Love, Wedding, Marriage

So I ended up renting this movie because the one I wanted was out at the redbox. It looked pretty generic but my female-ness took over and convinced me to rent it because Kellan Lutz was on the cover. Interestingly enough it was directed by Dermont Mulroney (from My Best Friend's Wedding). The movie was only released in two theaters, which accounts for the reason I'd never heard of it before.

The movie stars Mandy Moore and Kellan Lutz as newlyweds, super gorgeous newlyweds that is. Moore's character is a marriage counselor and she has to deal with the stress of being a newlywed along with her parent's sudden and impending divorce, played by Jane Seymour and James Brolin.

Unfortunately the plot was pretty predictable and cliched. The characters were not very complex. The dialogue wasn't horrible and at times it was a little witty.

All of the cinematic elements were very bland and generic, including the score which probably was recorded in an elevator.

All of the actors were very handsome/pretty. Jane Seymour and James Brolin were funny at times when they were bickering. Mandy Moore and Kellan Lutz were super cute. I'll be honest and it was Lutz' shirtless scenes that made the movie worth it.

In the end, it was pretty generic. I was hoping for something more than what the movie poster looked like, but unfortunately it was just a run of the mill romantic comedy. "Do you promise to have sex at least twice a week?"

One Day

So even though I'd heard bad reviews about this movie, I still wanted to see it because it looked like a cute little love story and I usually like Anne Hathaway. The movie did pretty well overseas and took in a total of $56 million (with only $13 million in domestic sales) and made a nice profit from it's $15 million budget.

The movie is based on a book of the same name about two friends who are almost lovers and the story shows them on the same day, July 15th, for twenty years. Before seeing the movie I thought that they met up on the same day every year but thankfully the story just shows where they are on that day. It starts back in 1988 and goes up to 2011 and it's set in England.

Well the whole premise of the movie is quite gimmicky, but gimmicks can be sweet for a nice little fluffy romantic comedy - which this turned out not to be. It tried to be a realistic adaptation of this couple's life, which is fine but through in the gimmick of showing them on the same day for twenty years and it's like it was mixing it's signals. It also got very distracting trying to keep up with the changes from year to year. As endearing as Anne Hathaway can be, I did not like her character very much nor did I like Jim Sturgess'. Hathaway was weak and waited her whole life basically for a man that did not have very many redeeming qualities, if any. Yes, that is quite realistic because there are tons of women such as that out there, but that doesn't mean they're likeable or at the least bit entertaining. And plain and simple, Jim Sturgess' character was just an ass. So the gimmickyness (that's totally a word) was distracting, then the characters were not very likable (in my opinion). Their courtship was drawn out so long that by the time they did get together, the buildup was gone. Add to the mix the horrible ending. I'm not a fan of the ending, again yes it's very realistic but this movie was trying to be too many things at once and the first half it was trying to be a romantic comedy which totally kills the mood with the second half/ending of the movie.

Plot aside, they did a great job of recreating the 90's in this movie. The wardrobe, set design, and especially hair was fantastic. Really captured the essence of the time period. The titles were nicely done. The soundtrack was also very nostalgic.

So even though I'm not a fan of the plot, the actors did great. Anne Hathaway played the role well, even if I wasn't a fan of the character. I've also read a lot of criticisms of her accent, but I didn't really notice anything, but I'm not an expert on British accents. The only real fakes I can usually spot are the horrible southern drawls that some attempt. In any event her character was much more likable than Sturgess'. Don't get me wrong, Sturgess did a great job as well especially with his scenes near the end of the movie.

In the end, I wasn't a fan of this movie. It's hard for me to not like something about a movie if a lot of effort was put into it and I did enjoy the cinematic elements and the actor's performances. I just didn't care for the characters or the story. The gimmick of the one day thing took away from the seriousness they were trying to achieve with the story. I'm all for realistic relationship movies, i.e. Blue Valentine, but you can't send mixed signals, at least in my opinion. It's as if one half of the movie was a romantic comedy, although a little slow and boring, and the second half was a heartfelt drama. "She made you decent and in return you made her so happy, so happy."

The Art of Getting By

So I had wanted to see this movie for awhile since seeing the trailer awhile back. It just looked like it was going to have that existential indie flare that I've come to love so much. It's a directorial debut from Gavin Wiesen and it has Emma Roberts, Michael Angarano, Freddie Highmore, Blair Underwood, Rita Wilson, Elizabeth Reaser, and this little side character played by the Alicia Silverstone.

At it's core the movie is about two friends who are almost more, Emma Roberts and Freddie Highmore. It's also about Freddie's character and his struggle with his existential apathy which plagues him during his senior year of high school.

I loved the dialogue in the movie as all of the characters, especially Higmore's, was quite witty and self-referential. His existential inner debates with himself are totally relatable in my opinion. The movie plays out centered around the two friends who should be, could be, more which I always enjoy for some reason. All of the other characters in his life are just as complicated and plagued however they show/don't show it in different ways. It was really a very smart plot which I enjoyed greatly.

I'm downloading the soundtrack tonight! It opened with one of my favorite Shins songs directly from my iPod and continued with great tracks in keeping with the melodramatic tone of the Shins. Sountrack aside, the movie was filmed beautifully. Every shot was framed beautifully. I especially loved the shot of the two characters walking in opposite directions in a wide angle down the same street. Just beautiful. The soft focus used on the close ups were also equally as beautiful. Each scene had a different color palette according to the mood and it was just great. Loved it.

Freddie Highmore did a great job with this character, although I couldn't help but see the kid from August Rush up there doing grown up things. I kept thinking he's too young for all of it! Emma Roberts is really picking smart roles lately and I was impressed. Michael Angarano did great, as always, but it's the first time I've also realized that he's not that young anymore either. Perhaps my old age was just creeping up on me in this movie.

Overall, I really enjoyed the film. It's a little dramedy about existentialism and friends who should be more - two things I always enjoy. Not to mention that it was artistically directed. Props to Wiesen for putting the effort into all of the elements of the movie instead of just advancing the plot forward. "In the history of the world, there have been something like 110 billion people born and not a single one of them has made it".

I'm a Cyborg, But That's OK

So just the title of this movie made me want to see it. Of course I checked out the trailer since I hadn't heard of this movie before, which reminded me that I'm not that up to date on foreign movies. It looked really quirky and unique, which are two of my favorite things in movies - and people. The movie is from the same guy who directed and wrote Oldboy! This movie is far from that movie.

This is a Korean movie with that guy Rain(?) in it. It's about a young girl who believes she is, yes, a cyborg. She is admitted to a mental hospital where there are other funny/quirky crazy people there. She is befriended by a guy who can steal things from people, i.e. their sympathy, voice, ability to win at ping-pong games, regular stuff like that.

It's not one of those depressing, realistic, coming-of-age mental hospital movies. It's simply a fun 'romantic comedy' without being a romantic comedy. Make sense? Great. The plot was so fresh and unique, for a boring American such as myself. The story was really for those idealistic children at heart. All of the characters were interesting and funny without being obvious.

The editing was fast and fun and kept the movie interesting and heartwarming. The colors and set design was so beautiful and kept the tone of the movie fun and exciting. The imagery was so vibrant and just beautiful. There was also a lot of greens and blues in the movie which were so pretty. All of the angles and lenses were just smooth and great.

The girl, rather cyborg, did a fantastic job. You believed that she believed she was a cyborg. Rain was very entertaining to watch and kept the pacing of the story upbeat.

It was a nice and fun movie. Completely different from the mind-twisting Oldboy. Oldboy was a great movie, don't get me wrong, but this movie is never dark and my mind did not explode from watching this movie. "I'm not a psy-cho, I'm a cy-borg".

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011)

So, originally I wasn't exactly psyched when I heard about this remake. The original was so good and it transcended culturally in my opinion so I didn't see the need for a remake, but oh well. I then completely fell in love with Matt Reeves' Let Me In (which which is another American remake of an awesome Swedish movie) and that made me raise my expectations for this movie somewhat. The movie has been out in the theaters for about two weeks now and has grossed $32 million, with a budget of $90 million.

I've seen, and loved, the original movie and I've read a couple of chapters of the book it's based from. Yes, I lost interest in the book. I'm sure it's a great book, I'm just not into this whole murder mystery genre and lost my motivation to finish the book. I'm a fan more or less of David Fincher; Panic Room - hell yes!, The Social Network - not so much. I think the thing about Fincher is not really his stylistic approach to his movies, it's that he chooses great stories to tell and tells them well. That's really no different in this movie. At it's core the movie is a murder mystery but it bring in ingenuity with it's two leads, Michael Blomvkist and Lisbeth Salander, with the latter being one of the best written contemporary female characters in my opinion. A gothic androgynous hacker girl who teams together with a fallen from grace political reporter to solve a 40 year old murder? It's just destined to be a great story.

There were several key differences in the plot in this movie from the original, and unfortunately I don't know which was closer to the book. The differences in this movie were slight but they made both Michael and Lisbeth more equal in regards to their relationship. In the original movie, Lisbeth basically figured everything out on her own and helped out because of her interest in Michael. In this movie however, Michael was about equal, in terms of the investigation at least, well and also the relationship between the two. Their relationship is more linear in this movie. Also there is a lot more sex and nudity, but that's what Americans want right? Actually I'm not complaining, Daniel Craig is very easy on the eyes. The gore seemed a little subdued in this movie, which was surprising, but enjoyed by myself as I'm not a big fan of violence, or gore, and even gorey violence. The movie was about as long as the original: two and a half hours! This movie lead more into the second one which will give a nice tie in to the next one. Lisbeth was kind of more of a bad-ass in this movie as well.

The movie was not that stylized, except for the extreme imagery in the title sequence, the long rolling shots, and quick jump cuts. The title sequence was like a music video but pretty cool. I also did really like the long rolling shots like the one going down the tree-lined driveway to the Vanger house and Fincher also did a nice long shot during the horrible rape scene where the action would jump to a backwards rolling shot of the closed door and back. Yes, the score was good. One of the characters even wore a Nine Inch Nails shirt. Wink, wink.

So Daniel Craig did a very nice job in my opinion. He has a great body, but that's beside the point. He wasn't quite as vulnerable as in the original movie, which I suspect is closer to the book. Even though, he still played the character quite well. I guess Bond just can't play vulnerable that well. Rooney Mara did great. She didn't just wear black clothes and piercings, she played the character. Although Noomi Rapace made that character.

So in the end, it was all about the story. The score and cinematography blended together nicely to keep the story feeling genuine and interesting for two and a half hours, even though I knew what was coming. It felt a little bit more focused on the two characters than the original, perhaps because Fincher had the advantage of knowing that two movies would be following this one. I loved loved loved Let Me In because of the stylistic approach Reeves had taken to enhance the first but this Dragon Tattoo doesn't feel as stylized and just a larger budget re-telling of the same story where you don't have to read subtitles. It did feel smoother and had a more consistent pace than the original, which one would expect with $90 million. I enjoyed the movie. It was on the same level as the first. "Put your hand back in my shirt" -- The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo

The Change-Up

So I had wanted to see this movie only because of Jason Bateman and Ryan Reynolds, well and because of all the talk about the R-rated humor in this movie. Other than that, it didn't seem very appealing given this plot has been re-done one million times. The movie did pull in $71 million, surpassing it's $52 million budget.

I don't even need to summarize the plot here but here it is anyway: Two male friends leading different lives switch bodies Freaky Friday style, or Vice Versa style, or The Hot Chick style, or I could go on and on.

This movie was written by two of the guys that also worked on Wedding Crashers and 27 Dresses. However they also worked on Mr. Woodcock and Chicken Little. The characters were pretty one-dimensional but I really didn't expect anything more given this was going to focus on the situational comedy, one-liners, and banter between the great Leslie Mann, Jason Bateman, and Ryan Reynolds. The only thing that really sets this movie apart from the countless rest, is the rated R nature of the plot. That being said, it was almost as if the movie was trying too hard to get that R rating and it didn't feel very natural. It was like there was a curse word quota thrown into each scene which felt weird and very scripted. Most of the bits fell flat for me. I mean, even the nudity was computer generated, again reinforcing the forced feeling of the R rating. Even though the plot was trying to be unique with it's adult themed humor, it fell victim to numerous cliches.

The sets were very pretty in the movie, I will give it that. Props to the set designer. Wardrobe was also nice. The pace was a little bit uneven and the movie jumped right into the plot within the first few scenes.

I still think that the three main actors did good. I wish they would've just let the cameras roll a little longer and got some more banter and ad-libbing in there instead of the scripted bits. Olivia Wilde seemed experienced in her role and believable.

In the end, I didn't find the movie very amusing. It just felt way too forced and scripted. A good comedy should feel natural and unprovoked, at least in my opinion. "You mean I can't sleep with my wife and I can't sleep with other women?! What's that? -- Marriage."

Our Idiot Brother

So who wouldn't want to see this movie; Paul Rudd, Rashida Jones, Zooey Deschanel, Elizabeth Banks, Hugh Dancy, Adam Scott?! Yes, please. Throw into the mix that it's directed by Jesse Peretz who happens to be the same guy who directed the funniest episode of New Girl (the bad in bed episode) as well as a slew of Demetri Martin's Important Things. The movie pulled in about $24 million worldwide, which is a pretty nice profit given it's $5 million budget.

I ended up renting the DVD and watching it with my dad and he now swears it's the best movie of the decade. I'm not quite sure where that's coming from but it was a good movie nonetheless. Best movie of the decade? No.

Paul Rudd's character was very well written and one of my favorite characters to come along in awhile. He is an idealist and I love his ideals! The rest of his zany family were well written however there wasn't enough time in the movie for them to develop as much as Paul Rudd's however they did have more layers than the normal plot device family members. The plotline of the movie is a situational comedy however it was really how these characters reacted to these situations that provided the best parts of the movie in my opinion. The ending was cliched while poking fun at the cliche at the same time and providing a little chuckle. This movie, in my opinion, was more about the characters and their outlooks on life rather than the situations they found themselves in.

The movie was bright and had unique locations which is impressive given it's $5 million budget (given the impressive cast I'd venture a guess that most of the budget went to the salaries). I loved the soundtrack. Full of subtle relaxing music. Just my style.

Everyone did great in the movie. Paul Rudd was the main character but everyone else was equally as supporting. Although Emily Mortimer's character was a little depressing. There was a chemistry between the family which felt real. I enjoyed seeing Zooey portray an R-rated version of the character that she seems to have perfected in her most recent roles. Paul Rudd did a good job of playing the character and not just playing himself in a hippie sketch.

Overall, it was a good movie. It was a feel-good movie without being a fee-good movie. That totally makes sense, once you see it. The only thing was there was a lot of cliches in the movie, but again it was the characters that drew you in and almost made you forget about the convenient timing and cliched plot turns. "I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt and more often than not, they will live up to it" -- Our Idiot Brother

Melancholia

So I finally saw it; this movie everyone's been raving about with Kirsten Dunst's Cannes winning performance. The movie has grossed almost $10 million worldwide, with most of it being foreign earnings. I'm not that up to date with Lars Von Trier's work but I did immensely enjoy Dogville from several years ago. 


The plot is somewhat original and interesting in that it follows two sisters as another planet approaches earth in a so called 'death dance' that will result in the destruction of both planets. 


While the plot premise at face values suggests that this might be an armageddon-type end of the world apocalyptic movie. However, knowing Von Trier of course this cannot be taken at face value. Now I won't claim to understand all of the symbolism and meaning in Von Trier's movies but here's my stab at it. The two sisters in the movie are very well written with one representing optimism and the other cynicism. Or, not exactly cynicism but rather a view of the world matter-of-factly and the sort of detachment that accompanies this type of view. The oncoming planet to me represents turmoil, disaster, war, the economy, etc. It's just this looming ball of destruction and how our two sisters deal with it's presence in their lives. The one sister, Justine (Dunst), attempts and fails to create any real attachments during the first part of the movie when Melancholia is still a distant star. However, when the planet is obviously on a collision course with earth, Justine is quite calm and prepared for this type of disaster, inadvertently becoming the strong sister. While Claire on the other hand, played by Charlotte Gainsbourg, is optimistic about the world and works hard to help her sister in the beginning. When Melancholia approaches, she begins to heavily rely on others for her own peace of mind and eventually becomes frantic at the reality of the world which is looming upon them. I think this shows how much each sister is connected and attached to the world they are living in. 

The opening sequence of the film is my favorite; highly stylized and beautiful. We're presented with several slow motion sequences showing us how the movie will end. Action and dialogue is given equal screen time in the movie, which is something I usually enjoy. I find it frustrating when movies jump from dialogue to dialogue without showing how the characters arrived there or what they did in between. Life is not filled with constant dialogue. 


Kirsten Dunst won best actress at Cannes for her role. I've always enjoyed her as an actress and she does superb in this movie as well. I was expecting something over-the-top in this role because of all the talk about it, however it was much more subdued and melancholy :). I'm surprised I haven't heard more about Gainsbourg's performance. I thought she did equally as amazing. Perhaps I empathized more with her character being a mother, but I think she deserves more credit. Stellan Skarsgard was also a pleasure to watch. Yes, I watch True Blood, but he did a good job in his role and played the character much differently than Eric. 

This is a movie that sticks with you. It's got lots of symbolism and I'm sure much deeper meaning than my mind can encompass. It is a Von Trier film so it's not for everyone. He is a stylized film-maker. His films are works of art. If you want to just escape into a story, this one's not for you although this does have a chronological plot. I think at it's core level this movie shows us different ways people deal with the truth of the world, whatever that truth may be. Some of us hide it completely and can't deal with the pressure when the truth comes out, others embrace the knowledge of the truth and therefore lose their connection with the world around them, and some cling to their connection with others to deal with their different emotions about the truth. It's an interesting film nonetheless. "It cost an arm and a leg . . . for most people" 

Breaking Dawn

Can I look at this movie objectively? Nope. This is a completely biased and subjective review I'm afraid. 

This whole saga is a guilty pleasure of mine, except I don't feel so guilty about it. Somehow I am able to (along with the rest of it's fanbase apparently) overlook the subpar cinematography (in the last two at least), plot holes, and convenient rules. Somehow I still can't convince myself not to like these movies. 


After seeing the trailer for this latest movie, my heart dropped; it sucked. It looked so commercialized and like pure fluff. I had low low expectations. My favorite of the franchise has always been the first; then, I enjoyed the darkness and bits and pieces of the cinematography in new moon; and pretty much felt indifferent towards Eclipse. 


The movie now claims the third biggest midnight opening ever behind it's own New Moon and the last Harry Potter (Althought I haven't heard much mentioned about the inflated 3D prices included in the Deathly Hallows). It's also got the 5th biggest weekend ever. Some study also said that the audience was 60% 21 and older and 80% female. Damn. We can't blame it all on the tweens anymore. 


The few critic reviews I've read don't like this one very much. I'm trying to be objective here but it's hard to look at this movie as not being a fan. It's pretty simple though; if you don't like the twilight franchise, you're probably not going to like this movie. If you are a fan of the franchise, I don't see how you cannot like this movie. 


Some, okay most, of the plotline is pretty far-fetched but somehow it's pulled off in this movie. There was almost zero parts of this movie that were un-deliberately funny (except for the worst scene in the history of movies, i.e. the wolf pack scene with voice changers). The writing was smart and the characters finally matured into themselves. There was valuable screen time given to all the characters without feeling forced. I especially enjoyed how the editing didn't just cut from scene to scene in a linear fashion but took a roundabout unique approach, like when Bella was remembering her honeymoon night spliced with little flashback scenes or when a revolving camera shot showed both of their vows cut together. It was just these little choices that were my favorite. I also loved the editing at the end. It was just spot on. 


The cgi emaciation effects in the movie were stellar and such a great enhancement to the movie in my opinion. The second half of the movie really did feel like a separate movie but somehow flowed naturally from the first half. There was some natural humor thrown in the movie as well which was refreshing. 


The three main actors did surprisingly great. I'm not surprised because I doubted their abilities, rather because the previous movies hadn't devoted much time to their character development instead losing out to plot development. I've heard a lot of people say that finally Kristen Stewart is smiling, but this is the first time her character has been truly free to be happy. In the previous movies there's always been this elephant in the room preventing her character's happiness that has been almost eradicated in this one. 


Ok, well in the end I really enjoyed this movie because of all the smart decisions made therein. The movie didn't just go along in a linear fashion making sure to hit the major plot points (i.e. Eclipse), it actually took time to establish tone and create a mood for the scenes. While I've always enjoyed the stylized cinematography employed by Catherine Hardwicke, this movie was filmed beautifully and each shot was well thought out. 


It almost feels like there won't be a need for a Part 2, however I now have faith in Bill Condon that Part 2 will make as much sense as Part 1. 


So there it is, a horribly biased look at the movie. Though, it doesn't much matter. If you're not a fan, you won't see it and if you are a fan, you've already seen it. "Childhood is not from birth to a certain age. At a certain age the child is grown and puts away childish things. Childhood is the kingdom where nobody dies" -- Breaking Dawn pt. 1. 

Friends With Benefits

So yes, I was one of the few people who liked No Strings Attached. And yes, it's impossible to talk about one without mentioning the other. I just can't help it. I went in to this movie with low expectations because I liked the first one with Natalie Portman and Ashton Kutcher and didn't think this would surpass that. I proved myself wrong. I should've realized I would like this movie since I loved Will Gluck's other movie, Easy A. I hate to say it, but this version was better. The movie has earned more than $52 million so far, leaving it's $35 million budget in it's tracks.

The plot of the movie is pretty obvious from the title; it's about two friends with benefits. This time set in New York as opposed to NSA's Los Angeles. And also this time both of the friends are fed up with dating and relationships and are both open to this 'arrangement'.

Any movie that opens with with Emma Stone and Andy Samberg is just headed for awesomeness.

The characters were genuine and they took every jab at hollywood cliche's they could fit into the script. The sex was much more casual, as it should rightfully be. I loved the movie inside the movie with Jason Segel and Rashida Jones. The movie just had a lot more wit and satire than the former. Seeing as the whole premise of the movie is about going against the conventional it's only fitting that satire would be naturally included.

Ok, seriously someone raided my iPod when they put this soundtrack together; Rogue Wave, I am Arrows, and Death Cab for Cutie? There were some standard songs in there as well, but I loved the Easy A soundtrack as well - should've seen that one coming. I also liked the contrasting between NYC and LA that the movie does pretty well.

Justin Timberlake and Mila Kunis have really nice chemistry and play well off each other. Patricia Clarkson as Kunis' mother was great - obviously Gluck knew this, using her twice. Emma Stone and Andy Samberg's cameos were great and Jason Segel and Rashida Jones' as well. Wood Harrelson an Richard Jenkins were also nicely cast into the movie.

Sorry to compare yet again, but this movie was just more about going against the cliche's (or making fun of yourself while falling victim to the cliche's) while the other movie was more about making those cliches real. Wow, that was a lot of 'cliches'. This movie had more jokes and wit in it than the other and the relationship felt more genuine. It's still a romantic comedy at heart but it makes fun of itself the entire time so I think it possibly could have stepped out of the realm of chick-flick-dom. Is it better than Easy A? No way. "What's up with the music in the movies? It tells you how to feel exactly at every moment".

Take Me Home Tonight

So I had wanted to see this movie back when I first heard about it because it looked like a good time and Anna Faris is always great, oh and Topher Grace is super adorable. The movie actually took four years to be released apparently due to the heavy drug use in the movie. The movie ended up not doing so hot in the theaters, bringing in about $7 million total.

It's the 80's and is about a post-grad, Topher Grace, who comes home after college without knowing what to do with his life and starts working at a video store. He then sees his high school crush, Teresa Palmer, and soon embarks on a crazy scheme to win over her heart during the course of one night at a party from a mutual friend. He takes his twin sister, Anna Faris, and best friend, Dan Fogler, along for the ride.

The movie was definitely rated R with the sex and drugs, but it's as if the characters were still stuck in PG13. The story was obviously going to be a little cliched since this has been done before countless other times. With the sex/drugs, the plot did seem more believable, yet it was still a little far-fetched to have such life changing moments all culminating on one night. Besides the leads, the rest of the characters were horribly stereotypical.

The movie had a predictable 80's soundtrack but was still fun to hear. The proposal scene with Come on Eileen taking over the natural sound was probably my favorite part in the movie. The pace of the movie was fast and made it feel like these other one-night party movies instead of a character study, which is what I think Topher Grace was going for? It also didn't really capture the feel of the 80's, or what I can remember as a 5 year old that is. At least compared to movies of the time it felt like it was trying a little too hard.

There was not enough Anna Faris in this movie. I assume since it was filmed over four years ago, they obviously didn't know her awesomeness at the time. She gets much less screen time than the other three leads and mostly just sets up the other characters. Still, she does a good job with the amount of time she's given. That being said, there was too much of Dan Fogler in the movie. Sorry, I guess I'm just not a fan of this guy. I found his character obnoxious and wasn't interested in any of his scenes, and they were abundant. It's as if he was put in the movie to be the comic relief, but unfortunately he's not funny and the other characters were had enough subtle humor that the 'comic relief' was really unnecessary. Teresa Palmer did a nice job with this character that's been played a million different times by a million different actresses. She was like-able and genuine and played well off of Topher. Topher was Topher. I happen to like him, so I wasn't disappointed.

It's as if everyone was arguing about the direction to take the film and the end result was just a mishmash of different directions in the movie. It had some potential to be a better character driven witty movie, but it turned out more like a high-school comedy with a little R rating in there. It wasn't horrible, I was entertained throughout; largely in part from the three leads that I liked. "You don't have to be a rocket surgeon to figure that out".

Bridesmaids

So I had wanted to see this so badly the minute I heard the words, 'Kristen Wiig'. Unfortunately, I had to wait this long to see it. By now, I'm sure most have heard that this is now the highest grossing female R-Rated comedy and has made over $247 million to date. I really believe that Kristen Wiig is so underrated by most people but this movie proves what I've sworn to since Garth and Kat on SNL; she's a comedic genius.

I went into the movie thinking I was going to see a female version of the Hangover but surprisingly it wasn't quite that and I was more than happy with the direction the movie ended up going. The movie focused on Kristen Wiig's character and her trials and tribulations throughout the whole maid of honor ordeal with her best friend. There were many instances of Hangover-type group comedy thrown into the mix as well, of course.

There was actually a plot in this movie - only proves that us women actually want a story instead of just non-stop comedy bits. A large part of the humor from the movie was from Wiig's dead-panned wit which I preferred over the outrageous slapstick and gross-out humor in the movie. You couldn't help but relate with Wiig's character, all the while laughing at her predicaments.

The other characters were funny as well without being too over-the-top. Ellie Kempner was great and her innocence was hilarious. Melissa McCarthy was a little too boisterous but had some funny lines in the movie. I thought Rose Bryne was one of the funniest things in Get Him to the Greek and unfortunately in this film she was much more reserved and served better as setting up the other actors for their jokes. She still played the part well and was believable and you couldn't help but hate her. Chris O'Dowd who played Officer Rhodes was super adorable and he actually bantered back and forth with Wiig quite well. Wendi McLendon-Covey, who played the marriage hating/alcohol loving bridesmaid was a necessary character and just added to the mix perfectly.

I must say that the late Jill Clayburgh, who played Wiig's mom, did a fantastic job in this - her last film. There was a total connection between the two characters with similarities where you could see where their combined craziness came from.

I loved the pace of the movie; The editing kept the action coming at a great pace but kept the slower more serious moments completely in balance. My favorite part of the movie was the whole plane to vegas sequence. The movie completely takes you in one direction (Vegas) and then just drops it in a hilarious way. Loved it.

I knew going in I would love this movie, and I did. It wasn't what I thought it was going to be since it actually had a plot and threw in some little sentimental moments. I'm more or less an Apatow fan (i.e. Forgetting Sarah Marshall, Funny People, Knocked Up). I prefer the witty comedies with a plot over slapstick grossout stuff - which this movie had more of the former and less of the latter. Kristen Wiig was the backbone of the film, not that she carried the other actors though - they definitely pulled their own weight. If you like Wiig, you'll love the movie. If you dont, well why wouldn't you like her? "It's called civil rights. It's the 90's!"

Crazy, Stupid, Love.

So I had wanted to see this movie ever since seeing the million plus billboards around the city for the last month or so. Not to mention the dream team of cast members. Ryan Gosling, Emma Stone, Marisa Tomei, Julianne Moore, and Steve Carell? Yes, please. The movie opened back on July 29th and has raked in about $33 million. From the same writer of the extremely cute kids' flicks Tangled and Bolt, this movie promised to be a dramedy for (almost) all ages. I was more than happy I made time to go see this and on a side note, I saw it at the same outdoor mall that is featured in several scenes of the movie.

The movie turned out to be a really great dramedy with an emphasis on the 'medy'. The plot and characters were believable, yet interesting and wildly entertaining.

The film follows several different interconnected characters through love's triumphs and trials and obviously the crazy stupidness we oftentimes find ourselves in. The plot did a really good job of having a (believable) direction with the story while incorporating realistic, although convenient, connections with the other characters. These kind of stories must be written in a such a way to avoid the superficiality of other movies which attempt to connect characters through contrived ways, think Valentine's Day. Instead of a jumble of different characters and scenes, this felt like a story and it was. The dialogue was smart and rather witty. And although this was a romantic comedy at it's core, it was based in reality. I loved how the movie was self-aware and took jabs at itself as when Steve Carell's finds himself outside in the pouring rain after hitting rock bottom and utters 'what a cliche'. I love a movie that realizes when it uses cliches and I was definitely in love by this point in the story.

The characters were unique and very believable although all of them seemed to be quite good-hearted in the end. Yes, the ending was a little too nicely wrapped up but this is a movie after all.

Marisa Tomei was priceless. At first it looked as though she was reprising her role from the aweome movie Cyrus, but then quickly that thought was soon forgotten when this character went way off the radar. She can do comedy and drama with the best of them.

Ryan Gosling made it worth it in his three piece suites and topless scenes. His charm oozed off the screen in his scenes and was the perfect counter part to Emma Stone's character. You couldn't even begin to hate him for his womanizing ways.

Emma Stone was as great as I've ever seen her. She's always so consistent and always plays her roles with extreme genuine-ness (that's totally a word). The 'bedroom' scene between her and Ryan was my most favorite in the entire movie.

Julianne Moore was stellar in her role. Much like her performance in Chloe but with humor this time.

Steve Carell somehow sprinkled his quite realistic and dramatic performance with bits of comedy here and there without feeling like comic relief. In fact, nothing in this movie felt like comic relief.

Oh, Kevin Bacon was in the movie too.

The soundtrack and cinematography was quite nice. The long rolling wide shots were really beautiful especially with the great scenery and wardrobe. Everything was framed quite beautifully in this movie.

I ended up completely loving this movie. The cast was incredible, the story was believable and amazing, and it was an almost realistic look at love in the real world. It wasn't a sappy feel-good film but it wasn't a horribly depressing one either. I know it was marketed as not being a chick flick and it's not really, sorta. While it's not a love story dripping with sappiness, it is a movie for the closet romantics. The comedy is probably strong enough to keep the unromantic male audience at least entertained. As I am a closet romantic, although I will deny this, I loved the movie and would recommend to other mature romantics with a smart sense of humor. Yes I did just call myself smart and mature. "You're the perfect combination of sexy and cute".

The Four Faced Liar

So I saw this movie because Netflix recommened it and I'm so weak-willed. Damn you, Netflix! If it has those little film festival olive branches on it's movie poster, odds are I'll watch that movie. This one had four! The premise about four college aged New Yorkers and how their relationships are altered after they meet at a bar, aptly named the Four Faced Liar. There are two couples and their lesbian friend and by the end of the movie there is a new couple out of the five and the other two have dissolved. In the first minutes of the movie, I realized the audience for this movie was very small; namely, urban twenty-something students - of which, I am not.

The movie is about relationships and following your heart versus your head? I'm not quite sure where the accolades for this movie came from. The characters are almost dynamic but end up only having that one unique layer to them and fail to be two-dimensional. The relationships don't make a whole lot of sense nor do the motivations of the characters. A self-proclaimed anti-monogamous character suddenly wants nothing but monogamy? A reserved character with a need for approval suddenly dives head first into controversy? The characters were just too under-developed to make their actions completely genuine. Perhaps there were too many characters. Honestly, one of the couples could've been removed completely and the story would have probably worked better. The dialogue was witty in some parts and was almost very perceptive, almost. It was as if the movie couldn't decided if it wanted to advance the plot or focus on the satirical idioms from the characters. I can see how this would be a better movie if I was able to relate to the characters in some way.

The cinematography and sound mixing does a nice little job considering the budget. The lenses are clear and the camera movements smooth. The post production side of the movie was polished. I will say that the pivotal New Year's Eve bar scene was edited perfectly with great fast/slow time warps on the clips with awesome jump cuts to keep the pace up and then the mirroring of the two situations going on inside and outside of the bathroom with the slow-mo climax was pure brilliance.

The actors did a pretty good job. They were one level up what I would've expected from this low budget of a movie. That being said, they were a little bit stiff and over delivered some of the lines but it wasn't terrible.

In the end, it wasn't terrible but it wasn't relatable either. It doesn't seem like it can really appeal to anyone other than it's target audience."Look at modern literature; all of the greatest female characters were written by women because no man could ever write from a female's perspective. Women have this compassionate chemistry that allows them to listen with an unbiased ear. All women, even you."

The Freebie

So, I'm not sure why I ended up seeing this but something caught my interest. It's this little indie comedy film abobut a seemingly perfect married couple, played by Dax Shepherd and writer/director Katie Aselton, who decided to give each other a night off to sleep with whomever they wish in order to solidify their relationship. It was also filmed on location in Los Angeles. The film turned out to be like a Greta Gerwig movie but with an actual plot-line and extremeley attractive leads.

The movie is basically an ad-lib-athon, some people call this 'mumblecore' I believe. Most of the dialogue was relevant to the movie and helped to build the main characters' relationship. The was an actual story arc and the characters were interesting. I assume that this is like the movie Hall Pass (since I haven't seen it) but realistic. The characters were believable, although too good-looking.

The cinematography and sound editing were obviously minimal as it usually employed in these types of movies where natural sound is favored over fine tuned editing. I'm not a huge fan of this type of editing, but it does make the subject matter feel more real. When there's a lack of sound editing, color correction, smooth edit cuts etc it makes the characters feel more real. If the storyline keeps you interested, I believe this approach can help you connect with the characters. When the story (or lackthereof) doesn't keep you interested, this approach becomes annoying - at least that's my opinion. Case in point, Hannah Takes the Stairs. I'm not a fan. Sorry, but I just don't get it. So to sum up all of this rambling, the minimalistic approach to the cinematography and editing can help in some cases and deter in others. In this case, it helped. Although I should note that the sound editing wasn't as raw as I've seen in other low budget indies similar to this.

The actors did a great job coming off as a natural couple. They had some decent chemistry going on. They moved the plot along somehow with little sprinkles of essential dialogue mixed in with the ad-libbing going on.

In the end, it wasn't the low budge romcom I was expecting. It was a tad bit deeper and more thoughtful. Still a little bit stretched given the premis of the movie. I found it interesting to see the locations in L.A. that they filmed at which held the same level of interest as the story did for me. "I trust us, baby"

All Good Things

So, this is the movie that Kirsten Dunst had reportedly said was her best performance ever and it also stars Ryan Gosling wearing super awesome vintage suits? I'm in. (I'm curious if her aforementioned statement was before or after her Best Actress win at Cannes this year for a Von Trier flick?). The premis of this movie is something I normally wouldn't be interested in but thought I'd give it a shot because of the actors. Oh, and because it has Kristen Wiig in a serious role.

The movie is based on a real-life couple from 1970's New York in which the husband, although extremely suspicious, was never investigated after his wife's ultra strange disappearance in 1982.

The actors, wardrobe, and set design were the best things about this movie.

Some how Ryan Gosling was able to take this horrible character with no redeeming qualities and make you somehow not hate him. Even though his motivations and actions were devious, he was able to show you where he was coming from and what had shaped him into the person he'd become. I still don't know how he was able to pull that off. He was like a mult-dimensional villian. Weird.

Kirsten Dunst did do a nice job in the movie, albeit she was pretty sullen and somber throughout. It was still a nice job.

I love Kristen Wiig in this. I love everything she does and it was ultra awesome to see her do a serious role - although she didn't have much screen time.

The wardrobe was quite retro and captured the feel of the times. Perhaps it seems cooler because vintage is the new black now, but it sill was very beautiful.

The sets and locations were also in keeping with the time and added to the overall look of the movie. The colors were in keeping with the tone and gave this period piece some authenticity.

The plot was obviously a lot of speculation about the characters and not that entertaining. Is this possibly because I'm not into murder mysteries? Most likely. But looking at it objectively, it wasn't anything that hasn't been done before.

The pace was a little choppy and didn't flow throughout the story.

Overall, it was nice to see the actors do a stand up job. It was a forgettable movie and I wasn't interested in the plot. "I've never been closer to anyone, and I don't know you at all".

Visioneers

So, yeah I can't take credit for finding this movie at all. I was out of options at the redbox and picked it on a whim because I (usually) like Zack Galifianakis' roles and sense of humor. This movie is from a first-time (more or less) writer and director team that are also brothers. The movie was almost brilliant.

The movie is about the main character, George Washington Wisterhammerman, who lives in a sort of alternate universe where he works for the most successful business in the history of the world as a 'visioneer'; Where the middle finger is a friendly greeting and everyone around is exploding from built up stress. People start to deal with this worl-wide exploding phenomenon in different ways and eventually the higher powers step in to take control.

At first I was a little bit ancy while I was racking my brain and trying to figure out the big secret behind this parallel universe and completely missing the point. When the movie was over, I literally did a double take (well, almost literally) and was like I totally missed that it was satirical the entire time. It made the movie move to a whole new level. Ironically, my mind was working like the targets of the satire! After realizing my own simple mindedness I realized how much better of a film this actually was. Like I mentioned, it was almost pure brilliance. The story had a lot of potential and capitalized on most of it. It was like The Invention of Lying but with more satire and up a couple of levels. More could've been done but the movie was pretty well-rounded for the most part.

Galifianakis - I'm determined to learn the spelling of his name - did a standup job. Not entirely different from what we saw in Kind of a Funny Story but proves that he can do dry comedy just as easily as slapstick. I find him extremely awesome and enjoyed this movie, once I realized what I was actually watching.

Judy Greer was also very refreshing in the movie. I almost didn't recognize her. She's perfected the bitchy best friend of the female lead but it was extremely nice to see her in a different role. She's proving to be quite the character actress as well.

I had questions about the locations chosen for filming and had a nice laugh when I read that the directors used their parents' house in order to get in under budget. Nice move guys. The filming and scenery felt like it was a higher budget movie that it really was and so they obviously did a nice job in that way.

I'd warn anyone who wants to watch this to go into looking for the symbolism and satire instead of taking it for face value. Self-depreciating humor is also a necessity since we are all undoubtedly the targets of this satire. "There are 1,200 minutes of productivity remaining until the weekend".

Jack Goes Boating

So, the directorial debut of Philip Seymour Hoffman? Yes, please! He’s definitely one of the best character actors out there and throw into the mix that it’s an indie movie about a quirky socially inept couple and I’m all in. I missed this one in the theaters but thanks to Netflix instant I got the chance to finally see it.

The movie also stars Amy Ryan (think Holly from The Office) and she does a fantastic job. Apparently, this was adapted from a play that these same actors were in. The movie is about Jack, a headphones wearing anti-social limo driver, who begins a romance with an equally quirky woman and gets help from a married couple along the way.

The story is subdued. The characters are dynamic and relatable. The plot is quite believable although the synchronization of the two couples is a little dramatized – but hey it is a movie after all. I can’t help but like these stories about sweet quirky couples – so the story was endearing in my opinion. I liked how the budding relationship between the two main characters brought out the real problems with the married couple to the forefront. I also loved the symbolism of the apartment bathroom to literally show how each of these characters built walls in their relationships with others. There was even some dry humor sprinkled in at select moments, but a dramedy this was not.

The cinematography and score were smooth and effortless as I would expect a movie of this sort. The shots focused on the characters and we had a lot of close ups showing us their non-verbal acting as well.

The ending felt a little bit rushed and off when compared to the rest of the movie. The plot also only focused on the beginning of the relationship and I would’ve liked to see a bit more between the two characters – possibly even some background would’ve been nice.

Overall, it was a nice little subtle film. Nothing extraordinary to report/ It felt very personal which is the way a directorial debut should be. I enjoyed it. Is it for everyone? Obviously not. “That’s a long way off. Spacetravel for tourists” – Jack Goes Boating.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2

So, yes, I’ll admit it; I totally jumped on the Harry Potter bandwagon. Regrettably, I completely judged the books/movies as youthful nonsense and didn’t think much of the series until I saw The Deathly Hallows Part 1. I became intrigued and then somehow read all 6.5 of the books in three week’s time. I can’t imagine what kind of ride it’s been like for the true fans who’ve waited this series out from the beginning. My theoretical hat is off to you. That being said, I was more than excited for this last movie to come out and felt legitimate pain that I had to wait two whole weeks before I could see it in the theater.

No need to read any further (not like many of you do anyways); it was an epic of epic epicness!

The beginning of the movie had a really killer score which was different from all of the other movies and had this perfect eerie vocal accompaniment which, correct me if I’m wrong, none of the other films had. Eventually, the score turned into the same we've come to expect. The first few minutes of the movie felt as if I was watching an episode of Game of Thrones. I have no idea why I’m referencing that show because I’ve never even seen an episode. But it just had this feeling as though the story was epic, legendary, even and just driping with the gravity of the story. The way all of the movies, or at least these last few, should’ve felt. All this from a new score, blue filter, and long panning shots of the characters looking into the distance amidst timeless backdrops. As the movie continues, it starts to feel like the Harry Potter movies we know, and love. But it does still carry some of gravity of the movie with it in some of the scenes.

There was no expense spared in any of the CGI in the movie. Looking closely, you can tell some of the water scenes were shot in a tank and some of the flying scenes weren’t real – but on the whole, the effects surpassed all of the previous movies.

The script was pretty spot-on with the book. There were several slight changes to make things more dramatic – which I’m all for. There was one scene which irked me and I’ll explain later. I read the last half of the book after I saw the movie and liked pretty much all of the changes. I felt this movie did a good job of explaining everything – which some of the previous ones were notorious for not doing. The movie did have about seven endings, but I actually prefer to have movies like that so I don’t feel short-changed – unless it’s a movie I’m ready to get out of.

Now, I will say that the actors. . .  how do I put this? They had more time to shine in Part 1. This movie was all about the action. There wasn’t very much time spent for feelings, relationships, talking, etc. Who needs it when there’s a battle to win right? I would’ve liked to see a bit more of this in the film. I guess when you look at both of these movies as a whole, we got the character development in the first half. There still is one scene that was begging for some character development, and I’ll explain later. The movie did take the time to incorporate all of the characters that it needed, which was great – no skimming over the smaller characters like in the previous movies. Was it worth losing the character development of the main characters? The movie was pretty fast paced so I could see where it would’ve been hard to throw some dramatic monologues in there.

So, overall this was the way it needed to be done. Better than I imagined it was going to be. No Sopranos ending here. Again, I’m referencing a show I’ve never seen! You’re asking yourself was it that good? Yes ,to the two of you reading this, it was! It holds the record for biggest midnight opener, biggest single day opening, and biggest weekend opening both domestic and foreign – so yeah, it’s good. “Do not pity the dead, Harry. Pity the living”

 Yes, there were a couple of things that could’ve used some reworking . . .

**spoiler alert**

This revelation is really the only thing that irked me in the movie; the scene where Harry is going into the forest and finds Ron and Hermione on the stairs. “I’m going to the forest to meet my death”. “No”. “I have to”. “ok”. “I’ll come with you”. “No”. “Give me a three second hug then”. “Ron, you want a hug, mate?” “No I’m ok. I’ll just look at you with a serious expression on my face and stand here while you leave to face your death”. . . c’mon. There is no way those two would have ever let Harry go do that and there’s especially no way they wouldn’t have followed him there. Go back and watch all the movies or read the books and count the number of times they’ve literally thrown themselves in front of him saying they’ll have to go through them to get to him. It ruined the seriousness of Harry’s decision. It was like, oh, of course it’ll work out, they’re not even that upset about it. Ok, let’s say somehow Harry talks them into letting him go , it wouldn’t have been that easy. It was much better in the book and should’ve stayed that way. So there it is, the one little thing that I did not like in this movie. I just don’t see what the reasoning behind this decision was when they wrote it this way?

The only other thing I might’ve changed; I would’ve spent a little bit more money to make them look older at the end. That’s it. It wasn’t horrible, but it wasn’t very serious either – the scene, that is, not the movie. But I will say that the last shot of those three standing in a row together looking off-screen really tugged at your (dragon) heartstrings. It was very bittersweet. Then they play The Harry Potter theme over it and it’s just dripping with bittersweetness. The last time we’ll see those three characters together – then it fades to black.  

The Extra Man

So I also saw this movie as I'd seen everything else at the Redbox I was at and hey, who doesn't like some Kevin Kline? The movie opened up in a very limited release (33 theaters) last July. It brought in less than half a million which was part of what I would imagine was a very low budget as well.

The plot is about a young writer, Paul Dano, who decided to move to New York City to find himself and rents a room from an eccentric socialite, Kevin Kline. He also deals with Kline's strange neighbor, John C. Reily, and a coworker he has a crush on, Katie Holmes, while dealing with his own strange temptations.

The movie is very character based. These are quite unique characters. Somewhat un-relateable, given their uniqueness. Dano's character deals with some sexuality issues which are never fully explained and end up quite polarized, at least in my opinion. Kline's character is somewhat complex and quite unique. The dynamics between the characters are written well, however I couldn't relate to these characters and therefore lacked the empathy needed to get involved with this plot.

The sets were simple and elegant. There was some smooth camerawork which was pleasant. The classic soundtrack was also quite pleasing.

The actors really gave themselves for their roles and they gave great performances. Paul Dano was able to tackle a leading role although he did rely on Kline to co-carry the movie. Kevin Kline did what he does and was on par with his roles. I love John C. Reily but felt his character was underdeveloped and a little one-dimensional. Unfortunately, Katie Holmes' character was more of a plot device and wasn't developed at all which didn't really give her a chance to add anything to the movie.

Overall, I didn't really enjoy this movie because I just couldn't relate to the plot or the characters. The elements in the movie were executed well, but it came down to the characters and the plot. Therefore, I wasn't very entertained and lost interest fast. Maybe this would be appealing to those who could relate to these characters? "So here we are. Where are we?" -- The Extra Man.