however, is totally skippable. Rating: **

#1 with a bullet

The first trailer for Michael Mann's new movie, Public Enemies. From the looks of things, I'd say I was justified in putting this so high up on my must see list. Can't wait!

Unwelcome visitor

Back to the movies we go and this time it's for the remake of the 1951 sci-fi classic, The Day The Earth Stood Still.

When I first heard that this remake was coming, I was generally intrigued. A lot of that was due to the fact that I had just seen the original in a film class. I was impressed with the way that film, like so many of the sci-fi films of that era used out of this world creatures as an apt metaphor for the Red Scare. It fed into audiences' fear of the unknown to make a truly scary movie. With all of the important issues going on in our world today, I was interested to see how they would make this update appropriate for our current time. Unfortunately, they decided to forego coming up with an appropriate methaphor and focused on more important things like finding a cool way to depict the destruction of Giants stadium.

As in the orignal, Klaatu (Keanu Reeves) arrives in an alien spacecraft on Earth with a warning to the human race. Jennifer Connelly plays Helen, the astrobiologist who first meets Klaatu and strikes up an odd bond with him. She's hopeful of finding a way to convince Klaatu not to destroy all of humanity. Also along for the ride is her step-son Jacob (Jaden Smith) who is not as willing to listen to what Klaatu has to say.

You see, Klaatu is going to kill off all human life because they are detrimental to themselves and the planet. In the 1951 version, you can see how the fearmongering and Communist witch hunts would appear to an outsider like humanity was destroying itself. And today, there are certainly plenty of reasons why you could blame humanity for the way the world is. Things like the war on terror, global warming, and addiction to technology all reveal the dark side of humanity. If this film had chosen any one of those and focused on it, the message would have more resonance. Instead the film takes a generic, humans are bad and must be eradicated approach.

Rather than trying to make the audience think, the film distracts you with a bunch of superflous visual effects. Sure the glowing orbs across the earth and the nanobot storm eating any non-living thing look cool but they don't add any gravitas to the film. If I wanted eye candy, I would just go watch a Roland Emmerich film. At least there, I know I'm not getting any substance, so I won't be disappointed.

The one cool visual that does add to the film, though, is their version of Gort, the robot that protects Klaatu and his ship. While the 1951 film had a guy in a silver rubber suit (I don't think metal bends that way), this director creates a visually stunning creatures that truly elicts the fear that the original should have, but didn't. Their interpretation of Gort is the best thing about the film (although I rolled my eyes over the fact that Gort this time is an acronym created by the Army).

But for as much as I liked their interpretation of Gort, I was equally dismayed by their treatment of the Professor Barnard character. In the original, Barnard is the voice of rational thought in an irrational situation and also helps Klaatu better understand humanity. Here, his inclusion is shoehorned into the story and doesn't really add anything. John Cleese is wasted here in the role neither providing any comic relief nor any real words of wisdom to justify the character's inclusion. If you had never seen the original, you would wonder why this scene was even included in this version.

As disappointed as I was about the film's failure to pick an issue to use drive its message, that can be overlooked if the film does a good job at providing an emotional and meaningful climax to the story. But as you may have guessed, this doesn't do it. First of all, the action that causes Klaatu to change his mind about humanity is so basic and ordinary, you begin to wonder why it took so long for him to figure out that humans have the capicity to be compassionate. The film builds things up to make it seem like there's something special about Helen and/or Jacob that Klaatu will see, but their actions are not unlike most average humans. It's truly baffling why that moment creates the change in Klaatu's perspective.

Then as the film ends we aren't given a proper sense of the aftermath. Will humanity change? What, if any, lessons have they learned from this experience? The whole climax is as emotionless as Klaatu himself. I'm left wondering what I'm supposed to take away from any of this.

Like a lot of movies that came out this past Winter, it seems this one may have been a victim of the writer's strike. There were just too many poorly constructed or underwritten scenes. You feel like if the script had gone through one more revision, a lot of the problems could have been tightened up. While I can give some other films some slack for this, this film shouldn't haven't had those problems. First, it's a remake, so you already have the core script ready. Secondly, the film was originally supposed to be released in the summer, so this may have been a case of too much tinkering instead of not enough.

Regardless of the reason, this is a disappointing film to anyone who saw the original. And if you haven't, I can't see it being very enjoyable for you either. The whole thing has a very dour tone that never eases up. This film is neither scary nor uplifting. This alien invasion feels more like your mother-in-law having an overextended stay. You just want them to leave so we can go back doing our regular thing. Everyone will be better off just going out and finding the original rather than wasting your time with this disappointing redux. Grade: C

Change we apparently can't believe in

False positive

So it's spring break this week and while I've still got plenty of work to do, there's a ton of movies over at the budget theater that I need to catch up on, so I'll try and get to as many of them as possible. So be on the lookout for more reviews as the week progresses.

We'll start things off though with Jim Carrey's latest comedy, Yes Man. I'll admit that nothing really stood out to me from the previews for this one. The premise seemed similar to Liar Liar and I didn't find myself laughing that much. It turns out that my instincts ended up being fairly accurate.

The premise here is that Jim Carrey plays Carl, a pessimistic banker who jumps at the chance to say no to every offer put in front of him until he takes a motivational seminar in which the guru gets him to start saying yes to everything asked of him. Hopefully in reading that sentence some warning bells should already start ringing in your head that this sounds like a pretty flimsy concept.

First of all, we're never really given an adequate explanation as to why Carl is so pessimistic. There is some mention of a failed marriage, but that idea isn't really explored enough to make us buy that as the justification. After this brief introduction into the character, Carl runs into a Contrivance #1 aka John Michael Higgins character. These two supposedly know each other, but we're not told where they know each other from. Higgins' encourages Carl to attend this positivity seminar and soon we're thrust right into the main plot.

Of course, all of the things asked of Carl seemed like they'll go terrible if he agrees to them, but he does and then end up turning out great for him. The best thing is he ends up meeting Contrivance #2, Allison (played amicably by Zooey Deschanel). Being a free spirit herself, she really likes how spontaneous and optimistic Carl is. We then spend the crux of the film watching them do zany things like breaking into the Hollywood Bowl or flying to Lincoln, Nebraska. Any of this sound exciting yet? All the while, we're supposed to be laughing at Carrey's zany, spur-of-the-moment antics, but instead it just appears that this character has some sort of mental deficiency.

Carrey's character is flawed in so many ways that it basically ruins the entire movie. Aside from acting like a lunatic, he doesn't come across as likeable when he pessimistic or optimistic. It's hard to root for someone who is so stupid to believe that saying yes to everything is the answer to all of life's problems. By the end of the film, he learns the lesson that while it's important to be positive, major decisions require critical thought, not just blindly agreeing to everything. How hard was that to figure out? The audience figures this out waaaaay before the main character does, which just makes for a frustrating experience.

There are an assortment of subplots introduced that could have been potentially interesting like Carl's friends abusing his inability to say no, or the fact that Carl works at a bank and is suddenly giving loans to everyone who asks for one. In our current financial times, this could have been particularly pertinent, but it's abandoned for more wacky Carrey antics.

Any of these minor stories are spurned in favor of the cliched romance which of course involves Contrivance #3 causing Allison and Carl to briefly break up when she realizes he's 'not the man I thought he was' only for them to quickly reconcile by the movies end.

Nothing in the movie feels real or genuine. Perhaps the best example of that is one of the final scenes, which in a way mirrors one of the final scenes in The 40-Year Old Virgin. Without giving too much away, they both involve the main character on a bike chasing after their love interest. If you do see this movie, you'll understand how cheesy and lame this scene comes off as in comparison to the emotion that's packed into the scene from Virgin.

I was excited to see Carrey come back to the genre that brought him, the slapstick comedy, but this was not the right vehicle for him. The film tries to put a fresh spin on a tried and true method of storytelling, but fails completely. Nothing rings true about the story or the characters or the message. If I were you, I don't see a need to waste your time renting it. It'll probably show up on the USA channel fairly quickly anyways, so if you're really a big Jim Carrey fan and you haven't seen it, you can watch it then. Otherwise, just say no to Yes Man. Grade: C-

Reaper reminder

I just wanted to make all of you aware that the underappreciated comedy action show, Reaper returns for its second season this week on the CW. Here's a little preview of the season #2...


And if you need a better refresher before the season begins, you can watch the season 1 finale here.

NMR: Cage-d heat

I caught a couple of Nicolas Cage movies on Netflix's instant viewing and I think they're a couple of examples why he's one of the most polarizing actors out there today.

Next: This 2007 sci-fi action flick revolves around the idea that Nic Cage has the ability to see 2 minutes into the future at any point and the gov't is trying to hunt him down to use his ability to stop Russians from using a nuclear bomb. The whole thing is completely preposterous and poorly acted. I could have maybe bought into the concept if it had been given any sort of decent explanation, but at barely 90 minutes, the film wastes the idea and uses it as a weak prop for a generic action movie. Not even the hotness of Jessica Biel could save this one. If only Nic Cage actually he had this ability, he could have seen how terrible this movie would be. Rating: **

Matchstick Men: A complete 180 here as Cage turns in a terrific performance, along with nearly everyone else in the film. The film centers around a con man (Cage) who has OCD and is trying to deal with meeting his 14-year old daughter for the first time. Somehow the movie is a character study of a neurotic individual, an emotional family drama, and a con movie and gives each of these aspects of the story enough time to make them significant. Ridley Scott (Gladiator) turns in one of his best directing efforts here. This is a movie that works on a lot of levels and provides something for a lot of different audiences. Ironically, not many people saw it. Do yourself a favor and see it now. Rating: **** (although if I could it would be 4 1/2 stars)

Break(dance)ing news!

Do they realize that the cameras are rolling? Apparently, there is NOTHING of significance to report in Cincinnati as that's the only way I can explain why this is happening. Unbelieveable.

NMR: 2 for 1

Here's the latest from my Netflix viewings...

In Bruges: A small film that came out around this time last year. It got a lot of rave reviews and even had an Oscar nomination for its screenplay, however I just couldn't get into it. It stars Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson (Mad Eye Moody in the Harry Potter films) as a couple of hitman who are trying to lay low in Bruges (hence the title). There were several times in the film where I could recognize what the director was trying to do, but I just wasn't buying it. Maybe I just wasn't in the right mood or maybe it's for a different audience, but for whatever reason I just didn't enjoy this. If you've seen it, feel free to tell me why this film is supposed to be good. Rating: **

The Hunting Party: An odd film that turned out to be pretty good. It stars Richard Gere and Terrence Howard as a couple of journalists who are in Bosnia looking for an infamous war criminal, The Fox. The beginning of the film there is a disclaimer that only the most ridiculous parts of the movie are real and then at the end of the movie they show you what in fact actually did happen. For most people, they may have trouble enjoying a film about the Bosnian conflict, but if you stick with it, it's a decent thriller that also has a fair amount of laughs. It's not the conventional type of film I would enjoy, but I liked it nonetheless. Rating: ***

More good news for the day

From EW.com:

Gore Verbinski (Pirates of the Caribbean) has been tapped to direct and produce a new adaptation of the game Clue, Variety reports. Like the previous 1985 movie and the classic Hasbro board game on which both films are based, Verbinski's project will be a murder mystery. It's the latest Hasbro property headed to the big screen, after Transformers and this summer's G.I. Joe.

I love the original Clue film, but also feel that a new version could be really great. They should once again film multiple endings that are shown at various theaters. I think having the people who are usually in Christopher Guest's films would be ideal for this cast. So, are you as excited as I am or is this news met with more apathy from you?

Getting the band back together

So last Friday was Conan's last show on Late Night and I've been kind of sad about it. Moving to the 11:30 slot, it seemed like Conan was selling out and would be abandoning a lot of the humor that we've come to love from him and go to a more broad, pandering style that we've come to loathe in Jay Leno.

Well today we got news that really made me happy. Andy Richter is coming back full time as Conan's sidekick (Read story here). I've really missed their banter and rapport these past few years so it'll be great seeing them back together again. So of Conan's best bits (If They Mated, In the Year 2000, On the Aisle, Staring Contests) haven't been the same without Andy involved. Hopefully this is a good sign that all is not lost once Conan takes over The Tonight Show in June.

EDIT: So reading the announcement a little bit more closely, it seems that Andy is being brought on to be the announcer. However, he will still be involved in some of the show's comedy bits. It's not quite the same thing, but still good news nonetheless.

And here for your amusement is a classic Conan/Andy bit, fittingly enough of them taking a 'drive' in LA:

Judd-ging the latest Apatow trailer

Judd Apatow's third directing effort comes out this summer and the first trailer has hit the net. I like the premise seen here, but this clearly seems to be a much more serious film than his previous efforts. I've got no problem with that as long as the quality is still there and I have a feeling it will be. Check it out for yourself.

NMR: Oscar greats

Since none of this year's Best Picture nominees have made it to the budget theater yet and I'm too poor to shell out the big bucks to see them, I decided to watch some older Oscar winners through Netflix instead. All films are available to watch instantly if you're interested in them.

All the President's Men: Just a great, great film and I'm embarassed that it's taken me so long to see it. This is the retelling of Woodward and Bernstein's investigation into the Watergate scandal. Fantastic acting from everyone involved and does a nice job of playing more like a detective story than some extended political statement. I really enjoyed seeing such a thorough look into the world of journalism and the quest people will take in order to get the story. Rating: *****

Network: Another great film directed by one of the most legendary directors, Sidney Lumet (12 Angry Men). This look at a fictional TV network's exploitation of their lead anchorman, who's having a mental breakdown seems all too realistic today in our tabloid driven world. The movie is way ahead of it's time and fascinating to watch now from this perspective. I'm not crazy about the love story they included between Faye Dunaway and the news director; it just didn't feel organic to the story. Otherwise this is an excellent film. On a related note, Peter Finch was the first man to win an acting Oscar posthumously for his role as Howard Beale for this movie. Heath Ledger could become the second one to do so this Sunday. Rating: ****

The Counterfeiters: This won the Best Foreign Language film Oscar a couple of years ago. I've seen my fair share of Holocaust films and I was impressed with the originality of this one. Yes, it depicts the terrible conditions that Jewish people endured during this time, but the primary story is of a counterfeit artist who is captured and used by the Germans to create fake dollars and pounds in order to help fund their war effort. This forces him into a situation to either choose between helping the enemy or avoiding the same horrible treatment that his fellow prisoners are enduring. It is a riveting film, but it is subtitled, so if that isn't your thing, you may not enjoy this. Rating: ****

Oscar spoilers?!?

So there is this document floating around the Internet right now supposedly from AMPAS president Sid Ganis which lists all of the winners to this Sunday's Oscar ceremony. A lot of the purported winners seem like the likely choices, but there are a couple that raise some eyebrows. If you're curious, the link is below. Look at your own discretion.

Possible list of Oscar winners

Lecture Circuit (Pt. 2) deleted scenes

#2



#1

Insufficient funds

So I gave myself a treat tonight and saw a sneak preview of The International, starring Clive Owen and Naomi Watts, which opens this Friday. Since this is an early review, let me say "spoilers ahead!"

I put this film on my top 30 to see this year based on the strength of its premise and trailer. Given it's plot about a corrupt bank, it also has the fortune(?) of coming out at a time when most people don't think too highly of economic establishments.

For the first three quarters of this movie, I was really digging it. It does a great job of building suspense by making this European bank, the IBBC, a nefarious organization. It appears that they won't let anything get in their way of global domination and they provide plenty of scenes to make the audience believe that. Not only do you worry for the main characters' safety but you also want to see this bank get taken down.

Trying to stop them is Lou Sallinger (Owen) who's been trying to build a case against the IBBC for years. Owen turns in another one of those glowering performances that he can only do, but in this case it works. Helping Sallinger out is Watts, who plays a New York FBI agent. Her role is actually kind of underwritten and seems frivolous at times. It seems a shame to waste some as talented as her in a thankless role like this.

As Sallinger gets closer and closer to exposing this organization, the tension builds. Unfortunately, the film climaxes too soon. The best moment of the film comes from an unbelieveable shootout scene done in the Guggenheim museum. This is pure unadulterated action that just keeps building in awesomeness. Having this bloody battle done with the backdrop of this pristine setting just makes for a really cool scene. I don't want to gush, but the scene is so great, it's almost worth the price of admission alone.

Like I said though, once that scene is over, the film limps to a finish. A major factor in this is that they wrote themselves into a corner. As Sallinger interrogates one of IBBC key players, he says that it's impossible to truly take the bank down. Their reach is so wide that there would be too many people invested in seeing the company thrive to let anyone expose it for what it's really doing. Now this statement in of itself is fine. The film had clearly established the strength of the bank throughout the film, so what he says is plausible. But if we're to buy into that, then there isn't a whole lot you can do to create a satisfying ending.

At that point, they either have to create some deux ex machina that would seem phony or you have to create a more philosophical finish where you have to accept moral victories over actual ones. And while neither of those options seems appealing, what this film does is even worse. They try finding a happy medium between those two options. The end result is a befuddling and anti-climatic finish. As the movie ends, you're left with too many loose ends that you want answers to. The film tries to answer these in a cheesy newspaper montage as the credits roll, but by that point it's too late.

Overall, while the film seems somewhat relevant given what's currently going on with our financial institutions, you also get the sense that this movie has been sitting on the shelf for a while. In fact, doing a little reading on the film, it seems that the film did some reshoots in order to bolster up the action. If any of the Guggenheim stuff was added late in the process, I shudder to think what this movie was like before it.

One final thing I will say though is that this movie is beautifully shot. Scenes are shot across the globe and are beautifully done. If aesthetics is something you enjoy in the film, well then this one has got it going on.

In the end, I'm going to give this the mildest of recommendations. The film was able to build up enough goodwill that it's unsatisfying ending didn't completely ruin anything. It's not at Cast Away level, but you will be disappointed with the film's finish. Still if you're looking for something to see at the cineplex, this is a decent alternative to all of the romantic comedy dreck that's being shoveled out there right now. Grade: B-

Hitching up some trailers

A couple new trailers of interest.

First is Observe and Report, which will, unbelieveably, be our second mall cop movie of the year. The trailer is red band, so this one isn't aimed at the kids like Paul Blart was. I got more of an action vibe than a comedy vibe though from the trailer. While there were some decent parts, I'm not completely sold on this movie. By the way, I have a feeling I know who the mysterious streaker is in the movie and if I'm right, I'll be so disappointed that they made it so obvious.




The other trailer is the newest one for Angels and Demons. After being on the fence about this sequel given the mediocrity of The Da Vinci Code, I'm now fully on board after seeing this. All indications are that they fixed a lot of the complaints with the previous film. No long hair, more action, compelling story are all here. Let's hope I'm right and this isn't a case of a trailer leading me astray.

NMR: Big names, small films

Here's a couple of films that really flew under the radar in '08, yet both have pretty decent casts.

Transsiberian: Starring Woody Harrelson, Ben Kingsley, and Emily Mortimer this film begins with a Hitchcockian vibe. Harrelson and Mortimer played a married couple travelling on the Transiberian train from China to Russia. Along the way they meet another couple who may be hiding their true intentions for being on the trip. The first half of the film is intense and mysterious, but once you figure out where it's going the film gets pretty stupid. Characters making illogical decisions and a 'only in Hollywood' ending mar what was turning out to be a decent thriller. It's available to view instantly on Netflix, so you may want to check it out. Rating: ***

The Lucky Ones: I typically don't watch movies on the Iraq war, but this one seemed to be more of a road trip film than about the war. Tim Robbins, Rachel McAdams, and Michael Pena are three soldiers on 30-day leaves who meet each other on their way back to the U.S. They each have different personal issues that they need to deal with and end up forming a bond along the way. It does a nice job of blending emotions as you watch these characters go on this journey. Rachel McAdams is absolutely adorable here and she was one of the main reasons why I rented it in the first place. I was not keen on how the film ends, but it's probably a more realistic ending. If you want something different and light, this is a decent choice. Rating: ****

Lecture Circuit (Pt. 1) deleted scenes

#2



#1

Know your role

I needed a break tonight, so I went over and caught Role Models at the budget theater before it leaves this weekend.

And as I sit here trying to type up a review, I'm struggling to come up with a lot to say. In this case, it's an example of 'perfectly acceptable filmmaking'. The film certainly wasn't bad. Yet, it also didn't rise above the material and become something special. It has a competent story and a number of laughs, but didn't leave a lasting impression on me. In other words, it's the perfect budget theater movie.

A large part of the blame lies squarely on the shoulders of the film's trailer. It pretty much spells everything out for you in it. You're given the premise, an understanding of the main characters and a sense of how things will turn out. It ended up not leaving a lot of surprises for the actual film. It takes quite a while before you see something in the film that you feel is fresh or unrecognizable.

Contributing to the lack of surprise though is the film's characters. Now don't get me wrong, this film has a great cast and each of them deliver funny performances. But none of these characters truly get developed, nor do they go against the roles we've seen these actors play before. Wow it's Paul Rudd as the smarmy guy. Hey, it's Sean William Scott as the party animal. There's Christopher Mintz-Plasse (aka McLovin) as the geeky teen. It's as if the film was written based on who the actors were instead of creating the characters first and letting the actors work at making them coming to life. Even Elizabeth Banks, who we all know I love, isn't given much to do here besides being the adorable girlfriend.

About the only person who really rises above the material is the always reliable Jane Lynch. Playing the director of Sturdy Wings (the Big Brothers-esque organization that the main characters have to volunteer at), Lynch has a lot of fun playing this no-nonsense character. Her character delivers all of these great lines that sound tough and intimidating but truly don't fit within the context of the conversation. Having Rudd and Scott play straight men to these lines just add to their humor.

While director David Wain (The Ten) may not have the clout that Judd Apatow has in Hollywood, he does still manage to corral a great group of supporting players to play bit parts in the film. Most of them are people you may not know by name, but will easily recognize. And each of them are successful at wringing out a few laughs from their characters.

Of course the plot here, while unrealistic, is pretty formulaic. I didn't have a major problem with it though because it never felt heavy-handed. The idea of boys becoming men isn't revolutionary, but the ideas used to support this story work and seem fresh. I think everyone will think twice about laughing at those who are fans of Dungeons and Dragons and other fantasy related games. Watching these guys 'battle' in the film probably will make a lot of people want to unleash their inner 'Braveheart'.

If the story is lacking anywhere it's in the set up. We really don't get a good sense of why any of these characters are the way that they are. For a comedy, I suppose backstory isn't essential, but it would have been nice. Providing a foundation for who these characters are may have made us care about them a bit more instead of passive watching them and laughing at the funny things they say.

I would definitely recommend this as a rental. If you enjoy these actors, this is another fine entry in their growing list of work. It has plenty of laughs and won't tax your mind. Just don't expect anything special from this movie. It's a role model of the ordinary. Grade: B

Some quick TV thoughts

Heroes - I was pleasantly surprised to see that the new chapter didn't suck. Small praise, but the show really lowered the bar for themseleves with the narrative nightmare they created in the first half of this season. Yes, the rounding up of people with powers isn't new, but at least they've given themselves a more focused storyline that has proven to work in the past. Now all they've got to do is kill off one of the original characters (and make it last!) in order to give this show some significance again. Until they do, they'll just be spinning their wheels into obliviion.

24 - I've really enjoyed this season. They've made some changes to adapt to our changing real world and they've seemed to work without feeling forced. I like the rogue CTU squad, but I worry about Tony's true intentions. Anything involving the new female president is a major snoozefest, but for the most part it's been kept to a minimum. The new female FBI agent has been a great addition and aint too bad looking either. I can't wait for the eventual Chloe vs. Janis showdown. And of course, Jack is still Jack, which is always a good thing.

CSI - Just want to comment on how sad, yet wondefully done Grissom's exit episode was. Yes, I know he'll probably be back in some capicity down the line, but it's still sad to see him go. However, I've really like the addition of Laurence Fishburne. In just a few episodes he provides the show with more gravitas than CSI Miami could ever have with David Caruso. Seeing these episodes now though it seems like losing Warrick and Sara has had a more negative effect on the show. There just aren't as many different pairings with the staff, which makes things boring. They need to go ahead and promote lab rat Wendy already. And speaking of the lab rats, I can't believe I actually enjoy Hodges now. The writers have done a nice job of making his appearances something that adds to the show rather than detracts.

Lost - Like the broken record in the opening episode, my head continues to be spinning trying to unpack everything that's being unloaded on us thus far this season. And in case you're unsure, I mean that as a compliment. Time travel can always be a tricky thing, but I think it's paid off thus far on this show and I think it's going to continue to provide us with a number of shockers (like Widmore being an Other!) and answers (now we know why Richard wanted young Locke to pick the compass). I love how Faraday has become such a main player this season. Frankly, I want every episode to remain on the island. Aside from Ben and Desmond, I'm not all that interested in anyone off the island right now. Still though, this has been a killer season so far and I can't wait each week for a new episode.

One other tidbit that I don't want to have to make a whole new post for...it was announced today that the CW is bringing Reaper back earlier than originally planned. The season 2 premiere will now air Tuesday March 3 at 8pm. Let the hell-raising being!

Stress Relief deleted scenes

#2



#1

Grand re-opening

So, surprise surprise I couldn't stay away. Actually after discussing things with my dissertation chair, I realized that it would just be impossible to finish this thing by the end of February, even if I was locked in front of my computer the entire time. I'm now shooting for a summer graduation, which is completely reasonable. That means that while I'll still be extremely busy for the next few months, I have the luxury of posting things on here when I get the chance. So come on back and tell your friends!

Temporarily closing up shop

It's with a heavy heart that I have to announce that there won't likely be any new posts on here for at least a month. Late last week I had a meeting with my dissertation advisor and learned that I basically have to be done writing my dissertation by the end of February if I want to graduate in May. As you may guess, I'm currently nowhere near done, which means I have to devote every waking moment from here on out on it so that it can be done. It won't be easy, but if I've got any chance of doing it, it will take eliminating all fun distractions like television and blogging. I've put up a number of posts today to somewhat compensate for my absence, but I know it'll barely tide you over. I'm sorry to all my readers that you too have to suffer from this drought. But the good news is is that if I succeed in finishing this thing by the end of February, it will mean I will have practically nothing to do come March, April, and May, which will be sweet! So goodbye for now, but please now that I will be back soon enough...and with a vengeance!

Quickie Royal Rumble thoughts

I don't usually share wrestling thoughts on here, but since I plunked down money on this show, I figured I might as well spout off on what I thought about it:

ECW title match - This was my first real chance to see new ECW champ, Jack Swagger in action and I'm moderately impressed. It seems that while he may not have the flashiness of a true WWE superstar, he appears to have a lot of raw talent. I'm not sure if making him a 'world champion' five months into his tenure is a wise move, but let's face it, ECW clearly is a glorified developmental league at this point, which is fine for the most point; it's just unnecessary for them to have a World champ. Anyways, the match itself was well worked and it provided the necessary storytelling seeds for what was to come later.

Women's title match - Why oh why take the title off of the Glamazon, especially when you don't factor Santino or Rosa Mendez into the finish even though you've been using them as major factors in the build to this feud. There is no reason to give the title to Melina when I haven't seen her wrestle one match where she doesn't blow several spots. I don't know how many times it has to fail before Melina realizes that she cannot properly sell a sidewalk slam. The highlight of the match comes from Beth literally (and I'm not using that term like Gorilla Monsoon uses it) literally was beating Melina with her own foot. You have to see it to believe it. Aside from that, it was you typicaly subpar effort from the women.

Cena vs. JBL - They had even set up so perfectly. JBL said he would pay HBK in full plus guarantee him a spot in the Rumble if he guarantted him a title victory. What is the downside to this?!?! Hurting Cena's feelings? Disappointing a handful of 10 year olds? Shame on Shawn for not seeing this through. Of course he had to superkick both of them and then leave before seeing everything play out. And of course Superman Cena was able to 'overcome the odds' and still leave as champ. A fully disappointing outing, but one that I've come to expect from all Cena matches.

Hardy vs. Edge - And so the Hardy experiment ends as his first title defense also is his last. I'm torn here as I like Edge and am always glad to see him win the title, but I'm not sure if now was the best time for it. Seeing Matt Hardy turn on his brother and cost him the title was and was not a surprise. They've planted the seeds of jealousy, but we've been expecting a returning Christian to be behind this all along. His no-show was certainly a disappointment. Overall this was an entertaining brawl but nothing memorable.

Royal Rumble match - The Rumble match suffered the same problem that the previous two also suffered from. There have just been too many guys in there without sufficient eliminations. It's like they can't figure out how to tell decent mid-match stories and they're too afraid to make anyone look weak, so they'll have practically everyone stay in until the end and then do a mass exodus before finishing things off. There were a couple of nice moment this year including several guys doing awesome jobs of avoiding elimination (Mysterio, John Morrison, Chris Jericho). You also had a returning RVD, which was a shocking surprise and I have no idea if it was a one time deal or leading to a full time return. Orton winning it was pretty disgusting and apparent about halfway through the match. I would be more upset about it, but I've learn that it's pointless to get worked up over something that has been a long-time that has no apparent chance of being rectified. Once again Orton manages to find a way to back himself into a top spot (this time thanks to Batista's injury). This guy truly is the epitome of failing upwards.

Browns hire their new GM

Browns hire Kokinis

I don't know what the feeling in Cleveland has been over how the Browns have handled their new hires in this off-season, but from where I stand they have bungled things royally. First of all, they should have hired a GM first before their head coach. Secondly, they rushed into hiring the 'Mangenius' and there have been other, better coaches which have come available in the meantime. Then they finally hire their GM and it's another ex Baltimore Raven. Did they learn nothing from the debacle of Phil Savage? I would have really liked for the Browns to right the ship after their house cleaning, but these moves just prove that I should only care about the Indians and the Cavs for the foreseeable future. If you see any silver lining in this dark cloud, please share so I can have some hope restored in this franchise.

Prince Family Paper deleted scenes

#2



#1

NMR: Documentary Duo

The Aristocrats: If you're not familiar with the age-old joke, The Aristocrats starts with the premise of a man pitching his family's variety act. It's then up to the person telling the joke to come up with the most vulgar act possible and then at the end of the joke, proclaim that the act is called 'The Aristocrats'. This documentary chronicles over a hundred different famous comedians discussing the origins of the joke, how it's crafted and their own versions of telling it. It's a unique concept and at times really provides some insight into the creative process of a comedian. Unfortunately, the premise doesn't hold up for 90 minutes. A lot of it has to do with the unrelenting nature of hearing all of these loud, fast-talking comedians speaking at their filthiest. There are occassional moments of both hilarity and intrigue, but ultimately it gets tiresome rather quickly. Rating: ***


Man on Wire: Recently nominated for an Academy Award for Best Documentary and deservedly so. This is the film which chronicles high wirewalker Phillipe Petit and his attempt to walk across the Twin Towers during the 1970s. It doesn't seem like it would be that engaging of a premise to sustain itself for a full film, but it does. A large part of that is due to the wonderful storytelling skills that Petit and the crew that helped him achieve this feat possess. At times the films plays like a real life Ocean's 11. The film is equal parts high risk adventure tale and love story to the World Trade Center buildings. It would be easy to dismiss this film, but I'm confident that if you give it a chance, you will quickly get wrapped up in the story. If you're at all interested, it's currently available to watch instantly on Netflix, so give it a look and see for yourself. Rating: *****

NMR: More '08 leftovers

Righteous Kill: This was supposed to be a big deal because it reteamed DeNiro and Pacino for the first time since Heat. But the September release date should have tipped you off that something wasn't right. This is just a terrible movie filled with cop movie cliches and a narrative that's all over the place. Worse of all, I figured out very early on who the killer was. It's no fun sitting through a bad movie knowing what the inevitable outcome is going to be. It's surprising that the script is so bad considering it was written by the same guy who did Inside Man. I will say that DeNiro and Pacino seem to be having a lot of work playing off of each other here, but it's not enough to warrant a recommendation from me. Grade: D+

The Visitor: Sometimes you don't need big name stars to make great films, and this is an example of that. It stars Richard Jenkins, who you may not have known before but had a big '08 with this, Step-Brothers, and Burn After Reading. His performance is what makes this film so great. It's about a man who visits his apartment in New York and finds it's been illegally rented to a couple of illegal immigrants (one from Syria, the other from Senegal). From this bizarre set of circumstances, he strikes a friendship with the two and gains a new outlook on life. Now that description may sound very hackneyed, but the film rises above those common conventions. I think it really struck a chord with me because Jenkins' character is a college professor, so I'm familiar with that world and felt it was authentic. This is a quiet film that will stir a mix of emotions in you as you watch this character change throughout the course of the movie. Jenkins deserves an Oscar nomination for this, but I worry he'll get passed over in place of bigger, flashier names. Still, I would recommend giving this one a rental. Grade: B+

The Business of Being Porn

I finally caught Zach and Miri Make a Porno last week at the budget theater, but for various reasons, am just writing about it now. Let's hope I still remember everything I wanted to say about it.

I've never been a huge Kevin Smith fan. I've seen some of his films and found them to be funny, but not worthy of the cult status some people have placed upon them. His fan-base though seemed to be losing faith in though recently with a series of disappointing films. However, when I heard this one was going to star Seth Rogen and Elizabeth Banks, I had high expectations and for the most part it delivers. Smith was smart in infusing some of the Apatow magic into his films by recruiting a few of his crew to star in the film. If nothing else, it guaranteed getting a few more people to watch the movie, who normally would have dismissed it.

Playing the titular characters, Rogen and Banks are great at playing the characters that they're familar with. Rogen works as the fat, schlubby, but likeable guy and Banks has that wonderful girl next door quality that still possesses a naughty side. They not only play their characters well, but they also work well with each other. While seeing Seth Rogen date Katherine Heigl in Knocked Up might have seemed a bit of a stretch, you can totally believe that he and Banks would be best friends (and maybe a little bit more) here.

One of the things that Kevin Smith does well in this and a lot of his films is create a realistic atmosphere. While Apatow may do a better job at creating characters and placing them in realistic situations, Smith provides settings for his films that seem authentic and gritty, yet also ordinary. Here, you really get a sense of the poverty and dire situation that these characters are in that would drive them to an outrageous idea like making a pornographic film for money. From the decrepit apartment, to the dead-end job at a coffee place, to the brutal cold of a Pittsburg winter; all of these things do a nice job of adding the layers needed to make the films' premise work.

Sometimes that realistic grittiness is taken a big too far. I was surprised as to how much sex was actually in the film, especially when it's being done by less than savory characters (including Smith regular, Jason Mewes). But there's one seen that is so disgusting that I'll forever have nightmares about it. I won't spell it out here, but you'll definitely know what I'm talking about when you see it.

That raunchy style of humor is found throughout most of the film, and for the most part it works. I found myself laughing throughout the movie and all the great one-liners. However, I felt that there were times where it was just raunch for the sake of raunch. A lot of it didn't feel organic or natural, but rather just an exhibition in filth. I found myself enjoying more the jokes that were clever observations on real life like Zack and Miri's conversation about Julia Roberts' Sleeping With the Enemy. Four-letter word rants can be funny, but sometimes in this film it can be a bit much.

Criticizing the film's dirty humor may seem hypocritical considering the praise I give to the Apatow films, which also typically feature a lot of r-rated laughs. But here's the primary difference and why this film, while good, doesn't match up to those. In a film like The Forty Year Old Virgin if you took away the dirty jokes, you still have a well told story about a man searching for love and friends that care enough to help him find it. If you take the dirty humor out of this film, you're left with a cliched romance that doesn't really tell us anything that we've haven't heard before.

And in that way, maybe this film really is like a pornographic movie. In both cases, you realy don't watch for the story, but rather for the sex, or in this case, sex jokes. Smith takes familiar tropes and just surrounds them with fresh faces and new jokes. If you laugh, then the movie works and if you don't, then it's a bust. Luckily, I did laugh, which is why I'll recommend this film. Unless you're really uptight and wouldn't appreciate the raunch, you'll likely find this to be a very funny film. It's definitely one of Smith's better efforts in recent years. If you're a fan of his films, you should definitely check it out. Grade: B+

The Duel deleted scenes

#2



#1

From the department of bad ideas...

Here's a couple of movie-related news items that have bad idea written all over them:

Jackie Chan joins The Karate Kid remake
Yes, they are doing another Karate Kid movie. This time with Chan in the Mr. Miyagi and Will Smith's kid in the titular role. Why can't they just leave this franchise alone? I dread the day when someone wants to try a Back to the Future remake.


McG to direct 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea
Despite it's title, this is not a remake per se, but rather a prequel of sorts that looks at the origin story of Captain Nemo. You know, not everyone deserves to have an origin story made about this. Nemo isn't Batman for goodness sakes. And I'm sure with McG directing, Nemo's origin story will somehow involve a lot of explosions and techno music.


Michael Cera still not signed on for Arrested movie
If Cera doesn't agree to do the movie, he'll be the one muttering 'I've made a huge mistake'. Everyone else is on board, so what's taking him so long. He was too integral to the show to be left out. Let it be known that if he doesn't sign on, he'll be put on the 'On Notice' board immediately and you do NOT want that pal.

The Office/non-Office news

First, some casting news for our favorite workplace comedy from Variety:

Idris Elba has been cast on "The Office" as a new rival to Dunder Mifflin regional manager Michael Scott (Steve Carell), reports Variety. Elba will appear in six episodes later this season. He'll play a no-nonsense hire at Dunder Mifflin's corporate office who will throw Michael Scott into turmoil.

Well it's about time we got some new conflict from corporate. Ever since Jan left, Michael really hasn't had to worry about his actions. I'm not familiar with the actor, but I like the idea of this new character.


And then we also have news on the show that was originally meant to be an Office spinoff, but will now be a completely seperate show that's just being run by the same people in charge of The Office. This news comes from Zap2It.com:

Once billed as The Office spin off -- which we now know is not a spin off, yet still created by The Office's producers -- I'm not sure what to call Amy Poehler's upcoming NBC sitcom. However, I do have exclusive details on the concept of the series, which has been kept under wraps for quite some time. Are you ready? A couple nosy moles tell me that, like The Office, it's basically documentary style. Set in the parks & recreation department of a local city government in some podunk town, Poehler will play a delusional employee, totally unaware that she doesn't work in high ranking politics. And of course there will be supporting players around to make fun of her foolish idiocy. Sound too much like another show we already know? Well, I'm hearing that the writers are currently tweaking the concept a bit, but this is the general idea. Any thoughts? I'll give anything with A.P. a shot.

Having worked for a recreation department for many years, this concept probably intrigues me more than most people. Still, I think we're all interested to see if this show turns out as well as The Office. Rumor has it that we can expect to see the first episode of this new show sometime in April

Survivor: Tocantins cast revealed

Well that didn't take long. Here's a video from CBS.com briefly previewing this season's castaways.

NMR: 2008 leftovers

I'm going through a bunch of films from 2008 that came and went from the budget theater before I had a chance of seeing them. Since they're so recent, I'll give my traditional letter grade, but do condensed reviews.

The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor Man, Brenden Fraser once again gets the shaft when it comes to a full length review from me. While there are enjoyable elements to this third installment in the series, the movie is probably coming out three years too late. Too much time has past since The Mummy Returns and since then there have been too many other movie franchises created that are so much better. I liked the idea of a Chinese mummy, so the main plot worked for me. What I didn't care for was the advance in time so that the O'Connell's son is now in his twenties. It just looked silly and out of place. I was also not impressed with Rob Cohen taking over directing duties for Stephen Sommers. The movie looked really fake at times and most of the fighting scenes were edited poorly. Enough of the franchise remains that if you enjoyed the first two, you'll probably find enough to like here. But if you're new to the Mummy scene, this probably isn't worth your time. Overall, everyone is probably better off saving your money and just waiting until this comes out on the USA network (probably about a year from now, haha) Grade: B-

Traitor: This is the film that Body of Lies should have been. Once again, Muslims and the war on terror are used as the plot of a film, but this one is more intriguing and entertaining. Don Cheadle plays Samir Horn, an American muslim who has been recently linked with a terrorist organization that has been behind bombings all over the globe. Both Cheadle and Guy Pearce, playing an FBI agent investigating the bombings, give strong performances here. Unlike most films, I was still guessing through a large portion of the film as to where Samir's allegiances really lied. And even after that's revealed, the film still delivers some surprises that caught my off guard, something I can't say about a lot of movies. While a bit slow at times, this is a solid thriller that was mostly overlooked by American audiences when it came out last August. If you're looking for something in this genre, I'd highly recommend you give this a look. Grade: B+

Looks like I've found my calling

Check out this job opportunity reported on Yahoo news today:

SYDNEY (AFP) – An Australian state is offering internationally what it calls "the best job in the world" -- earning a top salary for lazing around a beautiful tropical island for six months.

The job pays 150,000 Australian dollars (105,000 US dollars) and includes free airfares from the winner's home country to Hamilton Island on the Great Barrier Reef, Queensland's state government announced on Tuesday.

In return, the "island caretaker" will be expected to stroll the white sands, snorkel the reef, take care of "a few minor tasks" -- and report to a global audience via weekly blogs, photo diaries and video updates.

The successful applicant, who will stay rent-free in a three-bedroom beach home complete with plunge pool and golf buggy, must be a good swimmer, excellent communicator and be able to speak and write English.

"They'll also have to talk to media from time to time about what they're doing so they can't be too shy and they'll have to love the sea, the sun, the outdoors," said acting state Premier Paul Lucas.

"The fact that they will be paid to explore the islands of the Great Barrier Reef, swim, snorkel and generally live the Queensland lifestyle makes this undoubtedly the best job in the world."

Lucas said the campaign was part of a drive to protect the state's 18 billion Australian dollar a year tourism industry during the tough economic climate caused by the global financial meltdown.

"Traditional tourism advertising just doesn't cut it sometimes and we are thinking outside the box by launching this campaign."

Queensland Tourism Minister Desley Boyle said some people might question whether it was risky to let an unknown person become an unofficial tourism spokesperson for the state.

"I think the biggest risk will be that the successful candidate won't want to go home at the end of the six months," she said.

"This is a legitimate job which is open to anyone and everyone."

Applications are open until February 22. Eleven shortlisted candidates will be flown to Hamilton Island in early May for the final selection process and the six month contract will commence on July 1.

Job-seekers can apply on .


Islandreefjob.com

Getting paid six figures to be lazy on a tropical island? It was the job I was born to do!