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.

Barry Munday

So I decided to see this movie again because I had seen pretty much everything else at the Redbox I was at and the actors in this movie looked very promising. The movie had a small release last October and now a pretty widespread marketing rental campaign from Magnolia Pictures.

The movie stars Patrick Wilson as your everyday average womanizing guy, Barry Munday, who coasts through his meager life until a tragic accident takes away his precious manhood. Soon after, he is sued by Judy Greer for being the father of her unborn child. He then is thrown into a completely different life with different expectations.

The plot is more of a comedy than drama. I wouldn't even really characterize is as a dramedy, or at least not the typical dramedy. It was perhaps a believable comedy? In any event, the plot was unique. The characters were highly unique, especially Judy Greer's character which was just totally great. Throughout the plot, you begin to empathize with Wilson's character and it becomes a sweet story - with very real characters.

The sets were simple and clean. They were in keeping with what everything looks like in real life. The costumes were great, they made everyone look like what people really look like in real life. Sounds simple enough, but a lot of movies get this wrong.

Throughout the whole movie, I couldn't believe how Patrick Wilson transformed from this role. He looked like a totally normal sleezy guy. It was sad at first. I wanted the cute Wilson back. In the end, you don't miss it as much. He really did become someone else for this role. Definitely, much different that I've seen him before in previous roles. Judy Greer definitely jumped into her role physically and mentally. She always adds effortless humor in her bit pieces in other movies and it was nice to see her as a main character. Chloe Sevingy and Malcom McDowell also added to the humor in the movie.

In the end, it was a sweet believable comedic story. Something that real people could definitely relate to. It was entertaining. I'd recommend it to those who enjoy small underrated comedies with unique characters. "You remind me of Joey from the first season of Friends" -- Barry Munday.

Wild Target

So I really only saw this movie because I had nothing else to do and I'd pretty much seen everything else at the Redbox I was at. Even so, with these actors it looked promising. The movie was released last October and brought in about $3 million on it's very surprising $8 million budget.

The movie stars Bill Nighy as Britain's number one professional assassin nearing retirement after a highly successful career. He is then thrown into a cat and mouse chase after he is assigned to kill a free-spirit thief, Emily Blunt, and Rupert Grint who was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The plot itself and the action is pretty simple and predictable however the characters are surprising quirky and unique. They are little bit more than the normal one dimensional ones from action/comedies such as this. The characters made the movie feel somewhat fresher than was expected.

The quality of the sets and action are surprising with such a small budget. They did some great budgeting to get three quality actors and greats sets and stunts all in under $8 million.

Emily Blunt was refreshing and vivacious in her role. Bill Nighy was very focused and took on this character with experience. Such a great contrast between his Love Actually performance. Rupert Grint was able to extend a little bit more from his ultrafamous Ron Weasley role although it wasn't too much of a stretch. But he did hold his own with these other two. Rupert Everett and Martin Freeman also brought in some light with their small roles.

Overall, it was pretty entertaining. A nice little British action/comedy movie. It was a little fresh and unique. I'd recommend it for anyone looking for something to watch if you enjoy these types of little underrated British comedies such as these. Nothing spectacular, but it wasn't a waste of time either. "I was standing right behind the door, mother! -- I've told you to never face a closed door" -- Wild Target.

Your Highness

So let me tell you what I wasn't going to pass up; seeing Natalie Portman - Oscar winning Best Actress - in a straight up stoner movie. Where else would this ever happen besides Hollywood? I went and saw this in the theater. Surprisingly, it opened up only in the 6th spot and has brought in a meager $16 million which is only a small fraction of it's almost $50 million budget.

The movie stars Danny McBride (co-writer), James Franco, Zooey Deschanel, and Natalie Portman in a period piece farce about kings and wizards. Franco sets out on a quest with his brother, McBride, to save his bride-to-be, Deschanel, from an evil wizard. Along the way, they meet Portman who's on a similar quest.

Now, obviously the plot is a parody. Think Robin Hood: Men in Tights. The dialogue was pretty amusing, with most of the humor coming from random f-bombs thrown into the dialogue. There was some situational and a lot of physical comedy thrown in there as well. It's interesting to note that most of the dialogue was improvised from the actors and that they didn't even have a script on set with them. The plot is no Monty Python or Men in Tights, but it's headed in the right direction. There was one plot element (think inappropriate necklace) that I personally could've done without. But luckily, there wasn't really any extremely over-the-top gross out moments which seem to be a pre-requisite for these types of rated R comedies nowadays - although there could be an argument made that the necklace element and even the wise creature scene were almost there.

The sets were on par with similar parodies of this time period. The film was nice clear quality. The score, contemporary.

So if these four mega-actors were not in this movie, I would have not gone to see this movie. In the end, they are what make the movie humorous. Especially the caliber of these actors doing this type of movie is just humorous in itself. They took their roles just seriously enough to be funny. Props to each of them to be able to let go and have a good time.

Overall, I don't think it's on the level with Monty Python or Men in Tights, but it wasn't a waste of time either. It was fairly humorous throughout and I was entertained for that two hour period I spent with this movie. It was nice to see good actors such as these just through caution to the wind and do a fun movie. I'd like to see more actors doing this, so I'd like to recommend people to go see this in the theater to get the numbers up. But honestly, this will probably make a better rental movie for those who enjoy this type of genre. Now, if you know right off that you do not like these types of rated R parodies, then don't see it. "What a coincidence, I was just about to finish thinking of you" -- Your Highness.

Love & Distrust

 I thought I found a great movie at the local Redbox while I was in Connecticut for work. It was a movie about love and it's various forms starring Robert Downey Jr, Robert Pattinson, Sam Worthington, Amy Adams, and James Franco in several short films cut together. Unfortunately, I was not happy with this movie at all.

The film is comprised of 5 or 6 short little stories about 'love'.

Unfortunately, I couldn't find rhyme or reason for any of the stories or how they tied in together. The story 'Pennies' which starred Amy Adams was the only story which I was close to liking, as it turned out to have a cute understory at the end. The rest weren't very memorable or unique. There wasn't enough time spent on any one story to develop anything real.

The different tones, film, lighting, sound, and cameras used in the different shorts did not flow together at all. This was obviously done on an extremely low budget digital media platform. The low quality of the different shorts was almost distracting from the stories. I'm surprised these great actors signed on for this.

The acting was fine. As it should be with this cast. The problem was with the stories and the low quality cinematic elements. I didn't find the common 'love' element in the stories.

I wasn't very pleased with this movie. I was expecting quite a bit more from these actors. Although, it probably only took them one day of filming for this paycheck, which is understandable. I wouldn't recommend the movie unfortunately. I'm not against low budget pieces at all, but there's a lot you can still do even with low budget equipment. "Give us the money by nine pm or I'll cut your girl" -- Love & Distrust.

Sucker Punch

So I had wanted to see this movie ever since I saw the trailers for this many months ago! I couldn't wait to see this movie - I was still on my Scott Pilgrim high. The movie opened up in the second spot at the end of March and has already brought in about $66 million worldwide, inching closer to it's $82 million budget.

The movie stars Emily Browning (who also significantly contributes to the movie's soundtrack) as Babydoll, an abused teen who is institutionalized by her abusive step father following her mother's death. She meets others inside the mental hospital and employs an alternate reality which helps her cope with her situation and envisions a plan to escape. The movie also stars Jena Malone, Abie Cornish, and Vanessa Hudgens. The movie is directed by Zach Snider, from 300, Watchmen, and Dawn of the Dead fame.

The movie was pitched as 'Alice in Wonderland with machine guns'. This is pretty accurate. This movie has the feel of the current graphic novel turned movie trend, however there is no novel to this movie. This is all original. The plot is very unique. The characters are quirky and you can empathize. Not to mention they're all bad-ass girls, which makes it even cooler. The plot is fairly easy to follow, if you let yourself just watch it and not think too much.

The movie is very visually striking and there's CGI in every single frame of this movie. The look of the movie is quite amazing, and on par with others of this genre. The fantasy elements are just that; fantasy. You have to be prepared to see dragons and giant robots galore. But remember, it's all about symbolism. The graphics are great in the movie. The action sequences are fluid and done quite nicely. There was a certain axe-to-the-head move which was simply fantastic with slowing/speeding up of the fps. The soundtrack was killer and Emily Browning contributed two or three awesome songs!

These actresses were all bad ass. Interesting enough, most of them were second or third choices for their roles. Emily Browning replaced Amanda Seyfriend and Jena Malone replaced Evan Rachel Wood. Emma Stone was also in the movie before she dropped out for Easy A. Emily Browning was the best choice for the lead role, in my opinion. She did great. The others were good as well in their respective roles.

I really enjoyed this movie, just as much as I had expected to. Now, this isn't a movie for everyone. I'd recommend to fans of the graphic novel genre. This is like a Watchmen meets Kick Ass. "Don't write a check with your mouth you can't cash with your ass" -- Sucker Punch.

Hanna

So I had wanted to see this movie since I saw the trailer a few months ago. It looked like a nice action flick with a unique plot line. I was not expecting a masterpiece of film - which is exactly what this film turned out to be. The movie opened up earlier this month in the second spot and has already made over half of it's $30 million budget to date.

The film revolves around a 16 year old girl, Hanna, who is trained to be the perfect assassin by her father in the wilderness. When she reaches the end of her training, she is sent on a mission to avenge her mother's death and escape the capture of ruthless CIA agents in the meantime. Eric Bana plays the father to Hanna, Saoirse Ronan and Cate Blanchett plays the CIA agent.

In it's simplest form, the plot is a basic cat and mouse action film. However, the characters are unique and the storyline is very believable. The plot somehow keeps the action intense in almost every moment of the movie. Key elements are revealed at appropriate times that make the suspense believable, instead of the run of the mill antagonistic final speech at the end of the movie to reveal the master plan. The plot is somewhat unique in that it employs a young girl as the perfect assassin and puts different dynamics with the different characters in the movie.

The cinematography for this movie was simply amazing. Something the trailer did not focus on at all. The lighting in this movie was just sick. There were numerous strobe light effects and panned lighting that were just beautiful on screen and obviously most definitely extremely had during production. I really enjoyed the lighting in this movie, but of course this usually is not a focus of most movie-goers. The camera angles in this movie was also so gorgeous and unpredictable. They mirrored the mood and suspense of the film without being visually distracting - which is a hard thing to do when dealing with avant garde -esque angles. It was just spot on. The sets used in the film were also strikingly beautiful. The score was also done very well and used an electronic theme but was in keeping with the mood of the film. I could go on and on about the cinematic elements in this movie. A plus.

The actors did a superb job. Obviously Saoirse Ronan was the standout in the movie. Only 17 in real life, she did a fantastic job - although this was expected given her great performance in Atonement several years ago. Some props should be given to the language coaches for this movie. Although I'm in no means an expert on different languages, they all sounded quite fluid in the movie from my perspective at least. Eric Bana and Cate Blanchett were cast very well in the movie and did great with their performances. They gave their characters a little bit of edge instead of leaving them static and plot devices.

Overall, this movie really had it all. A great storyline, suspense, beautiful and artistic cinematography, and a great cast. What else could you ask for? I was not expecting this at all. This was a very believable and entertaining action movie and it somehow stayed PG13? I'd definitely recommend this to anyone who enjoys believable action movies such as these and they can get an added dose of great filmmaking in the meantime! "What did your mother die of? "Three bullets" -- Hanna

Never Let Me Go

So I hadn't heard of this movie when it came out last year but I'd been seeing the trailer on the movies I've been renting lately and it looked super interesting plus I usually always like Keira Knightley's movies. The movie opened last year and brought in about $5 million from it's limited release not quite reaching it's $15 million budget.

The movie is set in an alternate history back in the 1970's when a medical breakthrough occurred and people began living regularly past their 100's. Carey Mulligan, Keira Knightley, and Andrew Garfield play three orphans who grow up together in an English boarding school and soon learn they play a bigger part in the newly increased life expectancy.

The movie was apparently based on a book and it really did have a great premise working here. There was a lot of potential for this story and the symbolism was beautiful. The plot was a little slow in parts and didn't spend enough time on the characters in my opinion. That being said, this is a sad beautiful story underneath and at moments it shone through. The characters were well written however I don't think enough time was spent on each of their relationships with each other.

The lighting and color of the film was absolutely beautiful. The costumes and set design were also very well done and very pretty. The long sweeping camera angles in soft focus along the English coast and countryside were especially nice.

The three actors did very well and gave great depth to their characters, they were each unique with their own dynamics and did a great job, again I just don't think enough time was spent with their relationships. Knightley does a great job and especially at the end she physically became her character. Carey Mulligan did a nice job right in line with her recent work. Andrew Garfield gave a lot more depth and emotion than he was able to in The Social Network.

Overall, it was a nicely made movie. It seemed that the movie was about the relationships at it's core, but you were fooled into thinking it was about the plot action - much like how life is? More symbolism? Perhaps, but also it seems as if you're being lead down a plot with lots of action in the beginning. It's like a character study of the movie, The Island. This was a nice movie and it had tons of potential and pulled it off to a certain degree. It was definitely not what I was expecting going into this movie. "It never occurred to me that our lives could unravel with such speed. If I'd known, maybe I'd have kept a tighter hold on them".

127 Hours

So, yes, I finally sat down and watched this movie. When this movie originally came out, I thought 'eh, another inspirational survivor story; not for me'. Then this movie really just took off, with word of mouth, and then with the very nice nominations earned at Oscar time. And just now, I have finally watched it and am very thankful that I did so. The movie's racked in more than $50 million on a meager $18 million budget.

In case you haven't heard, this is the movie (very accurately) based on the real life canyoneer, Aron Ralston - played by James Franco, who got his arm stuck under a boulder deep inside a canyon crevice and eventually had to do the unthinkable to free himself.

I've wikipedia-ed this story and the plot seems to be very accurate to the true events. The plot was sequential and gave us a story instead of a reenactment. There was enough time in the plot devoted to getting to know Aron as a character instead of just the facts of his predicament. The greatness of this movie really came from the editing and the performances, but the script to enable these to work so well.

The editing in this movie was just fantastic. It was perfectly aligned with the tone of the movie. It kept the pace of the movie up, even though the majority was in a tiny set. I love it when editors take some 'risks' with the editing instead of just doing cut after cut from wide to mid to close ups. Split screens and montages aren't used nearly enough, in my opinion. In this movie the editing was in keeping with the movie and helped move it along, instead of being an unnecessary distraction as in some cases. It was just executed extremely well. The soundtrack of the movie also kept up the pace and tone.

Is there anything that James Franco can't do? I had the pleasure of viewing his short film, 'Saturday Night', at SXSW last year for which he completed for his work at NYU and was basically a documentary on the making of SNL - which has never been allowed before. It was a great experience. James Franco is probably one of the most well rounded actors out there I'd say. In any event, he really did this part justice. He seems to have captured the spirit of this man and did bring a lot of emotion to the screen. They've said that Aron allowed James Franco and the director to view the tapes of his video diary that he kept (which he now keeps locked in a vault) so they could get the movie accurate, which definitely seems to have worked.

I remember that I almost did the same thing with Into The Wild, in not wanting to initially see it when I judged it as an inspirational survival story. Both of these movies were so much more than a sappy inspirational story of the human nature; these were actual films; pieces of art. I'm very happy I finally broke down and took some time to watch this movie. It was great cinema and it's always a plus when it's based on true events. "Oops, oops"

The Romantics

So I don't remember ever hearing about this movie before I saw it as a new release. Perhaps it was due to my recently watching all 12 episodes of the third season of True Blood the weekend before, but in any event I decided to watch the movie. The movie only opened up in 14 theaters in it's widest release back in September of last year and brought in about $122,000.00.

The movie supports a very well rounded cast including Anna Paquin, Josh Duhamel, Adam Brody, Malin Akermen, Katie Holmes, Elijah Wood, and Candice Bergeron. The movie is set around one night when seven college friends reunite for a wedding between the two of them with love triangles and other dynamics at play.

The characters in this movie were extremely well written and quite dynamic. They were flawed yet you could empathize with them. They had different dyamics with each of the other characters and at their core were extremely believable. These characters felt as though they were real people with their own traits and relationships within the seven. For whatever reason, I was expecting a lot of action in the plot but there wasn't. At first, I was disappointed. However then I realized that I had fallen into a Hollywood cliched mindset. The movie was a character study between these people during an important night in their lives. Somehow the movie was also able to capture this loss of idealism and hope in this bunch of people and their desperation to bring that inspiration back. After getting rid of my own expectations for the movie, I was able to appreciate this well written piece of work before me. I know some will downplay the cliche' of post grads 'not knowing what to do with their lives', but this was a different element. It was more about getting their inspiration back; None of these characters really had a Graduate complex.

Obviously this was a low budget film with most of the budget going towards the actors' salaries. The cinematography was obviously on the other side of the budget with little to no attention. The lighting was extremely horrible; when are there spotlights on you at the edge of a lake at night with only natural light? The film did not have the right iso to capture the low lighting and the sound seemed as if they just used the natural sound from the set. That being said, obviously this movie was focused on the characters and the writing and the director did not focus on this aspect of the movie, which in all likelihood the budget couldn't allow for anyways. Personally, I think this part of the movie is just as important, but to each their own.

I thought each of the actors were cast well in their parts. I especially think that Adam Brody and Malin Akermam were perfect fits for their roles, perhaps this is because they were also my favorite characters but who really knows. They gave good performances nonetheless. I was hesitant of Katie Holmes and if she would be able to pull off the delicate dynamic with Josh Duhamel's character. By the end of the movie, they had a definite relationship on camera; the beginning was a little iffy in my opinion. I read that originally Liv Tyler was cast for her part, I think Holmes was a better choice for the role out of those two. I was expecting to see Sookie Stackhouse in Anna Paquin's role however she did give us something different and she was also a good choice for the role.

Overall, I think this was a well thought out and well written movie. I would have liked to see more focus on the cinematic elements, but considering the budget I understand. Katie compared this movie to The Big Chill and St. Elmo's Fire, which I think is right on the money, but with a different generation. I'd recommend to anyone who enjoys these character heavy movies and don't expect a lot of plot action. The movie had it's shining moments and some others that could've used some polish but overall it was enjoyable. "I spent the night before my wedding in a closet. . . granted I was locked in by a groomsmen".

Micmacs

So I had wanted to see this movie last summer when it was coming out, in the smaller theaters, but it got caught up in all the other movies and I unfortunately didn't get to see it on the big screen. The movie looked like a little French gem and I had high expectations for it. The movie has only grossed about $16 million which falls quite short of it's impressive $42 million budget.

The movie follows the main character, Bazil, as he joins a rag-tag team of homeless extraordinaires while they attempt to bring down the giant arms dealers who were responsible for his father's death.

This was like a quirky French Oceans Eleven. The characters were extremely unique and original, which made the plot even more entertaining. The plot itself was very well written and the storyline was complex, interesting, and easy to follow along with. This was just downright a great piece of writing. The dialogue was fresh and the suspense wasn't artificial.

The French really know how to pair great writing with impressive surreal cinematography. The visual effects here were just great. They felt raw and pieced together while at the same time very beautiful. The music and colors were seamless and beautiful.

The acting was great. Danny Boon did a fantastic job and really became that character. He was actually second cast in the movie and took over after the original lead backed out. Thankfully he did. The rest of the cast were great in their roles and really gave the characters their flavor.

Overall, the movie was very pleasing. It had all the right elements for that quirky foreign movie with beautiful graphics that I personally love. "What did you expect? It's scrap metal" -- Micmacs.

Red Riding Hood

So I had wanted to see this movie when I first saw the previews and realized it was directed by Catherine Hardwicke, which overcame my first reaction when I heard the title. The movie opened up about three weeks ago and took the number three spot. It's brought in about $46 million so far, just creeping past it's $42 million budget.

The movie supports a well rounded cast, with Virginia Masden, Amanda Seyfried, Billy Burke,  Julie Christie and Gary Oldman to name a few. The movie takes a spin on the famous fairy tale and is apparently adapted from a book of the same name. It's about a village cursed with a murderous wolf and how they deal with the problem.

There's nothing new or interesting about this plot; it's been done countless times before. It's a whodunnit at heart. The characters weren't dynamic and the only proof of the relationships between any of them was simply exposition informing the audience of their background. It was as if the plot didn't know whether it should focus on the action or the characters and tried to strike a balance between the two. The plot was fairly believable and the ending was appropriate. The dialogue was very generic and ho-hum. Luckily, some of the actors were able to pull off some of their lines without feeling extremely sappy, but it wasn't always successful.

The cinematography was in keeping with Hardwicke's style, which I enjoyed. Again, I'll mention anything with blue filter strikes a chord in my heart. The sweeping panoramics were beautiful and the score was in keeping with the suspense in the movie. The set decoration seemed a little 'too perfect' and it didn't really create the sense that we were really in a period piece.

The actors did a fine job. Amanda Seyfried was good as usual. Virginia Masden believably, although she's hard to envision as a lowly peasant mother. Billy Burke, was a little off in the movie in my opinion. Otherwise, everyone was decent.

Overall, the movie wasn't spectacular nor was it horrible. It was entertaining for the time spent on it. The ending was appropriate and the characters kept the plotline somewhat interesting, even if their relationships and motives were a little stretched. This definitely wasn't Hardwicke's best work, but given that it was based on a fairy tale, it wasn't hokey - more or less. "I'll do anything for you. -- I thought you'd say that" - Red Riding Hood.