Thanks for checking out our Forgetting Sarah Marshall Review.

The General Idea

Plot Outline From IMDB: Devastated Peter (Segel) takes a Hawaii vacation in order to deal with recent break-up with his TV star girlfriend, Sarah (Bell). Little does he know Sarah’s traveling to the same resort as her ex … and she’s bringing along her new boyfriend.

The Good

Many of the funniest moments in this film come through verbal sparring. One person will burn someone, and with outstanding timing a retort will be given, funnier than the previous line. The stacking of punch lines is a very good comedic technique, causes big hearty laughs and is done often in this film.

Going in, I was skeptical about Jason Segel as the lead. I didn’t care much for his character in Knocked Up, and was afraid it would be more of the same. To my delight he was nothing like his Knocked Up character and was great as the leading man. He was hilarious and believable as a man with a broken heart; like all of us, I am sure he has had some practice. His natural ability as a piano player was put to good use and served as an excellent way to add uniqueness to his character. Staring in a script you wrote has its advantages; Jason crafted a story that played to his strengths and resulted in a damn funny film.

The cameos in this film are outstanding, I will not mention them - because that would ruin the surprise. I will tell you that the greatest cameos come via the TV show that Sarah Marshall stars in, and were milked for maximum hilarity.

The Bad

This film follows a typical ROMCOM structure and offers no deviation from type. You know how things are going to end and you know that right before the happy ending the couple will have an issue that will strain their fledgling relationship. I am not against sticking to formula, but the ROMCOM structure is so beat to death that it nauseates me. The “crisis” moment is funny as hell however, and is done in a way that allows people to relate to both sides of the argument.

Overall

This movie was very funny, and the theatre was aflame with laughter the entire screening. To give you an idea of how enjoyable it was, I would consider it superior to Knocked Up but under 40 Year Old Virgin. The film was very funny and made the most of its formulaic and predictable skeleton. Harold and Kumar had more gut busting jokes thanks largely to NPH but this film certainly edges ahead with the number of quality jokes. Out of 10 I would give this film an 8. I can see this film becoming very popular, and is one you should check out April 18th.

Thanks for checking out our Run Fatboy Run review from the SXSW film festival here in Austin Texas.

I am but one of many people who instantly because a big and probably life long fan of Simon Pegg after watching Shaun of the Dead for the first time. That movie just had it all… terrific comedic performances, great writing, some great sick gore… it was just one of the most fun films I’ve seen in a long time. Then came Hot Fuzz, which wasn’t quite as good, but still very solid and just solidified Pegg (as well os Wright and Frost) as a guy that gets me interested in any project he’s involved in. So along comes Run Fatboy Run, the first non-Edgar Wright directed project I’ve seen Pegg in. Pegg wrote the screenplay, but how did the movie do with former Friends star David Schwimmer behind the camera instead of Wright? Well… not as well.

THE BASIC IDEA

From the official synopsis: “An overweight man leaves his fiancée on their wedding day, only to realize years later that she’s the one and only woman of his dreams in a romantic comedy that reunites Big Nothing co-stars Simon Pegg and David Schwimmer, this time with Schimmer in the director’s chair. It’s not easy to win back a woman after leaving her at the alter, but when an out-of-shape man finally realizes just what a mistake he made, he vows to run a high-profile marathon in order to convince his ex-fiancée that the rich and handsome man she is about to marry isn’t the guy for her.”

THE GOOD

Oddly enough the first person I want to mention for this movie is Dylan Moran. Moran plays Pegg’s best friend and the cousin of Pegg’s love interest. Moran was also in Shaun of the Dead with Pegg, and while he was pretty over shadowed in “Shaun”, he absolutely stands out and shines in Fatboy. His deadpan comedic timing was just perfect. It got to the point that every time he opened his mouth on screen you just EXPECTED something hilarious to come out. Very much a supporting role, but to me he stood out even more than Pegg, wich is a testament to how well he did in this flick as opposed to a knock on the job Pegg did. Speaking of which…

Simon Pegg was, as expected, very strong in the lead. That same charm and lovable half loser aura that he brought to “Shaun” was very much in full force for Fatboy. Pegg seems to have the ability to take even a mundane piece of dialog, and make it something that puts a grin on your face. Speaking of “face”, Pegg has that same Jim Carrey ability of using his face to emphasis comedic elements… but in a more subdued manner than Carrey, which I think is even more effective.

One thing that these British style comedies absolutely MUST have to work, is strong, memorable characters. Fatboy is well equipped in that regard. Pegg, Hank Azaria (who was also fantastic in the film), the Landlord, the Best Friend, even the Kid were all very endearing characters that you liked, laughed with… and even enjoyed when you weren’t supposed to like them very much

The first hour of this film is HILARIOUS.

THE BAD

Ok, the first thing I should mention here is a MAJOR pet peeve of mine. A little while ago I wrote a post called “8 Things I’m Sick Of Seeing In The Movies” talking about horrible overused cliches that too many movies fall back on. Well, in that article the #1 thing I put right at the top was:

1 - The current boyfriend/husband of the main character’s would be love interest is a total jerk

THE CLICHE: You know what I’m talking about. The “hero” of the film loves a girl, but the girl has a boyfriend. Already you know there is a 97% chance that this boyfriend will end up being a total dick. He yells at her, demeans her, doesn’t respect her. You can’t imagine why on earth she’s with him in the first place… but whatever the reason it doesn’t matter, because you know she’s going to end up with the hero in the end anyway when she finally sees the jerk in question for what he is, and leaves him for the hero.

Well guess what? That happens… again. About half the movies I’ve seen here use that old cliche and it always DRIVES ME NUTS! I HATE THAT!

Thawndie Newton does not belong in movies. I think she’s terrible, and terrible once again in this flick. At no point could I imagine why Pegg was in love with her, or why she was worth fighting for. Maybe I could have if Newton brought ANYTHING to the character… but she’s just not capable of it.

I mentioned in the “Good” part that the first hour of the film is hilarious. And it is! However, after the first hour the movie hits a wall. Great characters and a clever direction suddenly gave way to far overused cliches, safe yet terrible plot devices, and it went from feeling like a motion picture to a bad sitcom episode. A real shame because the film was moving along so great up to that point and it seemed to just get flushed.

OVERALL

Strong characters, some great laughs and a couple of decent performances are almost ruined by bad cliches, safe Hollywood type decisions and a sudden change in direction that disrupted the feel of the film. I still enjoyed the film when all was said and done, but I can’t help but also feel let down by it. For a Pegg movie I was hoping for so much more. A decent flick I think you’ll like… but don’t expect to love it in the least. Overall I give Run Fatboy Run a 6.5 out of 10

Thanks for checking out our Harold And Kumar 2 Review! We had a chance to see the film at the SXSW premier last night with members of the cast in attendance, including his eternal holiness Neil Patrick Harris

The General Idea

Plot Synopsis from Imdb: Follows the cross-country adventures of the pot-smoking duo as they try to outrun authorities who suspect them of being terrorists when they try to sneak a bong on board their flight to Amsterdam.

The Good

This film can be split into two parts; before Neil Patrick Harris (B.N.P.H) and after Neil Patrick Harris (A.N.P.H). The film is alright up until the man hits the screen and then explodes into the stratosphere of hilarity. His appearance in the first film delighted everyone, and his follow up met all my expectations and then some. Every time he delivered a line, the theatre went fucking nuts. NPH stole the show and everybody seemed to be fine with it. This man is a comedic actor of the highest degree, this role was tailored to showcase his ability, and his scene involving magic mushrooms and a unicorn is the stuff of legend. The pair of Harold And Kumar Films have put this man on a pedestal, and with luck others will utilize his amazing talent.

This film is chock full of jokes. If one falls flat for you another will soon grab you and pull you in. The scatter shot approach to comedy doesn’t always work, but here the number of great gags/jokes outnumbered the bad and it was a winning strategy. People were laughing often and hard throughout this film, and at the end of the day - that is what you want out of a comedy film. Much of my scoring of a film is based on “if it did what it intended to do” - and pragmatically this film excelled.

The Bad

One of the downfalls of a scatter shot approach to comedy films, is that the story will often suffer. The story here is weak and of no real interest. This would get annoying if any time was spent developing it, but luckily so little time is spent on the plot - you hardly notice it is there. The story cuts ahead so fast, and events work out so perfectly for the characters, that the film indulges in self mockery of this very fact (I found this to be both humorous and necessary). Although the story was a weakness, the fact that it was flipped over as an afterthought was the best thing that could have happened to this film.

The film picks up with Harold looking to follow his love to Amsterdam, and for no good reason a second love interest was added for Kumar. The Kumar love interest story-line has more screen time than Guantanamo Bay; and that upset me. I was annoyed to see another love story in the film, and again, this could have derailed much of the hilarity if so little time was spent on it. Multiple love interests in a comedy is always bullshit; one is bad enough.

Overall

This film was a blast to see with a packed theatre and will not disappoint fans of the original film. Neil Patrick Harris injects a nitrous boost of hilarity and the film continues on with the momentum till finish. This is certainly a film you will want to check out when you get a chance and I recommend it. Out of 10 I would give this film 7.5

Thanks for checking out our Never Back Down Review!

The General Idea

At his new high school, rebellious Jake Tyler (Sean Faris) is lured into an underground fight club. With the help of legendary Brazilian MMA trainer Jean Roqua (Djimon Hounsou) Jake learns to focus his natural fighting ability and in the process, masters his emotions. When a new found nemesis leaves Jake no choice but to fight; combat is initiated with strength of mind and body.

The Good

Going in I was skeptical about the fighting. As one of the first MMA films to date, I didn’t expect this one to knock it out of the park. Well, I was wrong. The crazy bastards involved with this project trained a disgusting about (6 hours a day, 6 days a week for 3 months) and as a result, they were ripped to shit fighting machines with the skills to kill. The fighting in this movie was an accurate depiction of MMA combat (with the exception of a few too many high kicks added for theatrical effect) and they kept it extremely entertaining. This is a warrior’s tale and it doesn’t insult the practitioners of MMA with bullshit fight sequences. The people involved should be very proud of the work they put into the fight choreography, the hard work paid off and we all benefit from it.

Much of this film takes place at school. We are introduced to some teenage drama and this is where the film could have gotten incredibly lame. Instead, we get a fairly accurate account of what is going on in affluent schools today. This is no surprise because the writer actually got the idea for this film from actual events. One day his son came home from his Santa Monica high school - told his father about a fight (that the news declared a riot) and then showed him clips of the scrap on MySpace. In less that a few hours fight footage taken via camera phone was on the net for all to see. A light-bulb went off, and the script was born. Throughout the writing process teens were consulted about the story and gave their honest opinion on the dialogue, reactions and interaction of the characters.

This film has a plethora of sluts in bikinis and topless dudes in shorts; there is eye candy for everybody. You never see total nudity, but the amount of skin in this film is both abundant and glorious. I always argue that you need titillation in your action films; it ramps up testosterone and gives you the necessary hormonal shift to fully enjoy your violence (and vice vera). Sluts in a pool are always a quality addition to any high school/frat film. The use of gratuitous skin is where high school and action films intersect and “the bikini” was the glue that held the two genres together.

Djimon Hounsou gives an amazing performance as a dedicated Dojo Legend, and he inspires others to do the same. The acting overall in this film was great, the dialogue was snappy and for a change I didn’t hate the love interest. In fact, Baja (Amber Heard) is quite likable and comes off as an intelligent and socially delightful maiden that’s worth fighting for - this is a welcome deviation from norm.

The Bad

There isn’t much that bothered me with this film. But during the last fight sequence I did find the “shaky cam” a bit off-putting and I would have rather seen more static shots in their place. At a round table last week Director Jeff Wadlow discussed the use of small “lipstick cameras” on the heads of the actors during this sequence. I believe these guys were the objects of my disdain. Wadlow used the cameras so we would get a feel of what it would be like in that situation. I appreciate that he tried something new, and wanted to bring us into the action, but for me it had the opposite effect.

The trailers for this film fucking suck.

Overall

This was a formulaic, feel good fight film that did what it set out to do very, very well. You should check it out, and out of 10, I give Never Back Down an 8.

Never Back Down is in theaters March 14 2008

Thanks for checking out our Bank Job Review. Feel free to also view the video version of this review at the bottom of the post.

I became a big fan of Jason Statham after watching “Snatch” (still one of my favorite movies of all time). At the time though, I didn’t really think we’d see him pop up in anything else. Thankfully I was wrong, and Statham has grown to become one of the only legitimate action stars in the business today. So when I heard about “The Bank Job”, I was instantly curious in the project. The fact that it’s based on some true events also intrigued me.

THE GENERAL IDEA

From the official synopsis: “Inspired by the infamous 1971 robbery that took place at the Lloyds Bank in Marylebone London, Lionsgate’s ® ‘The Bank Job’ stars Jason Statham (’Transporter,’ ‘Snatch,’ ‘Crank,’ ‘The Italian Job’) and Saffron Burrows (’Klimt,’ ‘Enigma’). The highly-charged heist thriller tautly interweaves high-level corruption, murder and sexual scandal in 1970s England.

A car dealer with a dodgy past and new family, Terry (Statham) has always avoided major-league scams. But when Martine (Burrows), a beautiful model from his old neighborhood, offers him a lead on a foolproof bank hit on London’s Baker Street, Terry recognizes the opportunity of a lifetime. Martine targets a roomful of safe deposit boxes worth millions in cash and jewelry. But Terry and his crew don’t realize the boxes also contain a treasure trove of dirty secrets - secrets that will thrust them into a deadly web of corruption and illicit scandal that spans London’s criminal underworld, the highest echelons of the British government, and the Royal Family itself…the true story of a heist gone wrong…in all the right ways.”

THE GOOD

Jason Statham is great in this flick. No, he won’t win any Oscars for it, but what he brings to the table was perfect for this role, and he delivered exactly what he needed to. He carries a subtle toughness, a lot of charm, and some decent comedic timing that allows the film to be funny at times. One of the things that impresses me about Statham is his ability to not even look like he’s acting. He never looks forced to me, and in this film he does the same.

Saffron Burrows is delicious. She’s one of those actresses that every time I see her pop up, I wonder why she hasn’t made it “BIG” yet. I’ve always liked her just about every time I see her… and although this doesn’t speak to the quality of the movie or her acting it needs to be said…. DAMN THIS WOMAN IS HOT! And believe me, she carries that “hotness” like a sword in this flick. Very real, yet sultry in her casualness. The accent doesn’t hurt either.

The pace of the movie is fantastic. Always moving, alway progressing and always pushing the story forward. A great pace helps gloss over minor weaknesses in a film and keep the focus on the story. Like I always say, pace doesn’t mean speed, it means progression. This movie certainly isn’t the fastest moving one I’ve seen this month, but it does a solid job of keeping the focus on the story by always moving it forward. Even when it lingers for a while it does so with a point.

It’s funny. This is not a comedy by any stretch of the imagination, but the film delivers some well timed and pretty effective laughs along the way.

THE BAD

The film doesn’t exactly have the deepest plot in the world. It’s a pretty simple and straight forward story that has you almost wishing it would throw in some sort of twist that could take it to another level, but that twist (not the M Night Shamhammer kind) never comes. The movie is a sort of WYSIWYG movie. It’s all laid out for you right there on the surface, and from the first 15 minutes of the flick you know exactly where the movie is going to go. No real surprises, no real depth.

The “heist” part of the film was a bit of a let down. I love heist movies… the planning, the execution, the unforeseen obstacles that have to be overcome and then the payoff. The Bank Job presents itself as a heist movie, and to a degree it is… but not a very good one. The “heist” was very straight forward and honestly pretty anti-climatic by the time it’s finished. Also, the “heist” only comprises about the first half of the film.

I hate to say this one… but it does beg to be said. The Bank Job feels like a poor man’s version (and slight rip off) of “Snatch”. As a matter of fact, the movie even has its own version of “Brick Top” in it. I’m not kidding… there is this villain in the movie that is a sort of mob boss, who talks like, acts like… and hell is even made to LOOK LIKE Brick Top from “Snatch”, and that put me off a little.

OVERALL

Even with the weaknesses mentioned above, The Bank Job is a fun and entertaining time at the movies. Jason Statham is his usual charming self, the pace of the movie is terrific, it’s funny, at times exciting and generally pretty damn satisfying. It’s no “Snatch”, but that’s ok. Overall I give The Bank Job a 7 out of 10.

You can check out our video version of The Bank Job review here:

If you’d like to put this video on your facebook/blog/myspace/web page, you can grab the YouTube version here.

Thank you for checking out our review of The Other Boleyn Girl.

The General Idea

Plot synopsis from IMDB: A sumptuous and sensual tale of intrigue, romance and betrayal set against the backdrop of a defining moment in European history: two beautiful sisters, Anne and Mary Boleyn, driven by their family’s blind ambition, compete for the love of the handsome and passionate King Henry VIII.

The Good

Scarlett Johnansson and Natalie Portman were both delightful in this film and I enjoyed watching them squabble as sisters. The chemistry between the two was great and there back on forth dialog made for some of the film’s best moments. I will not lie, with all the sisterly hugging and kissing It took some effort not to let the mind wander to thoughts of strap-on usurping. Natalie Portman uses her eyes to great effect in the film and gives some powerful “come hither” looks that could make the thickest of pants turn to vapor.

I usually hate films like this, but my interest was kept the entire time. The dialog was snappy and I was interested in the unraveling rivalry between the very different Boleyn girls. I enjoyed the script very much and the story of Anne is a powerful one. Using her feminine wiles she became queen and set in motion the creation of the Anglican Church; forever separating England’s ties with the Vatican. This girl used her vagina as a weapon, and history is a testament to its power! (My crotch may be able to get me a meager sandwich on the best of days.)

The film also tickled my fancy with multiple beheadings; and they always makes for fantastic cinema. This would usually be considered a spoiler but because the events are based on history - you already knew the outcome. (If you skipped that class, everyone lives; I was just yanking your chain).

The Bad

As much as I enjoyed the story, for a period piece I never felt immersed into the film. I think this was largely do to the editing. They had a lot of ground to cover but often we skip too quickly from one shot to the next and the film seemed disjointed and hurried. This was a shame, because the location shots and costumes were very beautiful and the attention to detail was outstanding. If we were able to spend more time in each shot and get a feel for the place, the film would have been much more endearing and immersive.

Eric Bana as Henry the 8th gets to have some pretty outstanding relations in this movie. We have love scenes with both Scarlett and Natalie; and they are utter garbage. The love scenes are brushed over quickly as an afterthought, and we see more skin from soap commercials. This was an opportunity to have two of Hollywood’s hottest starlets compete for greatest on screen sex scene - and it was totally blown. I am aghast on many levels why this opportunity was not taken advantage of. It was appropriate to the story and if you are going to do a love scene anyway, I would think it wise to make it steamy, delicious, and memorable.

Overall

This was a surprisingly enjoyable film for me. An extra 20 minutes would have actually strengthened the feel of the story and made for a more atmospheric experience. I never think a film should go longer, but here - it may have been appropriate. Natalie and Scarlett did a great job working together and I hope we get to see them do so again. Out of 10, I would give this film a 6.

Thanks for checking out our Semi Pro Review!

The General Idea

Plot synopsis from IMDB: Jackie Moon, the owner-coach-player of the American Basketball Association’s Flint Michigan Tropics, rallies his teammates to make their NBA dreams come true

The Good

Tim Meadows isn’t in Semi Pro much, but the strongest scene in the film features him and this is no accident. He is an outstanding comedic performer with amazing timing and when he is on the screen - laughter happens. It was great to see him and Will working together again and I certainly hope for more team ups in the future.

The sports commentators in this film Dick Pepperfield (Andrew Daly) and Lou Redwood (Will Arnett) have quite a bit of dialogue both on and off the court. You would think that the movie would have suffered for it, but the opposite was true. When either of these characters are on the screen, the film is funny and enjoyable. Arnett and Daly had fantastic chemistry and they both fit their characters like a glove. To be honest, if Semi Pro was a film about sports commentators and focused on these two; the movie would have been much, much better. These characters were the pillars holding the film together and without them it would have been a total write off.

Jackie Moon surprisingly does not have a lot of stand alone screen time. We do not get many solo moments with Jackie so we don’t learn much about him, and it’s just as well; the character is forgettable and I would argue the worst Will Ferrell incarnation to date. He was a profane man however and it made for some hilarious moments. Will usually keeps the language fairly clean so it was a bit shocking to see him slinging f-bombs in peoples’ faces. The audience always laughed when he got crass and it was a nice surprise. I just wish this card would have been used with a better character, in a better film

The Bad

Monix (Woody Harrelson) plays the hero of this film and is also the love interest in a bullshit romantic sub-plot. The film is more about Monix than Jakie Moon, which could have been fine - if Monix was humorous. When a focus character isn’t funny in a comedy; something has gone horribly wrong. Woody was great in Kingpin and it’s a shame that Semi Pro ignored and his comedic ability. Monixr was a flat out buzzkill and every time he is on the screen - the film becomes lameland.

The story for this film sucked, It was formulaic, unfunny and spent time trying to provide life lessons in a glossed over, piss-poor manner. Some scenes were quite funny and that will happen when you have a cast like this; but the overall story still needs to be humorous - this was not the case with Semi Pro. This film was the bastard son of a shitty sports film and a mediocre comedy. With the talent they had on board, it’s a god damn shame this film was anything less than outstanding.

Overall

With the little that these actors had to work with, they still managed to get some pretty decent laughs, and some scenes were great. It is for a handful of scenes that I will recommend this film. Andrew Daly And Will Arnett are largely responsible for tipping the scale and they should be proud of what they accomplished. This is my least favorite Wil Ferrell comedy to date, so it has the distinction of being #1 on that list. Out of 10 I will give Semi Pro a 5 and if you are not chopping at the bit to see it; wait for the rental.

Thanks for checking out our Charlie Bartlett review.

The General Idea

Plot outline from IMDB: Wealthy teenager Charlie Bartlett is failing miserably at fitting in at a new public high school run by the world-weary Principal Gardner. As he begins to better understand the social hierarchy, Charlie’s honest charm and likability positions him as the resident “psychiatrist” dishing out advice, and the occasional prescription with his partner and fellow student, Murphy Bivens, to other students in need. Along the way, he decides to take some of his own advice, find romance, and learn to accept who he is, thus wielding a witty dark comedy about the angst-filled years before college.

The Good

The acting in this film was great. Robert Downey Jr. ruled and the young actors that he had to play off of certainly held their own. This film was a great opportunity for a number of fledgeling thespians to showcase their wares and when you have the Jr. Downey in the scene with you, it is quite a bonus.

The film sets itself up pretty quickly into what looks to be a hilarious modern take on the high school drug movie. Instead of weed, hash, mushrooms and acid, we have kids spilling their guts to Charlie Bartlett and he hooks them up with pharmaceuticals. When Charlie (Anton Yelchin) and his hooligan dealer Murphy (Tyler Hilton) sell their first batch of ritilain at a school dance it leads to a hilarious shot of 2 topless girls running down the hall as they are being chased by a mentally challenged giant wearing a cape!

One scene in particular stood out to be awesome. Charlie is assaulted on his first day of school by Murphy, and then after he returns from a few days off…. is assaulted again. In retaliation Charlie hires the schools largest student (who happens to be mentally challenged) and gets his limo driver to cut Murphy off on his way home from school. The giant then throws Murph into the car, and manhandles him till he’s subdued. Charlie then extends the offer to become business partners in drug dealing. It was a classic high school movie moment and was done very well.

The Bad

The movie seems to shift gears from a drug comedy to an after school special about how teens can properly deal with their emotional problems. The majority of the movie focuses on the counseling of Charlie Bartlett and him struggling with his own demons. I don’t mind if the film wanted to have this message but the set up was for a different type of movie, and the punch-line was without a proper setup.

It was needless for this film to have a restricted rating. If the film was going to be a drug comedy, it would have made total sense; but because the lions share of the film is all about sentimental life lessons, I would have preferred to see it PG-13. At this rating the target audience would be able to benefit from the film’s message. As much as I disliked the change in direction, if the film was focused one way or the other - we could have had a great film. Because it tried to be two genres, it didn’t do justice to either.

Overall

The acting in this film was solid, but the film didn’t know what it wanted to be. An opportunity was wasted and out of 10 I will give Charlie Bartlett a 5 just to get him out of high school.

Thanks for checking out our Vantage Point review. If you’d like, there’s a video version of this review at the bottom of the post.

Vantage Point is a film that has a couple of things going for before I even step into the theater to watch it. First of all, it’s a little different. I’m always interested to see films that take a different approach to conventional linear storytelling. They don’t all turn out as well as Memento did, but it’s still interesting to see. Telling a story from different perspectives isn’t exactly 100% original, but it’s not done often. Also, I confess to being a big Denis Quaid fan. Put that man in anything and I’ll be curious at the very least to see it. So did Vantage Point take advantage of these things or squander them? Well… both.

THE GENERAL IDEA

Vantage Point takes place during a major world event where the President of the United States (played by William Hurt) has assembled a massive alliance of world leaders in a new plan to fight global terrorism. The movie happens all on the afternoon of a huge outdoor press conference in Spain with the leaders in front of cheering crowds. But when the President steps up to the microphone to address the world, gun shots ring out and the President goes down. Moments after that, sounds of explosions echo and blast through the crowd. This incident is then replayed for the audience several times, each time from the perspective of a different person. The President, one of his secret service agents, a tourist, a terrorist and a couple of others all sewn together for the audience leading up to the climax of the film when all the various perspectives come together.

THE GOOD

The concept of the film worked. The whole idea of weaving what is really going on to the audience through different perspectives and the new information that comes from each character, and how that new information sheds light on information we learned from a previous one was executed well. It starts us off just from the perspective of the average citizen of the world as we first see the events happen from the view of the world news agency (they can’t call it CNN… so it’s something like GNN or something like that) and then we learn more from each progressive charcter’s “Vantage Point”.

The ensemble cast of the film was quite solid really, no one really stuck out as a weakness (aside from Forest Whitaker, who is always great but whose character was totally pointless and uncessesary which made having an actor like him in there a distraction) and they all fit pretty well into their respective roles. Quaid was quite strong actually, but I expected nothing less anyway.

THE BAD

It’s not really fair to hold the marketing of a film against a movie… but in today’s Hollywood, the marketing is now very much a part of the film’s experience unfortunately, and the marketing of this film absolutely RUINED significant parts of the movie for me. I obviously can’t go into too much detail here without crossing into spoiler territory, but it’s enough to say that as I was watching the movie I realized that a couple of things that were SUPPOSED to be twists and surprises later on, were already ruined because of something I saw in the trailer. This drove me NUTS.

Although the movie executed the whole “telling the story from different Vantage Points” pretty well, the mechanism they used got quite annoying. As each characters point of view was finished being shown, the screen would freeze, then rewind through what we just saw, and a clock would show at the bottom of the screen letting us know that it was Noon again. The first time they did it, it felt out of place… but after that it felt like they were treating us in the audience like idiots. As a matter of fact, instead of creating added dramatic tension to the movie, the technique made people in the theater laugh out loud each time they did it.

THE ENDING OF THIS MOVIE WAS BEYOND FRUSTRATING, UNBELIEVABLE and pure utter nonsense. I wish more than anything I could tell you how this thing ends, but clearly that would be a spoiler, but I will say this… the film comes to its end with a terrorist, doing something so stupid, so ridiculous, so unbelievable that it just sours the taste of the whole film for me. I want to rant and rave about how bad this ending was… but I can’t… and that makes me even more frustrated. AARRGGGHH!!!!!

OVERALL

Vantage Point is a mediocre story told in an interesting way that unfortunately tends to drag itself down by some of the repetativness and techniques it employs. A decent job by the ensembles cast carries the film most of the way, and then is nearly completely ruined by a plot device at the end that soured the whole taste of the movie for me. Overall I give Vantage Point a 5 out of 10.

Thanks for checking out our Be Kind Rewind review, make sure to check out our video review at the bottom of the page!

The General Idea

Plot outline from IMDB: Jerry is a junkyard worker who attempts to sabotage a power plant he suspects of causing his headaches. But he inadvertently causes his brain to become magnetized, leading to the unintentional destruction of all the movies in his friend’s store. In order to keep the store’s one loyal customer, an elderly lady with a tenuous grasp on reality, the pair re-create a long line of films including The Lion King, Rush Hour, Ghostbusters, When We Were Kings, Back to the Future, Driving Miss Daisy, and Robocop, putting themselves and their townspeople into it. They become the biggest stars in their neighborhood.

The Good

The idea of people remaking well known movies and renting them out is a fantastic idea. In this film the movie is at its best when they are doing just that. Jerry (Jack Black) and Mike (Mos Def) use fast talking, ingenuity and limitless imagination to recreate some well known classics and it is an absolute pleasure to watch them do so. They props and costumes that they assemble are made from junk that you or I could gather ourselves (and watching them makes you want to do likewise).

I very much enjoyed the local aspect of this film and watching different people in the community interact with each other. Jerry is pretty much crazy, lives in a trailer and his interaction with the locals was fantastic. He was strange, but because he was local, people just accepted him the way he was without flinching. Every town has their “local crazies,” they become celebrities and part of the tapestry. You learn to appreciate who they are, and what they bring to a community. In my home town of Welland we have a man that wears denim from head to toe and walks around the city from sunrise to sunset. He will sing you assorted Doors lyrics for cigarettes and every time I am in town I keep an eye out for the man. He walks the earth like cain, but looks like a roadie for Motorhead. If you owned a piece of land by how many footsteps you put upon it - he would be be Welland’s undisputed monarch.

The Bad

Although the idea for this film was great and the movie making segments were fantastic, the story that held it all together was quite weak. We spend a lot of time on the myth of a local Jazz Legend that really takes focus away from the story and adds an unnecessary mythos to the plot. Mr. Fletcher (Danny Glover), the owner of the store, is absent for much of the film, and to be honest his character adds nothing to the story. Danny was good in the film, but his character’s absence would have made for a better movie.

This film was also too long, it really should have been trimmed down to keep the pace tighter, if they sliced out danny glover and jazz history, this film would have had more focus on what was important. The city and the FBI both play enemies of the video store in the film; either would have been fine, but to have two different forces threatening the store was overkill.

Overall

I enjoyed this film, but certainly had problems with the story. This movie reminds us that we love many films in spite of their flaws, and this is a self fulfilling prophecy. I would recommend this film because the cool parts are worth checking out and although I wasn’t busting a gut laughing - I did enjoy myself. Out of 10, I would give this film a 6.

Yesterday while many people were enjoying Valentine’s Day, and showering themselves with gifts and having romantic dinners, I had taken my single ass to the theatres to see the Toronto pre-screening of the fifth installment in George A. Romero’s popular “Dead” series. Yup, instead of staying at home and feeling like I’ve had my heart ripped out, I opted to go the movies to hopefully see characters get their hearts ripped out….literally.  Since the film was filmed in Toronto, the audience was lucky to see some of the main actors of the film who came out to support it. I’ve been very excited to see ‘Diary of the Dead’ for a long time, and was hoping it would blow my mind away. Did I get what I was hoping for? Read on to find out!

General Idea: A film crew shooting a horror movie for a class project suddenly realizes the world is being taken over by the “walking dead.” They decide to document their horrific experiences of trying to stay alive on camera for the public. They later piece together and re-edit footage from their camcorders, camera phones, security tapes, and the news to make a film entitled ‘The Death of Death.’

The Good: You have to give it up to George A. Romero. The man knows how to stay consistent. Like all his movies, the zombie outbreak takes place in the Present, and the reasons why the dead walk the earth still remains an enigma. (Something I’ve always loved.)

Also, something I always admired about this man is his ability of adapting and growing with the times.  Most people know now that his ‘Dead’ movies are not just about zombies taking over the earth, but more importantly about current social issues and examining how ugly the human condition can be. In ‘Diary of the Dead,’ he makes the audience observe society’s current and ever growing obsession of blogging and social network groups like facebook, MySpace, and YouTube.  While I watched the film, I realized that the zombie outbreak wasn’t the only thing infecting the humans. It became apparent that Romero was trying to point out how we have become a generation of people that would rather watch people living out their lives on a computer screen, instead of living our own. In fact, the characters in the movie become so immersed with filming, that their need for survival starts to diminish. This was an excellent point to get across to the audience.

Additionally, the kills in this movie were fantastic! Romero has some of the most inventive and creative kills I have ever seen in a movie! (There’s a particular one involving a cardiac defibrillator that was pure gold!) The audience was cheering every time one of the undead met their demise. This to me was (visually) the strongest point of the film, so I won’t spoil all the memorably gory moments.

The audience is also introduced to the greatest character ever seen in a horror movie.  When you see Samuel, the elderly deaf zombie killing Amish man, believe me that you will have a giant smile on your face. (Too bad he wasn’t in the film more.) Honestly, if they had made the movie just about him, I would have been cheering the whole way.

The Bad:  Although Romero’s creative twist on the new “hand held” sub-genre was a fairly original concept*, (*showing us a documentary that’s been re-edited by the characters to look like an actual horror film) it unfortunately didn’t succeed in wowing me over.

While popular hand held movies like ‘The Blair Witch Project,’ ‘Cloverfield,’ and ‘Rec’ made you feel like you’re watching real-life footage because of gritty and jerky camera work and natural acting from the leads, ‘Diary of the Dead’ had sleek camera work and actors who LOOKED like they were acting. (Poorly I might add.) For the entire running time I was completely aware I was watching a movie, instead of watching an illusion of real-life events.

Also, although I can’t believe I’m going to write this, (considering this IS a zombie flick) my suspension of disbelief was definitely pushed to the limit.

Somehow, these college kids all managed to have perfect aim and gunmanship when it came to killing the zombies. (Even the drunken professor had extremely accurate bowsmanship.) They also managed to constantly make stupid moves and mistakes which frustrated me to no end. (If you were in your friend’s house and was convinced her undead family was hiding in the house, would the first thing you do is tell her to get her childhood toy to calm down? NO…I didn’t think so.)   I also found it very hard to believe that friends would not only tape, but re-edit a documentary of most of them getting picked off one by one to look and sound like a slasher film. (However, considering what Romero was trying to do with this film, this might not be a bad thing after all.)

Last but not least, one of the biggest letdowns of this film was realizing Romero’s tactful way of covering all the social commentary within his ‘Dead’ films was long gone. No longer is there any under-lining subtext for the messages he was trying to get across in this entry. Unlike ‘Cloverfield,’ which was able to demonstrate how we have become a press-whoring youtube and MySpace generation through one scene where crowds of panicked people foolishly stop running for their lives to take pictures on their camera phones of the decapitated head of the Statue of Liberty on the ground, ‘Diary of the Dead’ spends the entire running time of the movie drilling this message in our heads through many ostentatious voice-overs, and characters without the ability to retain any inner monologue, reminding us how bad our society has become.  Although, I know it wasn’t Romero’s intention at all, it still felt like he had underestimated his audience’s I.Q. Unfortunately, this was disappointing to see.

Overall: ‘Diary of the Dead’ is a movie that was beautifully directed, yet horribly acted.  Although the movie’s message was a powerful one, it would have been far more powerful if the movie hadn’t treated its audience like Wile.E Coyote and constantly hit us over the heads with ACME-sized “social commentary” anvils.   This is honestly the first time I feel horrible for not being able to like the movie more than I did.  (This is probably because George Romero just happens to be one of the sweetest and most charismatic directors alive.) However, despite the movie’s flaws, I still would recommend this for fans of the series, because it definitely delivers the goods that horror fans crave for.

I give this movie…. (GULP) a 6.5 out of 10. (I’m sorry, George! :P)

Thanks for checking out our Spiderwick Chronicles review. If you’d like, you can check out the video version of the review at the bottom of this post.

You could be forgiven going into see “The Spiderwick Chronicles” if you thought you were in store for just some cheap fantasy kids film flagrantly trying to capitalize on the popularity of bigger and better fantasy films such at The Chronicles of Narnia or Lord of the rings. The marketing campaign certainly hasn’t done much to dispel that impression, nor have they even made the film to look very good. Still, it appears to be a family friendly film, so perhaps you’re already obligated to take some child of yours, or are close to, to see it. So what should you expect?

THE GENERAL IDEA

80 years ago Arthur Spiderwick discovered a magical world that exists all around us that we can’t see. In this magical world are creatures of indescribable wonder including pixies, faries, goblins, trolls, brownies and many more… all there in front of our eyes, but invisible to us. Spiderwick begins to learn all their secrets and chronicles his findings in a book that reveals how to see them, interact with them and if necessary how to fight some of them (not all of them are good). However, an evil Ogre and his minions wants the book so he can learn the secrets of all the other mystical creatures, destroy them all, and become the most powerful being on the planet… so powerful that not even humans can stop him. The book is hidden in Spiderwicks house, and 80 years later an unknowing family (part of his descendant’s family) move into the house, and one of the children discovers the book which once again arouses the eye of the evil Ogre.

THE GOOD

I never cease to be amazed by Freddie Highmore. I first took notice of him in “Finding Neverland” in which he was nothing short of amazing. Later he played opposite Johnny Depp again as the lead in Charlie and the Chocolate factory and once again was beyond exceptional for a child actor. In The Spiderwick Chronicles he delivers no less. He’s so good, they had to have him play 2 characters (he plays twin brothers in the movie). This kid just sells it and is the main reason so much of the film works. His awe and wonder, shock and amazement all draw you in as an audience member and you end up sharing that awe and wonder with him. I can’t wait to see him evolve and grow as an actor.

I’ve already mentioned that Highmore plays twin brothers in the film. Here’s the thing… I didn’t realize it was him playing both parts. It was done SO well, that I just assumed they got Highmore’s real life brother to play the other part. That’s how visually brilliant the two separate parts were handled. I didn’t even know it was being done. Credit the acting by Highmore, to way in which it was shot, the visual effects people for making look so seamless… whoever you credit doesn’t matter, the bottom line is I’ve never seen this technique done better.

An absolute key to making a film like this (fantasy/adventure) work is in the storytelling, make the audience feel the fantasy and wonder of the story. Get us caught up in it to the point we experience it with the characters. Spiderwick does that beautifully. Not only the fantasy elements, but the mystery elements and the “scary” elements as well. It’s not often you see a kid focused film do all of that so well.

THE BAD

The film has a running sub-story of the family (the mom and her three kids have just left their father back in New York) that for the most part works quite well, but there are times when it comes across as being poured on a bit too thick and forced at times. I probably wouldn’t have even noticed those parts if the rest of it wasn’t handled so well

OVERALL

The Spiderwick Chronicles is a fun fantasy adventure film that draws you in with the strength of its storytelling, the performances by the young actors and genuine mystery at times. The visual effects aren’t the best I’ve ever seen, but they more than suffice. A few weaker moments of forced family drama don’t take away at all from the story or the adventure and leaves you nothing short of a very good time. The Spiderwick Chronicles won’t become an instantly fantasy classic by any stretch of the imagination, but it certainly is a great film to see this weekend. I give the film a solid 8/10.

Thanks for checking out our Jumper review, be sure to check our video review at the bottom of the page!

The General Idea

David Rice (Hayden Christensen) finds out that he possess the power of teleportation and uses it to set out on his own and live a life of privilege and excitement. Life begins to change when a religious sect of paladin hunters headed by (Samuel Jackson) discover his whereabouts and begin the task of tracking him down. David then uses this difficult time to reunite with his grade school crush Millie (Rachel Bilson). An alliance is made with the more experienced jumper Griffin (Jamie Bell) to fight the paladins so they can live again without worry.

The Good

Teleporting is awesome, and the location shots in this film were incredible. They really did a fantastic job with one super-power and when it was in use, the film was very enjoyable. We get to wonder what we would do if we were in their shoes, and most of us would do a number of things these “jumpers” have checked off on their list. The ability to span the globe with a thought is a delightful fantasy, and this film really sold us on the benefits of that power.

When David and Griffin finally hook up, the camaraderie is fantastic and the movie really takes a turn for the better. This is the relationship the film should have focused on; sadly this was not the case. At one point David says that the two of them should join forces like in Marvel Team Up - Griffin smirks and responds well to the comic book reference. The more experienced Griffin also gets David up to speed on stories of other jumpers and the dangers of the paladin hunters that seek to kill them.

The paladins (as headed by Samuel Jackson) are an order of righteous religious zealots bent on killing all with powers only god should possess. They are hunter/warriors with modern gadgetry designed to take out jumpers and prove themselves to be worthy adversaries. Campea was saddened that we never dug into their background, and I agree with him. We are given glancing descriptions of them and their order without a shot of their secret location, rich history and dusty tomes. This was a missed opportunity.

Jamie Bell ruled as Griffin. This character was the best part of the film and Mr. Bell should be very pleased with his performance..

The Bad

This movie starts off with a long voice over that is completely unnecessary. If we just had a chance to watch what was being shown, we would be able to “figure it out,” but instead we have overdubs explaining the obvious. We don’t have voice over for the rest of the film - which is good, and also strange.

The love interest in this film is horrible. It drags the film to a screeching halt on a number of occasions and is never believable. They dive headlong into coupledom and on their first date Millie gives David the gears like they were married for 6 years. No one would put up with this shit. If this was to be a believable story, he would of ditched her ass in a New York minute. When you are on the first date and someone is too nosy and annoying - you run, or in this case teleport! Millie is an insanely annoying character and asks question after question after question. I kept praying for “Questions McGee” to die (but sadly this does not happen).

This movie ends horribly, I obviously cannot tell you what happens - but it isn’t good. All the problems Millie had evaporate in a flash; without cause or reason this annoying nag becomes understanding and behaves as cool as a cucumber. The film sets itself up for a sequel in a manner that is far too obvious with hooks that do not sink in one bit. If you know you have a sequel planned - you better make people hunger for another at the end of the film, this certainly did not happen here.

Overall

I found this movie to be extremely frustrating. It was such a good idea and certainly had some awesome parts to it. If they changed some things around and removed a character or two, it could have been fantastic. The potential was there; it just didn’t turn out right. I felt bad for the film as a guidance counsellor may feel bad for a wayward teen that does not fully realize the consequences a poor decisions can make. I do not think I would recommend this film, and give it a 4 out of 10.

Thanks for checking out our Definitely, Maybe review. There is also a video version of the Definitely, Maybe review at the bottom of the post you may want to check out.

I have to admit right up front that I consider myself to be a mild Ryan Reynolds fan. I’m not going to say he’s one of the world’s great thespians by any stretch of the imagination, but what he lacks in raw talent or artistic craftsmanship, he more than makes up for with solid comedic timing, and an undeniable charm. Hell, he was the best part of Blade 3 (and the only decent part of Blade 3 come to think of it). I’ve also become a big fan of Elizabeth Banks… add Rachel Weisz and Isla Fisher to the mix and you’ve got my attention.

THE GENERAL IDEA

Definitely, Maybe revolves around Ryan Reynolds who plays a freshly divorced father on one of the days he has his young daughter (he has her 2 days a weeks). At school, an inappropriate teacher decides to talk sex ed to the far too young children, which inspires Reynolds’ daughter to want to know how her parents met and fell in love in the first place. Reynolds and his daughter decide to make a game out of it as he tells her the story of the 3 women he’s been in love with during his life, and she has to try to figure out which one ends up being her mother.

THE GOOD

It’s not often that I’ll refer to a child’s performance as one of the “good” things in my reviews. However, I’ll mention it here. Abigail Breslin does a terrific job as Reynolds daughter in the film, which is saying a lot because there were a number of scenes that could have easily been ruined by another child actor. No, she won’t get any Oscar nominations for her role, but she handled those harder scenes in such a way that she didn’t become a distraction, and that’s a pit most films with child actors fall into.

Ryan Reynolds has never been better. Was it the most challenging role of his career? No. Was it the most emotionally diverse role of his career? No. But I have no problems saying, that in this little pseudo romantic comedy, Ryan Reynolds gives the best performance I’ve ever seen him give. He still has his charm. He still has his wit. However, you see added on top of that a new maturity. It’s hard to quantify other than to say you can see him growing as an actor. He’s added subtlety and nuances to his performance that gives it a much stronger impact. Not only do you laugh with him in the comedy scenes, but he makes you also believe the emotional ones. The best way I can explain it is to compare his role to that of Jim Carrey’s in “Liar Liar” (which I loved by the way). In Liar Liar Carrey is hilarious, but one negative is that in the scenes that are supposed to be “emotional” or have some impact, you can’t separate Carrey from the clown. You still expect him at any moment to break out of the serious moment and say “yuk yuk” and make some strange rubber face. Reynolds navigates these two elements with ease, and I think ultimately, his ability to be both funny man and father is what makes this movie work so well.

The story does suffer a little from being a bit formulaic at times. No doubt about it. However, as I mentioned to the girl I saw the movie with: “Sometimes a recipe is a recipe for a reason… because it works”. Definitely, Maybe does use a few cinematic recipes during the run time, but they’re all done well, and the resulting entree is delicious.

I’ve also got to mention that Kevin Kline is in the film. This man is a minor deity to me and can do no wrong in my eyes. He plays a drunken literature professor who constantly sexes up his much younger grad students. I can’t imagine Jack Nicholson don’t it better than Kline did in the film.

Running just under the surface of the film are themes of political idealism as well. Reynolds has dreams of being president of the united states and is one of the many volunteers in the first Bill Clinton campaign. But as the story progresses, we see this idealist become disillusioned with the heroes he holds in such high regard. This all has a direct impact on how his story evolves through the movie and I thought was handled brilliantly.

THE BAD

Isla Fisher stands out as one of the weaknesses of the film. Don’t get me wrong, I adore Fisher. But she just wasn’t able to make her character seem real. Too aloof, too air headed and just so far out there that it became impossible for me to believe any rationale person, let alone Reynolds’ character, would ever fall in love with her. Scenes where her character is supposed to be emotionally fragile, vulnerable and sweet, come off as silly, annoying and a bit bothersome. This weakness is highlighted even more by the fact that the two other love interests (Elizabeth Banks and Rachel Weisz) were played so strongly (especially Weisz).

OVERALL

Definitely, Maybe is a funny, warm and ultimately endearing film that I just loved. Ryan Reynolds shows us he’s evolving as an actor, the framework of the movie (Reynolds telling his daughter the story of his three life loves) is interesting and functionally works very well. I’m not the biggest fan of romantic comedies at all, but if more of them were like Definitely, Maybe, I’d be a whole lot more excited about seeing new ones when they came out. Overall I’m going to give Definitely, Maybe an 8.5/10

IF YOU’D LIKE, YOU CAN WATCH THE VIDEO VERSION OF THE DEFINITELY, MAYBE REVIEW HERE

My friend Wintle bought me a 50 pack of Sword And Sandal films before I left for Hollywood. He then bought a pack for himself, and we began discussion about going through the series together. Soon after we decided to share our journey with all of you; and thus the Macho Movie Review was born.

Over the next 50 weeks, every Week we plan to have a short podcast for you discussing the Sword and Sandal movie of the week. We will be going through the Warriors Movie Pack made available through Mill Creek Entertainment. You can find the set for about 20-30 USD. We encourage all interested to buy the pack, and/or download the films that are public domain. Many of these films are 40-50 years old and we find it a delight to mull over the Macho Movies of yesteryear, and would like nothing more than for you to join in on the discussion.

We are both fond of old warrior movies and are happy to be digging through the series for some glorious gems and wretched mistakes. Many of the films are Italian in origin and were made with shoestring budgets, often you will see rubber swords and the use of stock battle footage. None the less, a great story is a great story, and the Sword and Sandal film is always a celebration of the classic manly, macho hero.

The Rating System: To go with the theme we will be rating the films out of 9. The hydra has 9 heads, so we will be giving each film a rating out of that number - and will post a picture. For those of you that wish to skip the podcast and are not that keen on buying the set - keep an eye on the hydra. If you you see a film with 7-9 Hydra heads - you may want to track that particular film down.

Today Wintle and I discuss the second film in the series Spartacus and the Ten Gladiators (196).

The film is about a group of Gladiators that lose their livelihoods when they interfere in an arena battle that they deem unethical. The wander the land like vagabonds looking for work when a damsel in distress obtains their help to defeat a group of bandits. Her father seeks to reward them, but they insist on work. The politician has recently lost a number of slaves, Spartacus being one of them. He sends the Gladiators out as henchmen to return Spartacus to him. The 10 soon learn that they are working under a tyrant and their allegiances are swayed! We join them on the road and watch as they fight for freedom!

Ladies and Gentlemen, it is my great pleasure to present to you, The Macho Movie Review for Spartacus and the 10 Gladiators:

To Listen To The Podcast Click Here

Wintle and Nagy both deem this film to be worth 6 Hydra Heads out of 9.

Thanks for checking out our review of The Band’s Visit!

The General Idea

A brass band comprised of members of the Egyptian police force head to Israel to play at the inaugural ceremony of an Arab arts center, only to find themselves lost in a foreign city. They are invited to stay the night and are accommodated by the owner and patrons of a small restaurant.

The Good

We follow a dreary group of police musicians around a desolate Israeli town after they mistakenly take the wrong bus. They are put up for the night by locals, and we watch the uncomfortable mingling that takes place. The situation is obviously awkward for all involved and eventually we come to realize that awkwardness and the problems life throws at us are a commonality shared by all. Another thing we have in common is music, and often the band will use their skill as a means to communicate to their Israeli hosts. This film plays up both the differences and the similarities, and in the end it is obvious that we are all more alike than we would like to admit.

The lead charachter known as The General (Sasson Gabai) is outstanding. He is a dignified and proper old school hard-nose that has his guard up for almost the entire film. Evetually the sultry restaurant owner gets him to crack a bit, but not for long and soon he retreats back into his shell. We eventually see the cost of his attitude, his knowledge of it, and his dismay at his inability to change. Rather than working it out, he almost prefers to keep to himself and protect others from his company. The performance was outstanding and really hooked me into the film.

The awkward exchanges are humorous much like the office television show. You laugh at the uncomfortableness of the situations, and that is the point.

The Bad

This film is a very slow 87 minutes. I feel that it was done deliberately, and although I didn’t have a problem with the pace myself, I think that some may get bored with this film. If I had to find something with this film to gripe about, i suppose that would be it.

Overall

This was a very enjoyable film. It never came across as preachy but the message was there for those with eyes and ears to hear. A wrong turn led to an uncomfortable night for a number of very boring, dreary people and at the end of the experience they somehow came away with a day that none of them will every forget. Eventually the band reaches their final destination and we get to see the group shine doing what they do best. It makes you smile to see such grey characters finally strut like peacocks in the right environment, and it was a great way to finish the film. I would recommend this movie and give it a strong 7/10.

Hello international friends! Thank you for checking out our Fool’s Gold Review.

The General Idea

Plot synopsis from IMDB: Fools Gold stars Matthew McConaughey as Ben Finn Finnegan, a good-natured, surf bum-turned-treasure hunter who is obsessed with finding the legendary 18th century Queens Dowry — 40 chests of exotic treasure that was lost at sea in 1715. In his quest, Finn has sunk everything he has, including his marriage to Tess Finnegan (Kate Hudson) and his more-rusty-than-trusty salvage boat, Booty Calls. Just as Tess has begun to rebuild her life, working aboard a mega-yacht owned by billionaire Nigel Honeycutt (Donald Sutherland), Finn discovers a vital clue to the treasures whereabouts. Certain that his luck will change with the newfound information, Finn maneuvers himself aboard Nigels yacht and, using his good-natured charm, convinces the tycoon and his Blackberry-wielding, celebutante daughter, Gemma (Alexis Dziena), to join him in the pursuit of the Spanish treasure. Against Tess better judgment, the search rekindles her loveof discovery. But they are not the only ones after the treasure. Finns mentor-turned-nemesis Moe Fitch (Ray Winstone) has also set out to claim the prize.

The Good

We get to see a lot of quality abs in this film. This movie celebrates abs more than it celebrates treasure and I would have preferred the title of Golden Abs Of The Caribbean. Donald Sutherland also has an outstanding collection of ascots that he sports in the film. I have been on the fence about ascots, but I think this may have put me over the edge. I think I may be an ascot man. My favorite film critic Alex Reynolds sports an ascot, and with his permission I would like to enter the club.

The Bad

This film actually didn’t have a bad treasure hunting story, but it was muddled to death with divorce arguments (that you never really bought into) and the family troubles between an insanely wealthy father and his daughter. I did not see the need to slow the film down and add in unnecessary dramatic tension. People did not come to this film to learn life lessons, they came to see a fun rom-com treasure hunt - with abs.

The film overall didn’t have a very good story. The dialogue was bad and the conversational jokes were not that amusing. The best parts of the film occured when the treasure hunting was happening; or when they were talking about their research. This would have been a better adventure film than a rom/com/adventure. By trying to do too much, nothing was done very well and by the end of the film I thought to myself “well I saw that coming, and I didn’t enjoy the ride”.

At 113 minutes, this film was also needlessly long, I am confused why they decided to keep so much in. This fun in the sun beach romp should have been just that.

Overall

If you like to look at Kate Hudson and/or Matthew Matthew McConaughey in swim-wear, then certainly go see this movie. If you are looking for a quality rom/com - you may want to skip this one. I did not loathe this film; it just wasn’t very good. I wouldn’t be comfortable recommending this movie, and out of 10, I suppose I would give it a 4.

Thanks for checking out our In Bruges review!

The General Idea

Plot synopsis from IMDB: Bruges, the most well-preserved medieval city in the whole of Belgium, is a welcoming destination for travellers from all over the world. But for hit men Ray and Ken, it could be their final destination; a difficult job has resulted in the pair being ordered right before Christmas by their London boss Harry to go and cool their heels in the storybook Flemish city for a couple of weeks. Very much out of place amidst the gothic architecture, canals, and cobbled streets, the two hit men fill their days living the lives of tourists. Ray, still haunted by the bloodshed in London, hates the place, while Ken, even as he keeps a fatherly eye on Ray’s often profanely funny exploits, finds his mind and soul being expanded by the beauty and serenity of the city. But the longer they stay waiting for Harry’s call, the more surreal their experience becomes, as they find themselves in weird encounters with locals, tourists, violent medieval art, a dwarf American actor shooting a European art film, Dutch prostitutes, and a potential romance for Ray in the form of Chloë, who may have some dark secrets of her own. And when the call from Harry does finally come, Ken and Ray’s vacation becomes a life-and-death struggle of darkly comic proportions and surprisingly emotional consequences.

This is an extremely well written story. Amazing call backs, fantastic tie ins, and an ending that … I would love to discuss, but cannot without giving something away. This is a dialogue heavy film that pits different characters together at different times. In a short amount of time we have in jokes, back stabbing, double crossing, good natured ribbing, enemies becoming friends, friends becoming enemies all the while remaining wildly entertaining. The characters in this film are all interesting, unique and it is a pleasure to see how them mix it up in varying combinations.

The film focuses mainly of the characters Ray (Colin Farrell), Ken (Brendan Gleeson) and “the boss” Harry (Ralph Fiennes). For most of the film we are following Ray and Ken around town, listening in on their discussion. This would normally be insanely boring fare, but Bruges is as beautiful a setting as you could hope for, and the 3 aforementioned heavy weights use language like they had a black belt in it. With words like whips they lash each other back and forth without skipping a beat, it was an absolute pleasure to watch these thespian masters speak with power, emotion and legendary timing.

We witness the “wind down” time of surly assassins and get to share in their post-murder day to day . Usually a film about assassins is all about “the job”; this film picks up where most finish. This was a dark drama, and the comedic moments were an equal shade of space. The theatre was packed and people were laughing throughout the film; well and often. So many of the conversations were packed with jokes, this is common in life, but is rarely done so well in a film. The chat was natural, funny and jam packed with profanity. You swear at work, I swear at work, these gents simply follow suit. The language is irreverent, crass and exactly what you should expect from people that kill others for a living.

The Bad

At 107 minutes I feel this film could have done with a slight trimming. The dialogue never got boring and in fact the film itself didn’t seem to drag, but a more liberal use of the editing shank may have made this just that much more. This however is my only quibble with this however. I have more problems with Mother Theresa than I do with this film.

Overall

I loved this film and could not recommend it enough, if you see one film this weekend - may this be it. I had high hopes for this movie and it did not disappoint in the least, it tickled me in the blackest regions of my heart; and for that, I thank them. Out of 10 I would gladly give this film a 9, and declare it Routh.

Thanks for checking out our Strange Wilderness review!

The General Idea

The son (Peter Gaulke) of a legendary wildlife show host attempts to fill his father’s shoes after his untimely passing. Pete (Steve Zahn) and his ragamuffin production crew run the show into the ground with a lack of ability and drug abuse. Upon being given 2 weeks notice from the network unless they deliver something “big”. They get a lead on a Bigfoot sighting in South America and start off on a road trip, doing 4 nature shows on the way down.

The Good

Every time this film showed nature footage with overdubs - I laughed my ass off. It was ridiculous, outlandish, peculiar and it just made me howl. These short videos were the best part of the film and the last shark video is easily the best of them all. I posted this video a while back, and it made me laugh just as hard when I saw it in the theatre. Everyone was in stitches in the theatre I was in, and that ridiculous shark made my day.

A lot of the drug humor fell flat and seemed unnecessary, but one short scene with a bottle of ether in an RV was also very funny. I will not ruin it for you, but stuff gets out of hand and everyone looks like they are in a Red Hot Chili Peppers Video.

The Bad

Like the characters in this film, it seemed like this film was slapped together by people that were high and had no desire for quality. The dialogue was horrible, most jokes fell flat and a lot of the gags just came off as lame. Many of the scenes seemed to be flat out improv, and instead of shooting till they got something good - it felt like they just kept the first take.

Peter Dante was in this film and usually makes me howl, but this time out, most of his lines were hurting and his best comedic opportunity was group vomiting into the mouth of a shark. I was excited to see him in the film, but was bummed out that he wasn’t given the tools necessary to bring the “ha ha” I am accustomed to.

You can see in the performances that the actors did not believe in the project, and you almost sense that they are mocking themselves as they work. This is so blatant that the movie itself ends on a scene that would normally be an out-take. The guys bust out laughing because the movie ends on such a ridiculous line - and they kept that shot as the final scene of the film; and in a strange way it worked. You knew the film sucked, and so did they - so in some sense it was refreshing to see that they were in on the joke that was this film

Overall

There are a lot of reasons to dislike this film. That being said, I laughed very, very hard at a few points. The animal clips were great, but the rest pretty much sucked. It was like an awesome animal episode of America’s Funniest Home videos and you just wanted the show to fast forward to the next clip.

As I was leaving the theatre, I was laughing at how funny some stuff was, and also at the blatant lack of effort or concern for quality. I would only recommend this film to personal friends that appreciate the absolutely ridiculous, but as a rule - I would not suggest you see it. Movies that suck, and yet entertain me at points are always the hardest to rate. I suppose I would have to give this film a reluctant 5/10. This is too high a mark for the quality of film that it was, but the animal videos did make me laugh very much, and since the film is a comedy, pragmatically I have to give it a passing grade of 50%. The film currently has a 0% at Rotten Tomatoes, ouch.

Here is the best part of the movie so you can skip it:

Thanks for checking out our Over Her Dead Body Review!

The General Idea

Kate (Eva Longoria) is engaged to be wed to Henry (Paul Rudd), she gets killed on their wedding day and becomes trapped on earth as a ghost. A year on Henry’s sister Chloe (Lindsay Sloane) convinces him to talk to Ashley, a delicious psychic (Lake Bell). The psychic lies to Henry initially (at the request of Chloe) and says that Kate sends her blessing from the nether-world and wants him to be happy. Ashley and Henry hit it off, love begins to form, and then a jealous ghost begins to sabotage the relationship by means of harassing the psychic with visitations.

The Good

Paul Rudd rules and his charisma is able to make the most out of any situation. In this film he did not have a lot of comedic material in which to shine, and yet he manages to charm you none the less. He did not save this movie, but I shudder to think of what It would have been without him.

Near the end of this film, there is a great couple of scenes where a parrot is used. The parrot scenes were the best part of this film.

The Bad

I know in a ghost story you are supposed to suspend belief, but so much in this film left me shaking my head. Eva Longoria had one emotion the whole way through the film and reacted to her own death the same way you or I may react to the purchasing of tic-tacs. As a jealous ghost, their should have been a ton of opportunity for hilarity, but we didn’t get much at all.

This film is not funny enough to be a comedy and not serious enough to be a drama, so it disappoints on both levels. There is a lot of bickering between Kate and Ashley, but it never really makes you laugh and certainly is not nasty enough to be believable. After the initial death - we don’t see Longoria for the next 20 minutes. I started to wonder why she was even in the film at all. For a movie about a troublesome ghost we hardly see her character. We see more of Ashley’s assistant Dan (Jason Biggs) than we do of her.

The movie kept reminding me of Ghost, and although the movie does not rip anything off per se, you can see where a few ideas may have been inspired from the Swayze film. The problem is, Ghost fucking ruled, and the comparison reminded me of how well an idea like this can be done.

Overall

I would certainly not recommend this movie, I wasn’t a fan of it and do not think many will find it memorable. The film never infuriated me and never bored me to tears but it was a lukewarm experience that dwelled in the realm of mediocrity. The parrot ended the film well, and I consider him/her/it to be the star of the show.

I give this film a 4/10, it would have been a 2 if not for the team up of Paul Rudd and the Parrot.