Julie & Julia (9/10)

I don't know much about cooking, but I do know a thing or two about movies and acting, and Julie & Julia is a feast! The casting is just perfect. Meryl Streep as Julia Child is an inspired choice. And there are few people who could pull off an "impression" of a famous person and still make it authentic and deep. Look for Streep to get another Oscar nod here. Of course, Amy Adams is also a delight, and this part is perfect for her. Though the two never share a scene, you really feel the connection between them. This is done through the masterful blending of the two stories, so that even though you know what happens at the end of Julie's story (you are watching her film after all), you can't help but be thrilled by her real-life emotional journey.


Comments welcome!

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra (8.5/10)

Yeah, I used to watch G.I. Joe cartoons when I was a kid, but I don't remember anything about them. It's probably a good thing, too, because I couldn't have enjoyed G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra if I was spending the whole time nit-picking about the differences. And I did thoroughly enjoy it!

Of course it is important to manage your expectations when walking into an action movie based on a long-dead franchise. Like the Transformers movies, you're not going to see any Oscar nominations for G.I. Joe. But if that's what you are looking for when you walk into the theater, you have serious issues. What you should be looking for is a series of escalating action sequences, some cool gadgets and special effects, and some good looking actors who can deliver their lines without stumbling too much. And for this, G.I. Joe delivers. And it does it in a way that is slick, creative, and a lot of fun to watch.

One thing I do remember about the original cartoon: nobody ever died. There was lots of gunfire and explosions, but heroes and villains alike always got up to regroup and start the fight again in the next episode. They even had people parachuting out of exploding helicopters! That is not how the movie works, and thank goodness! High tech weaponry has deadly consequences, and the movie doesn't flinch from the many brutal ways those cartoonish weapons will tear a person apart. Take note kids, guns really do kill people. Don't try this at home.


Comments welcome!

G-Force in 3-D (8/10)

I went off on a rant a few weeks back about how horrible 3-D films are, and how I am sickened by their recent resurgence. A friend argued the other side, and since I value his opinion, I decided to try re-evaluating my opinion. I used Disney's recent live-action/CGI-animation film G-Force as a test. First I watched it in 3-D. The glasses still felt horrible and awkward, and hurt my nose and eyes. But I have to admit, the 3-D effects weren't that bad. I didn't feel ejected from the "suspension of disbelief" like previous 3-D films. The film was quite a bit of fun, with a few real standout spectacular scenes!

Then a few days later I slipped into a 2-D screening that was midway through the film. It seemed quite bland by comparison, and one of my favorite scenes from the 3-D version (the fireworks) didn't seem all that spectacular anymore. And the complex moving set in the climactic scene was hard to follow and visually interpret, whereas the 3-D version helped to distinguish the multiple levels of action.

So I have to admit, 3-D movies have begun to evolve. Even though I think they missed a few obvious camera angles that would have really benefited from the 3-D treatment, this film was obviously much more creative than the cheap gimmicky films of the past.

Now if they can just make those stupid glasses comfortable, I might be able to give 3-D the thumbs up.


Comments welcome!

Drag Me To Hell (3/10)

I'm not a fan of the horror genre, but I'd heard good things about Drag Me To Hell. I heard wrong. This was bad. I mean bad acting, bad plot, obvious "twist", the works. But two things set it apart from standard horror. One, this is more of a gross-out movie than hack and slash. I lost count of the vile things that get splashed into the girl's face and mouth. I suppose that's funny to some people. The other thing is that the production value is good, and considering that Sam Raimi is a big time film maker these days, that's not too surprising. But it's certainly not going to make this into a good film.

Land of the Lost (5/10)

There's a recurring theme in comedy. A tradition that goes back hundreds of years. It's the role of the "idiot". Some modern comedies seem to have seized on the idea that the idiot is where all the funny stuff comes from, and therefor movies will be funnier if ALL of the characters are idiots. The higher quality comedies (like The Hangover) realize that the idiot is only funny as a contrast to the normal people. Land of the Lost doesn't commit to either philosophy. The creators of this film think the best humor is when most people act like idiots most of the time, but occasionally rise to the level of normal brain function, regardless of the character. Will Farrell portrays Dr. Rick Marshall, a genius scientist and inventor, and is naturally the primary idiot. He's an idiot all of the time, and his flashes of brilliance come out of nowhere with no plausibility. Anna Friel is Holly Cantrell, the naive and optimistic young grad student, and she is the fool who follows the idiot. She is mostly normal, but comes off like an idiot when she treats Marshall like he's normal. And lastly, the character who should be the only idiot of the bunch, Danny McBride plays Will Stanton, a guy who runs a desert tourist trap and gets sucked into their wacky adventure. Will is the only consistent character in the group (mostly idiot with some street smarts).

You may have noticed that the three leads are not related like in the original TV series. That's because it would be inappropriate for Will Farrell to make out with Anna Friel if they were supposed to be father and daughter.

The saddest part is that you can almost see the movie that could have been. If Farrell had been cast as the idiot who gets pulled along for the ride and the two scientists had been portrayed as almost normal, it could have been good. Cut out the scenes that are nothing more than Farrell pouring dinosaur urine on himself, and add in a plot twist or two to throw us off the movie's big glaring obvious plot twist, and it could have been something.

The exchange that sums up the movie: Will: "You ever tired of being wrong?" Marshall: "I do! I really do!"

It's only funny because it's true.

Star Trek (9/10)

Top notch "reboot" of the classic franchise. All of the actors were well chosen, fun to watch and nitpick, each with their own tributes to the original characters without feeling too much like copying. The story was a bit of a stretch, but it had to be that way to achieve the desired effect for the reboot factor. Probably the only characters who weren't properly developed were the villains. It's a shame they couldn't work in a villain from the original series, like Wrath of Khan. And I was a little bit disappointed in the way they handled the Kobayashi Maru test, but it was probably appropriate considering Kirk's personality. Otherwise, it was thoroughly enjoyable and I plan to see it again before it leaves theaters.

Imagine That (5/10)

Bland and unevenly paced, with just a few touching scenes. Yara Shahidi just could not save this movie, despite being one of the cutest kids ever. I blame the director and editor for failing to tighten up those magical kid moments, but the truth is that Eddie Murphy should have been the one carrying the film. And I haven't enjoyed any of his performances since Coming to America two decades ago. And watching Thomas Haden Church pretend to be a Native American was just painful... scene, after scene, after scene.

Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian (8/10)

A charming and consistent follow-up to the 2006's Night at the Museum. Stiller manages to keep the infantile humor to a minimum (always a trap for his films) and the pace going nicely. The Smithsonian is the perfect way to expand the "history comes alive" theme from the first movie, and the new additions are for the most part very well done. The romance is turned up a notch from the first, which isn't saying much, and they managed to wrap it up with a trick similar to the musical Aida so that it doesn't leave you all bummed out. I recommend both films for all ages.

The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 (4/10)

Nothing to see here. Move along. Just another understated (read: bland) performance from Denzel Washington contrasted with an over-the-top "say it don't spray it" performance from John Travlota. Bumbling cops (epitomized by the line "why didn't they just take the helicopter?") who are always two steps behind leaving Denzel to do everything himself. I don't know, maybe the whole thing was just a little bit too realistic. This kind of movie should have a new and shocking twist coming every twenty minutes, but instead the audience is always ahead of the story.

Up (7/10)

Another wonderful Pixar movie, but the story is not quite up to the level of Toy Story, Monsters Inc, or The Incredibles. Still, there's a lot to love here if you can get past one of the saddest intros ever. Dug is the standout quotable character, and Russell is a lot of fun as well. Russell's voice doesn't seem to quite fit, but that's nitpicking. If your kid likes the movie, be sure to check out the video game! :)

The Hangover (9/10)

The Hangover had one of the best trailers ever, and though it did give away a lot of the best parts of the plot, the rest of the movie did a really good job at keeping the fun rolling. You never know which way the story is going to turn, or if everything is going to ever be explained, but the characters are all just so fun to watch you don't really care. I especially enjoyed Zach Galifianakis' dead-pan goofball. It's definitely for adults only, so leave the kids at home.

The Proposal (7.5/10)

Solid romantic comedy. I tried to keep my expectations low going in, so I was pleasantly surprised. Just a couple dumb contrived situations, nothing to really ruin the overall plot. I can definitely recommend it for people who like the genre. Sandra Bullock looks great, and Ryan Reynolds turns in another respectable performance. I don't know why that guy hasn't gotten more roles. He's been pretty good in the few movies I've seen him in; I thought he would be a top lead by now.

Infrequent Reviews

I've been seeing a lot of movies recently, and I think that will probably continue through the summer, so I thought I'd start writing down my impressions. I hate reviews that give away the plot, so I will be doing my best to avoid that, but I welcome anybody to add their thoughts by commenting on the reviews. Discussing movies after seeing them is one of my favorite activities. :)