Silent House - Movie Review

Okay, quick review tonight.  I got back from seeing Silent House a few hours ago and wanted to write about it while my thoughts were fresh.

Silent House is about Sarah (Elizabeth Olsen), her Father and Uncle.  They are fixing up an old house they own for future sale.  After her Uncle takes off to pick up some supplies, Sarah starts to hear crazy noises in the house and cannot find her Father.  It's clear after a bit, that she's definitely not alone in the house.  To help sell the premise, they establish at the beginning that the power in the house does not work and all of the windows have been boarded up due to squatters breaking into the house.  Additionally, it's a very old house, so the doors can be key locked from the inside.  So based on that, it's easier to accept that other people might be in the house and she cannot get out.

The cool thing about Silent House is that it's presented in a 'single shot' format.  This basically means you watch the entire movie in a 'single take' from only one camera.  There aren't any alternate camera angles and they never cut away to action happening elsewhere.  The camera basically follows Sarah from beginning to end.  From a technical aspect this is a really neat thing and it's done really well.  It also helps add to the claustrophobic feeling of the movie.  Every time the camera pans, you tense up thinking something is going to be around the corner or behind Sarah.  They nailed that aspect.

Speaking of the house, despite that this is called Silent 'House', a more appropriate title should have been called Silent 'Mansion'.  This house is HUGE!   It continues to expand as the movie goes on and at times the house seems like a maze.  It's also not a very 'silent' movie, so maybe they should have called it 'The Occasionally Loud Mansion'.  They probably would have had a harder time pitching that title though.

The other really good thing about Silent House is Elizabeth Olsen's performance.  She totally carries the film and is really the only thing worth watching the film for.  You have to wonder about the Olsen family as it seems that all of the looks, the acting talent and boobs all found their way to Elizabeth, rather than her older, twin sisters.  They must hate her for that.  I love her though.  Between this and Martha Marcy May Marlene, I really think Elizabeth Olsen is a future superstar.

There are a few irritating things that Sarah does during the movie that are the typical mistakes someone makes in a horror film.  This might frustrate you when you notice them.  It doesn't have anything to do with the performance as much as it's just stuff you get irritated with that people in horror films do.

The main problem with Silent House is that they give you plenty of clues as to what's going on early in the movie.  If I mention what they are, then it'll totally spoil the movie, so I won't do that.  You'll start to come to your own conclusions about halfway through.  I had eliminated the possibilities down to about three things by that point of the movie.  Even still, the eventual conclusion feels really awkward and disappointing.  I heard many grumbles form the audience as they were walking out about how stupid they thought it was.  I will say that the end is not as insulting as something like The Devil Inside, but it's just really clumsy on how they wrapped it up.

Another reason why I'm disappointed is what the writer and co-director Laura Lau, along with co-director Chris Kentis, were also the team behind Open Water, which is a movie I really did like.  Then again anything featuring sharks tends to affect me way more than other types of horror.  Again, I think they got the tone and technical aspects of the movie right, I just think they should have worked harder on the ending.

Oh and the whole 'inspired by true events' thing?  I'm going to call BS on that part.  Unless they are saying the fixing up of the house for resale part was true.  If so...assholes!

Silent House gets by on the creepy, claustrophobic vibe is sets.  I just wish the payoff would have been worth it. This is a good example of a movie that would work much better watching at home with all the lights off and the surround sound turned up.  It bums me out because a better ending would have put Silent House over the top.  Instead, it wastes a great performance from Elizabeth Olsen and ends up being a middle of the road horror film.

2.5 (out of 5) Death Stars

Project X - Movie Review

I reluctantly went to see Project X last weekend.  I'm not a big fan of all of these remakes of older films.  I always liked the old Matthew Broderick, Helen Hunt movie.  I really wasn't prepared to see a remake of it.  So, I'm watching this movie, I'm about 15 minutes into it and I'm getting confused because there's not a monkey to be found anywhere.  It's just a bunch of teens planning a party.  What is this?  Is this a prequel about Matthew Broderick's character?

Okay, I'm kidding obviously.  I was reluctant to see Project X though.  From the trailer all you see are some teens doing stupid stuff at an out of control party, a midget and bad music.  Really not my thing.  I almost talked myself out of going, as I was having a good time flirting (unsuccessfully, mind you) with my waitress at The Hopyard.  The movie theater was on my way home though, and there was a convenient show time, so I figured what the hell.

I actually don't have much to say about the movie as far as the story.  There's not much to it and the commercials and trailers tell you pretty much everything you need to know.  A small group of teens decide to throw a birthday party when the birthday boy's parents are out of town.  I did think it was a little unusual that the parents left town the weekend of their son's birthday.  Granted when you're in high school, you relish the times your parents leave town for the weekend, so maybe that was part of their gift to him.  Still, I thought it was a little weird, and maybe even a little irresponsible on the parent's part.

The characters are your typical archetypes for high school comedies:

- The birthday boy, Thomas (Thomas Mann).  He's the nice, sweet kid.
- JB (Jonathan Daniel Brown), the token overweight, goofy guy
- Costa (Oliver Cooper), the ringleader.  He's really the only unlikeable one, but at the same time, if they didn't have him, you get the feeling that the other two would never get out of the house.  It's more that he's a little arrogant (what teen isn't?) and lacks tact.
- Alexis (Alexis Knapp), the über hot unattainable girl...or is she?
- Kirby (Kirby Bliss Blanton), the cute girl next door that's Thomas' best friend, but also has a crush on.  He eventually screws things up with her.
- The jock that seems to pick fights with the main characters for no other reason that he's a jock and therefore supposed to be an asshole.

I thought I wasn't going to like the characters, but I thought they were pretty typical high school kids.  They really don't develop their personalities much in the movie, so I didn't have much of an opinion about them.  The characters, and story elements, are all pretty cliched.  Thomas even has a hot mom.  That's never been an element of teen comedies.  The only guy you really have a strong opinion about is Costa.  As I stated earlier, he might be a little overbearing, but I think his heart was in the right place.  He probably could use a good smacking at some point though.

Anyway, once the party starts it quickly escalates and gets out of control.  The party itself is truly the main character and is the reason you're watching the movie.  It continues to get crazier and crazier and I wanted to see where it was going to go next.  Of course, it's not realistic it at all, but it's not meant to be.  It's party porn.  Although, I did feel a little dirty at times due to all of the 'teen' nudity (only that the actresses aren't actually teens).  That element was a little too Girls Gone Wild for me.

One thing I did like was that they do actually show the aftermath and consequences of the party.  I think the movie might have bugged me a little more if they had just blown off that part at the end.

I thought I was going to be the cranky guy yelling at the kids to get off my lawn, but then I realized that I've thrown my own parties that have gotten noise complaints before midnight.  I have a few friends that always throw great, elaborate parties.  Nothing crazy like this, but maybe I was able to identify with the movie a little more than I initially expected to.

As tired as I am getting of movies shot in found footage style, I think that's what helped sell Project X.  I don't think I would have bought into it if this was just a normal, teen comedy.  There's just not enough character development to carry it compared to a movie like Superbad.

I think first time director Nima Nourizadeh did a decent enough job here.  It's not like there's much going on in the story or acting that direction would have changed how the movie came out.  It's kids at a party.  How much direction do they need?  "Act wild and yell!"  "Here, drink this!"  I'm a little more surprised to see that Michael Bacall co-wrote Project X, as he also co-wrote Scott Pilgrim vs. the World.

For a movie I thought I was going to hate, I ended up actually liking Project X.  Don't get me wrong, it's irresponsible and there's nothing redeeming about it.  However, there are lots of funny elements and I caught myself laughing more than I want to admit.  Perhaps I was aided by the amount of alcohol I had before watching the movie, but isn't any party made more fun by alcohol?  If you do go see it, I do recommend having a couple of cold ones and going with some friends.

...no monkeys were harmed in the making of this review.

3 (out of 5) Death Stars

This Week in DVD - March 6th

I've been a little lazy with my movie reviews lately.  I not sure what it is: my mood, the alignment of Venus and Jupiter (still both visible this week), getting my period.  I just haven't been all that motivated to write.  If you're someone that actually enjoys reading my reviews, I apologize for that.  I guess everyone needs a break, even from a hobby.


The Big Year


This was kind of unusual to watch.  Not in a 'this movie was weird' sense, but more that 'this movie was not at all what I thought it was going to be' sense.  You've got a pretty good comedic cast with Steve Martin, Jack Black and Owen Wilson.  Even the supporting characters are played by people like Joel McHale, Kevin Pollak and Rashida Jones.  I'm watching this movie and waiting for something funny to happen.  I started to think this is one of the un-funniest comedies ever made.  Then, I came to the realization that this is not a comedy at all.  It's more of a family drama.

Basically, it's about bird watching.  Yes, bird watching.  A "Big Year" refers to people taking a year to try and see as many different types of birds as humanly possible.  This is something that actually happens.  It's a real thing that people actually do.  Anyway, the current "Big Year" record holder is played by Owen Wilson, who's kind of  the superstar, hot shot bird watcher the others are gunning for.  At the same time, two other enthusiasts (Martin and Black) also decide to do a Big Year to top the current record.

Here's where it felt like it could have been a comedy, where you have Owen Wilson playing this arrogant person who's actually actively trying to sabotage the other bird watchers to ensure he stays on top.  It felt like there were opportunities to play this for laughs, but they never really go there.  Instead, you get more family moments that show they are all basically nice people (even Wilson's character is hard not to like), and it's not meant to be funny.  If they had tried to throw a lot of jokes in here, I think it would have all felt forced.

I also think the trailer is a little misleading where it features one (fake) looking scene of a girl getting attacked by a swarm of birds and it appears they did it for laughs.  However, even in the context of the movie, that scene really isn't all that funny and not as slapstick as it appeared in the trailer.  I have to wonder if the people that make these trailers actually watch the movie first.  Granted, I know many times that's not possible as the movie isn't finished when the trailer is being created, but maybe they should work with the director a little more to find out what the movie is about.

Overall, The Big Year is a little long, but I actually kind of enjoyed it.  I think if you go in understanding that it's not a comedy, and more of a nice, family drama, it'll probably be a little easier to get through.  It thought it was a sweet movie that's helped by having a good cast.

3 (out of 5) Death Stars


Beneath the Darkness

After like the first five minutes, I thought I was really going to like this.  The beginning of the movie opens with Dennis Quaid acting crazy and killing a guy for an unexplained reason. I was like, "Cool!  Dennis Quaid is a psycho killer!"

Then, the movie then fast forwards two years and focuses on a group of four teens (Aimee Teegarden and a bunch of forgettable dudes).  You know how they generally cast actors much older than they are playing, especially when dealing with teens?  Well, maybe it was the lighting, but I swear one of these guys had grey hair on his temples.

Anyway, one night they are bored and say they know where you can see a ghost.  They go to Dennis Quaid's house where they see a silhouette of him dancing with someone. As they know Dennis Quaid to be single, a few of them insist it was a ghost he was dancing with. It couldn't be that the guy actually had a date or anything like that, cause that would be...you know...crazy!  The stupid teens go back a few nights later and break into his house even know they know he's home at the time.  Why did they think this was a good idea?  What are they trying to accomplish here?  To make matters worse, they proceed to make a ton of noise once inside the house.  Just stupid behavior, you know.

Not surprisingly, Quaid discovers the kids and this kicks off a chain of laughable events and murders. This is one of those movies that fails because you really don't like the teens at all from the get go, so you actually root for the killer.  I want him to kill these stupid teens.

The acting isn't very good and the dialog is terrible in spots.  It was nice to see Quaid playing against type though.  That's probably the only thing noteworthy about it.


1 (out of 5) Death Stars - Pass.  Not worth your time.


The Big Bang

Not to be confused with the similarly titled, bad TV show on CBS.  This was an interesting movie for me.  It stars Antonio Banderas as a private investigator.  The movie opens with him being interrogated by three cops played by Delroy Lindo, William Fichtner and Thomas Kretschmann.  As Banderas is telling his story to the cops, it continues to get more complex and out there.

He was hired by a boxer recently released from prison (Kurrgan from the WWE) to find his former, stripper girlfriend.  As the story goes on, you find that many people are looking for this girl as she knows the location of a large cache of diamonds the boxer had her hide.

Banderas' investigation leads him to cross paths with bizarre and interesting people as he discovers more about the story.  The movie continues to get weirder as it goes on until it all builds to its conclusion.

The thing that really made The Big Bang cool for me is that this ends up being a very geeky, film noir movie.  It might be a little too wordy, convoluted and arty for many though.  If you're physics geek, I think you'll really dig all the references to it.  I enjoyed it for those elements, but I could see many tuning out and going, 'WTF is this?'

3 Death Stars - Good rental for all the nerds (I say that lovingly) out there.


OSS 117:  Cairo, Nest of Spies and OSS 117: Lost in Rio

For those of you who were first introduced to Jean Dujardin, Bérénice Bejo and director Michel Hazanavicius by The Artist, allow me to point you to some other movies they've been in. I actually saw these about a year ago and and it was the main reason why I was initially interested in seeing The Artist once I knew the same people were involved. 

The OSS series are a parody of spy films set in the 60's.  Jean Dujardin stars as French secret agent OSS 117.  While his outward appearance is as cool and charming as Sean Connery's 007, you quickly find out that Agent OSS 117, is a bit of an ass.  He's oftentimes clueless, racist, sexist and lacks tact.  Despite all this, he always manages to save the day and still get the girl though.

This first in the series, Cairo, Nest of Spies, also stars his The Artist costar (and Hazanavicius' wife) Bérénice Bejo.  The second, Lost in Rio, is just the further adventures of OSS 117 (sans Bejo this time).  I really hope there's a third movie planned.  I really can't say which one is better than the other.  I think they are both hilarious.

Despite these movies being made in 2006 and 2009, the series really nails the feel of the old 60's spy films.  The movies are totally politically incorrect, but that's what I love about them.  You might initially be a little surprised at some of the things OSS 117 casually says, but then you have to wonder, "Didn't a lot of people say and think things like that back then?"  I think it's one of the appeals of Mad Men.  At least that's what initially drew me in to that show.

If there's anything negative I can say about them, it's simply that the movies are in French and subtitled.  The humor totally comes though and you'll see why Dujardin is such a great talent and comedic actor.  The series is like a mashup of 007, The Pink Panther, The Naked Gun and Austin Powers.
 
Anyway, I give both of these movies 4.5 Death Stars and have watched them several times each. I notice subtle jokes with each viewing.  Then again, I think it helps to watch a subtitled movie multiple times, as you don't have to focus so much on the story and reading the subtitles with subsequent views.

They are both streaming on Netflix, so check them out while you still can.

This scene is from Cairo, Nest of Spies, and just kills me every time.





Notable movies released on DVD last week.  If you're interesting in buying any of these movies, you can always get them on Amazon.  If you click through my link below when going to Amazon, they throw a little love back my way.





Hugo

I kind of keep going back and forth on this one.  Part of me wants to say that it's a great, beautifully shot movie featuring the best 3D outside of Avatar (which it is), and then part of me wants to go that it's an slightly uneven and overrated movie.  I heard someone the other day say it was great movie for kids, and I still don't agree with that.  Not at least for kids under 10.  It's long and I don't think the second half of the movie would interest most kids.  Like kids know who Georges Méliès is.  Hell, most adults don't know who he is.  It's more for cinefiles and I think that's why Hollywood was so ga-ga over it.  Well, that and it's a Scorsese film.

Don't get me wrong though, I did like the story and I do think it's worth watching.

4 Death Stars - You can read the original review here.


I Melt With You

I was recently asked if there was a movie I've given 1 or less Death Stars to.  I Melt With You this is one of them.  I thought this was a piece of shit movie.  It's basically about a bunch college buddies that get together one week out of the year and do a ton of a drugs.  These guys are all pretty much douche bags.  After another night of drinking and drugs, one of of the guys kills himself over guilt of something from his past. The remaining guys then struggle with killing themselves because of some weird, barely explained suicide pact they all made together back in college.  Never mind that these guys had families, kids, etc.  Let's all kill each other over some stupid college pact.  If you want to read more about it, and I can't imagine why you would, you can read my original review here.

.5 Death Stars - It really is a terrible movie that I struggled to get through.  I recommend you skip it.



Coming out on DVD today:


The Skin I Live In

This is a movie that the more I think about it, the more I like it.  It's another foreign film, so that may turn many of you off.  It's actually kind of difficult to describe without spoiling the whole movie. The movie is graphic, weird and creepy, but I loved how this movie managed to mash up so many different elements (horror, thriller, sci-fi) into a single movie and make it all work.  It's been described as 'an art-house Human Centipede' and I still that's that's pretty accurate. There are some great twists that managed to catch me by surprise.

I actually think this movie was totally snubbed for best foreign film.  I do not understand how this didn't even get nominated.


In my initial review, I gave this 3.5 Death Stars, but this is one of those movies that I'm thinking about bumping up to 4 Death Stars on further reflection.  I think I'll need to watch it again before I do that though.

I strongly recommend renting it if you think you can handle it.  It's definitely not for everyone.



Immortals

This isn't a great movie, but the visuals and some of the action are fantastic.  I'm actually looking forward to watching this again on my 3D TV.  I really don't have much to say about it again.  The story isn't anything special and it's actually kind of boring when there's no action going on.  I thought the cast was fine for the most part.

Weird, I didn't give it a Death Star rating in my original review.  This is one of those movies that's in the 2.5-3 Death Star range.  If you like movies like 300, Clash of the Titans, etc., then I think it's worth a rental.

Tim and Eric's Billion Dollar Movie - Movie Review

I have to admit that I'm really not all that familiar with Tim and Eric.  I've never seen their show on Adult Swim and have only seen a handful of clips on YouTube (the Steve Brule stuff with John C. Reilly is hilarious).  Having said that, I really don't have an opinion of these guys one way or another, so I went into Tim and Eric's Billion Dollar Movie with an open mind. 

Having said that, Tim and Eric's Billion Dollar Movie is just plain terrible.  Normally, I don't have problems spoiling bad movies by bringing up major plot points, but with this movie there's nothing to spoil, especially anything particularly funny.  I have a feeling that if you're a Tim and Eric fan, you're probably not going to like what I'm about to say here and think that I'm just a cranky old man (trust me, I'm getting there).

Basically, it starts with Tim and Eric showing a movie they made where they managed to squander a billion dollars in the process of making it.  The movie is a complete disaster, so the producers (Robert Loggia and William Atherton) want their money back.  Tim and Eric go on the run to avoid these guys and then get a job running a decrepit mall (think worse than the 'dirt mall' from Mallrats).  They are hired by the mall owner (Will Ferrell in just about the only funny part of the movie), who has promised that running the mall will make them a billion dollars.  Sounds hilarious, right?  That's pretty much the whole story.  From that point on it just sets up one bad joke after another.

Do I really need to point out the irony of making a bad movie where main characters are in trouble for making a bad movie.  Life imitating art, eh?  I've been told that Tim and Eric's stuff is intentionally bad.  Well, you can be bad and still be funny.  I don't mind dumb or absurd comedy if it's done well.  If you're a Tim and Eric fan, I don't want to hear any shit about how I didn't get it because I'm not familiar with their other work.  This was actually something that came up when discussing another movie recently.  If you make a movie, unless it's a sequel, it shouldn't require that I've seen other works by the same person in order to get it.  It should stand on it's own, otherwise it's just a shameless cash grab from your existing audience.  That's one of the reasons why the Sex in the City movies are so awful.  Also, I think about the South Park guys.  They've done live action movies that were just as silly, crude and inappropriate, yet tons funnier.  Like I said, it is possible to play dumb or bad and still be funny.

Outside of the Will Ferrell sequence mentioned earlier, this movie got barely an amused 'heh' out of me and those were mainly the times that Tim and Eric broke the fourth wall.  I spent most of the time going 'that's disgusting' or 'that's dumb!'  It just got worse as it wore on.  For example, there's a scene where Eric is sitting in a bathtub while four boys shit on him as some weird form of therapy.  There's a 'sex' scene featuring a blow up doll and many dildos.  Are these the type of antics that are typical Tim and Eric's shtick?  The stuff that has gained them a loyal fan base?  I don't get it.

I feel bad for the people they got to be in this.  You have guys like Jeff Goldblum, Will Forte, Ray Wise, Robert Loggia, and William Atherton in this.  I'll always remember Atherton for being jerks in movies like Die Hard, Real Genius and Ghostbusters.  He's too good for this.  I practically forgot Zack Galifianakis was in the movie.  John C. Reilly is particularly bad here.  I kept waiting for him to show up at Steve Brule, but instead he plays some weird guy named 'Taquito' that just coughs his way through the movie.  It's a shame to see great actors and comedians wasted like this.  The sad part is I really wanted to like the movie when I first heard about it and saw who was going to be in it.  I don't blame the actors; it's what they are given to work with that's bad.

Like many SNL movies, the material seems like sketches that work well in 10-15 minute segments, but don't when stretched into a full-length film.  If this was your first experience with Tim and Eric, I would imagine you'd never want to see them again.  This movie isn't going to get them any new fans.  It feels like a movie made by a bunch of kids that would be really funny to them and their friends, but that people outside of their circle will not find funny.  I think the 13-year-old version of me would have thought it was really funny, but the 38-year-old me did not.   

Look, I can keep ranting about this movie, but what's the point?  It clearly wasn't made for me.  It was made for existing fans of Tim and Eric and that's fine.  If you're one of these people, go out and watch it.  I'm sure you'll enjoy it.  For everyone else though, I cannot recommend it on any level. 

1 (out of 5) Death Stars - .5 is for Will Ferrell and .5 is for the rest of cast out of respect.

Oh, and just to show that I don't completely hate these guys.  Here's one of the Tim & Eric clips from YouTube that I have enjoyed.

Wanderlust - Movie Review

I remember a few months back I did a Nielsen survey for a movie called "Shiny, Happy, People".  The survey involved being shown a trailer and then asked me how I felt about it.  As you might have guessed, the trailer featured the R.E.M. song of the same name.  When we got to how I felt about the movie, I said that I liked the cast, but that it looked cheesy and that I wasn't all that interested in seeing it.  I also added that I didn't care for the name of the movie and use of the R.E.M. song (I've always hated that song!).

About a month or two later, I saw a different trailer for a movie called Wanderlust and got a laugh when I realized it was just a recut version of the trailer for "Shiny, Happy, People".  They even removed the R.E.M. song.  The weird part was that now that the name was changed and song was gone, I suddenly felt like watching the movie more.  It just kind of goes to show you how a movie is marketed can really change how you feel about it.  Oh, I've just been informed by a friend that "Wanderlust" is also an R.E.M. song.  Someone really likes R.E.M.

Wanderlust is defined as a strong desire or impulse to wander or travel the world, but that's actually not what this movie is about, so the irony is that the original title of "Shiny, Happy, People" would have fit a little better.  Anyway...I'm getting way the hell off topic.  Lets actually talk about the friggin movie.

Wanderlust is about George (Paul Rudd) and Linda (Jennifer Aniston), a couple living in New York.  In what may feel all too familiar for many, they recently purchased an undersized apartment that they can barely afford.  Unfortunately, their timing couldn't be worse, as shortly after moving in George loses his job and Linda's current project also fails.  They have to dump their apartment and move to Atlanta where George's brother (played by a hilarious Ken Marino) runs a business.

On their way to Atlanta, they make a quick stop at the Elysium bed and breakfast, where they are greeted by a nudist (Joe Lo Truglio).  Freaked out by the sight of his fake penis, they try to leave, but in their haste, flip their car over and are forced to stay overnight.  Despite their initial reservations about staying there, they meet a lot of interesting people and end up having a good time.  They find the the bed and breakfast is more of a commune than just a standard B & B.  Once they make it to Atlanta, they quickly find that they are unable to deal with George's abrasive brother and alcoholic wife (Michaela Watkins) and decide to go back to Elysium and give living there a try.  Who needs a job and money, right?  It's all about being happy.

That's pretty much all you need to know about the story.  It really comes down to the comedy, which I ended up thinking was pretty funny.  Don't get me wrong, there are some jokes they overuse and some eye-rolling moments, but I thought overall it worked.  I like a raunchy comedy though, so if you're not the type of person that likes sex and drug jokes, or nudity used for comedic effect, then this probably isn't for you.  If you do like those kinds of things in your comedy, then I think you'll dig this.

I actually wasn't sure I was going to like it after the first 10 minutes or so, as it took a bit to get going.  It helps when a movie features a likable cast and I think I gave it chance because of that.  I also think I might have been a little more forgiving of certain elements because of the people involved.  Once I warmed up to it, I just enjoyed it for what it was.  I know I have a tendency to over-analyze movies or be hypercritical, so it was a nice change to have a movie that I didn't have to think about too much and just laugh.

The cast is great.  Paul Rudd is, well, Paul Rudd.  Who doesn't like Paul Rudd?  Just about the only thing wrong with Jennifer Aniston's performance is that her nudity is blurred when it happens.  On another note, is it just me or is she getting hotter as she gets older?  As for the rest of the cast, if you've spent any amount of time watching cable, then you're likely to recognize many of the people in the movie.  You'll see people from shows like The State, Stella, Reno 911, Childrens Hospital, Key and Peele and various stand-up specials.  Everyone in the cast seems to have a line or two that gets a laugh.  It's difficult to single everyone out but I thought Todd Barry, Kerri Kenney, Justin Theroux, Alan Alda and Lauren Ambrose all had their moments.  Justin Theroux (Aniston's current boyfriend) as the leader of the Elysium commune really shined.

Despite my own reservations about seeing the movie, if they had told me up front that this was from the makers of Role Models (which also starred Paul Rudd) and produced by Judd Apatow, then I would have been on board from the beginning.  I loved Role Models, so that alone would have sold me.  Wanderlust was directed and co-written by David Wain (The State, Stella, Childrens Hospital) and also co-written by Ken Marino (also from The State and Childrens Hospital).  I hope these guys keep doing more movies as I really think they are all funny.

Oh and there's a blooper reel during the credits, so you'll probably want to hang out through them if you liked the film.

Whether you're simply a fan of Paul Rudd or Jennifer Aniston, liked Role Models, or just like raunchy comedy, there's a lot to like about Wanderlust.  It's not as strong as other Apatow offerings or as funny as other recent comedies of this type, but I thought it hit more that it missed.  It has a talented cast and it made me laugh a bunch.  I recommend grabbing a friend or two and checking it out.  I think it's a worthy matinee.

3.5 (out of 5) Death Stars

Ghost Rider: Sprit of Vengeance - Movie Review

For those of you that actually watched the first Ghost Rider and remember how bad it was, I'm sure you were just as surprised as I was that they were even making a second one.  Then, the trailer came out and while there were some silly elements, the effects looked much, much better and the action looked ramped up.  Finally, I see that the Crank directors are directing this one and I actually became optimistic.  It couldn't be any worse than the first one, right?  Well...

Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance attempts to sort of pick up where the last one left off.  This felt similar to 2008's The Incredible Hulk where you're watching it and wondering if it's a sequel, a reboot or a combination of the two.  There's an animated opening sequence that kind of recaps why Johnny Blaze (Nic Cage) is the Ghost Rider and I actually thought this part was done in an interesting style.

At the beginning of the movie, you find that Johnny Blaze is hiding in Romania.  It's not clear why and I don't think it's ever really explained other than he's avoiding people because he knows he can't control Ghost Rider.  Even if that's the case, why hide in Romania?  There's plenty of out of the way places in the States you could hide.  How about Wyoming?  You can hang out by Devils Tower.  Ha!  Anyway, Blaze is tasked by a mysterious man (Idris Elba) to help track down and rescue a boy that is wanted by The Devil/Roarke (Ciarán Hinds).  If Blaze helps bring the boy to safety, then his people will help Blaze lift the Ghost Rider curse.

Why is Roarke (which was pronounced differently by just about every character in the movie) after this boy?  He wants to possess his body, of course.  Totally new concept in a movie featuring the Devil.  The boy (Fergus Riordan) is apparently half demon/devil or something, so he can handle the possession, where a full human host cannot.  That's about all I really need to say about the story.  It's not very original and pretty predictable.  But lets face it though, you aren't watching this movie for a great story, you want to see some good action and Nic Cage freak out right?

Nic Cage does get to be the over-the-top Nic Cage here.  Most of the time Nic Cage freaking out in a movie is a good thing, but outside of a scene or two, it all felt really odd.  Some of his zaniness comes out of nowhere and his performance seemed really uneven overall (although that's due in large part to a bad script).  There was one sequence where he's just freaking out on his bike and it didn't do anything for the story except be absurd.  It ended up being silly instead of cool.

How's the action then?  It's actually pretty good in spots.  I thought the CG for Ghost Rider was definitely an improvement over the first film.  However, there were lots of times where Ghost Rider would just stand there, stare and do nothing.  When he would move, it would have this jerky, reptilian quality, but mixed with that weird strobe-light girl from The Grudge.  Then, Ghost Rider would get a hold of a guy to do his penance stare, but nothing would happen.  There was no visual effect for this and he'd just stare and hiss at the guy for what felt like minutes.  Was he doing something?  Was he just trying to scare them?  Even the characters in the movie seemed to lose patience with it.  It was weird to watch.

Plus, another annoying thing was that Ghost Rider's powers fluctuated wildly during the movie.  Early in the movie, Ghost Rider takes a hit from a rocket launcher and he's pretty much out of commission.  The next scene is Johnny Blaze waking up in a hospital in obvious pain.  However, later in the movie, he's hit multiple times by a more powerful rocket and doesn't even appear to be phased by it.

After the action would wind down it felt like there were long sequences of them just driving and talking.  For a movie that's only 95 minutes long, these sequences made the movie feel even longer.  After the first 20-30 minutes, it becomes very dull. Plus, the entire movie seemed to be set in abandoned buildings, desolate freeways, and rock quarries.  It felt like they were always in the middle of nowhere due to there never being anyone else around other than the main characters.

The script and dialog are pretty awful.  There are many, many bad attempts at humor just thrown into the film.  They actually stop the movie at one point for additional narration and they throw in a joke so bad, it felt like it was something out of a bad student film.

Despite the good supporting cast, their performances weren't anything special.  Idris Elba, who's normally great, feels totally wasted here and he spoke with an accent that I couldn't tell where the hell it was supposed to be from.  Ciarán Hinds as Roarke isn't given much to do except stand there and be creepy.

The Devil's dirty work was primarily carried out by Johnny Whitworth's character.  I felt like he was the only person that was trying.  At a certain point in the movie he's turned into a character from the Matrix (seriously though, it's Blackout from the comics).  He's actually given a cool power, but once again, they use it to crowbar in a very obvious and old joke.  Plus, they don't really have him face off against Ghost Rider, so giving him powers felt like a setup to something that they didn't bother finishing.  It's anticlimactic.

I was surprised to see that David S. Goyer wrote this, as he's done stories for other superhero films that have been much better (Blade, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight).  However, much like Like This Means War, it's a bad sign when a movie has three writers for the screenplay (Seth Hoffman and Scott M. Gimple share writing credits with Goyer).  It's another example of having too many cooks in the kitchen.  I have to imagine there was likely some heavy handed studio interference here, as well.

Oh, I guess I should talk about the Crank guys now.  I'm not a huge fan of the Crank series, but I do appreciate how crazy those movies are and how they didn't take themselves too seriously.  I thought Neveldine and Taylor's over-the-top-style would work for Ghost Rider.  Unfortunately, it was just too much.  Throughout the movie, it would either pause or switch into different visual styles. While this works for a movie like Crank, too many times I felt like I was in the middle of a bad drug trip, as if the directors were doing lines of coke or dropping acid before shooting scenes.  Not that I'd know what being on coke or acid feels like, but it was just off-putting and it all felt forced.  How about some regular action scenes?  Everything doesn't have to be all shaky or hyper-stylized.

Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance is a bad film released during a time of the year when mostly bad movies come out.  Even then, it still stands out as very bad.  It features uneven performances, bad dialog and humor and a very generic story.  While there are some good action sequences, I found the whole film kind of boring.  It's all a big misfire as far as I'm concerned.  I can't really recommend that anyone go see it.  It's a rental at best and even then I can only recommend it to the die hard Ghost Rider or comic book fans.

1.5 (out of 5) Death Stars

This Means War - Movie Review

After watching This Means War, I feel like there was an attempt to manipulate me.  "Why?  How?", I'm sure you're saying.  It's mainly because this movie lures you in with a good and attractive cast; a cast that is much better than the material in this movie.  If this movie would have featured a bunch of no-names or less likable actors, I would have walked out after 20 minutes.  Like imagine this movie starring Kate Hudson, Dane Cook and Jason Biggs.  Sounds pretty awful now, right?

I've seen a few people say that it's nice to see a movie with good looking people that can act, but that doesn't give the movie a pass for being shitty.  This Means War is one of those movies were it doesn't take much to poke holes in nearly everything that happens.  This review is likely to be filled with spoilers, so be warned if you read on from here...

The movie opens with a scene of FDR (Chris Pine and why he's called FDR I don't think is ever really explained), and Tuck (Tom Hardy) entering a fancy club on a mission to stop some guy.  Why? We don't have a clue and we don't care either.  I don't even remember what the guy's name was.   Almost immediately, a gun fight erupts and all hell breaks loose.  Then again, if you see Captain Kirk and Bane walk into a room, you can probably guess that shit is about to go down.  What does this have to do with the plot though?  Again, I have no idea.

The next scene abruptly switches to Lauren (Reese Witherspoon) just doing her job.  I know they were trying to establish her character, but there's no real need to do that yet.  You've barely even introduced the two leads.  Neither one of them knows Lauren yet, so her introduction at his point seemed forced and out of place.

Back to Kirk and Bane.  You find that they are both spies and best friends.  It's not really clear who they work for (CIA, I think), but they appear to have been friends for a long time.  Bane/Tuck has a son and ex-wife that he appears to still have thing for.  Kirk/FDR, by default, is the ladies man that can meet chicks anywhere (oh and we'll get to that).  Tuck doesn't date much and decides to try online dating.  Doesn't it seem pretty risky for a spy to have an online dating profile?  Wouldn't that be totally against the spy rules or something?  At the same time, Lauren puts up a online dating profile (actually put up by her friend).  The two talk on the website and meet for a date.

They go on their date and appear to hit it off.  However, Lauren decides to cut the date short to go rent a movie.  She tells him this on the date.  If you were on a date that you thought was going well and then she announces she's leaving to go rent a movie, would you think you were on good ground with her?  Anyway, Lauren heads to a video store that could not exist in reality.  It looked like a friggin upscale department store, like the kind that would charge you $10 to rent a movie like this.  Who even goes to video stores anymore?  Well, in a totally amazing coincidence, who do you think Lauren meets at the video store?  Captain Kirk!  They actually don't hit it off though, but Kirk not being able to accept defeat, stalks her until she agrees to date him.  Both of these guys use their spy skills to stalk Lauren.  It's so cute and romantic!

Oh, speaking of implausible things, both spies live in lofts that appear to be million dollar homes, and yet their cover jobs (travel agent and cruise ship captain) would likely not generate the income to afford these places.  Plus, Tuck is presumably paying alimony and child support, but nobody finds it odd that his job as a 'travel agent' allows him to afford an amazing loft in Southern California (again, I'm assuming they are in SoCal).  Being a spy pays really well, I guess.

Anyway, FDR and Tuck find out they are both dating Lauren.  Initially, FDR says he'll back off, but then makes some back-handed, passive-aggressive comment about how it wouldn't be fair, which of course Tuck takes exception to and also as a challenge.  This is why movies like this bug me.  You have two guys that establish themselves as best friends, but then don't act at all like best friends the second a member of the opposite sex is in the middle.  If FDR had just kept his mouth shut or backed off (he even says, 'hey you met her first'), none of this would have happened, but then there'd be no movie.

Neither person ends up appearing to be very mature.  You both really like this girl you just started dating that much?  Enough that you're willing to risk your friendship?  The fact that one of these guys is a clear ladies man when the other doesn't date much makes it even harder for me to accept.

Anyway, all kinds or ridiculous stuff happens from that point. I could continue picking apart this movie, but what's the point?  I'm sure you already know how I feel about the movie by now.

That's not to say that everything is bad.  I actually liked the cast and I think they did the most with the material, but they deserve better than this.  Chelsea Handler is brought in for some comedy relief and I'll say that she was actually kind of funny even though I'm not a big fan of hers.  There were a few moments that made me laugh, but I couldn't quote you a line.

I can see women liking this more.  I'm sure it's the ultimate female fantasy to have two successful, hunky guys fighting over her.  Reese Witherspoon is cute, but she's not the kind of actress that's generally a draw for guys.  They ramp up the humor and action to appeal to males, but it doesn't work very well.

McG doesn't do anything to break out from the his reputation of being a hack director.  Like many things he's been involved with, it's all style and no substance.  This movie is like a Barbie or Ken doll hanging out a club that's only concerned with how good they look, but cares nothing about being interesting or aware of how vapid they are.  If you tried talking to them, you might laugh a few times at a lame joke they say, but it's courtesy laugh because you want to get in their pants.  After you're done talking to them, you can't remember anything meaningful that they said, because they didn't.  That's This Means War.

There were three writers for this and it feels like it with how many disparate plot elements are in this movie.  There's a plot thread involving the dangerous guy from the opening scene that pops up randomly throughout the movie and it just felt thrown in.  I guess they felt like they needed a villain, but there's really nothing menacing about him.  I don't even know what he's after or why he's still in the movie after the opening scene.  It's all very nonsensical.  The writers (Timothy Dowling, Simon Kinberg, Marcus Gautesesn) have written stuff like Just Go With It, X-Men: The Last Stand, xXx: State of the Union, Jumper and Mr. & Mrs. Smith, so we aren't talking about writers with a stellar track record here.

Oh and the ending of the movie is a total cop-out!

I wrote the word 'charm' at the bottom of my notes (yes, I do take notes sometimes).  This Means War is a bad movie that tried to get by on charm.  It has a likable cast and there are some funny moments, but the story is a train wreck if you take a moment to think about it.  Nothing I've said here is going to stop people from seeing it this weekend though.  If you're looking for a date movie, I suppose this is your best option (I'd rather you see this over The Vow), but I'd save it for a rental.

2 (out of 5) Death Stars.