A Post That is Long Overdue....

I've been surprised at how busy college has kept me lately. I mean, it was expected, but I suppose my last two semesters have never hit the road running this hard so early in the school year. I am taking 17 credits, mainly due to my foreign language (a requirement for English majors) that lasts five days of the week, along with my 300-level Literary Criticism class where I have to write a 2-page response paper over a very dense reading for Tuesdays and Thursdays. I'm not asking to be pitied--I'm just trying to put into perspective why I have not been able to update as frequently as I'd like.

Anyways, the updates will come. Slowly, but surely, they will.

Tasteful Humor for "Extract

What is presumed to be the third in a trilogy of Mike Judge comedies (the first two being "Office Space" and "Idiocracy"), "Extract" brings together some of that working class, dealing with idiots, "I-hate-my-job" humor we saw in the cult classic "Office Space." But this film is not just a rehash of what we saw in 1999. Instead, we get to see things from the boss' perspective and the dense employees he must put up with.

"Extract" starts with Joel (Jason Bateman), an honest entrepreneur running his baking extract company while dealing with the headache his self-righteous, irrational employees cause him. His home life is anything but a sanctuary from the workplace where Joel meets sexual defeat when his wife (played by Kristen Wiig) tightens those sweat pants that aren't coming off for the rest of the evening. Bateman does a great job showing the frustration bottling up inside of Joel, just like the bottles of almond extract filled in the factory (if they don't fall off the conveyor belt!). The movie is definitely a character-driven plot and it works because the characters are so memorable and realistically white trash. J.K. Simmons, although once again the careless, dry, and sarcastic mentor-figure, was a pleasure to watch rag on the employees who's names he replaces with "Boy Genius" and "Dinkus." I was also pleased to see Mila Kunis (last seen as Jason Segel's love interest in "Forgetting Sarah Marshall) back, but this time as the con artist who begins working at Reynold's Extract to get in on a million dollar lawsuit. Ben Affleck, who I'm normally not too fond of, pulled off a great boneheaded best friend to Bateman who happens to be hyped up on drugs half the time. Even members of the unknown supporting cast really pulled everything together: the gossipy middle-aged women accusing everyone of doing wrong or stealing from them, the dopey Step who endures a rather unfortunate severing below the belt, the annoyingly talkative next door neighbor, and Brad the gigolo, who unwittingly falls in love with Bateman's wife. Perhaps the strangest casting choice was Gene Simmons as a lawyer, but the character was supposed to be a theatrical buffoon, so it worked out.

What I really liked about this movie was its ability to pull off the miserable vibes played in "Office Space" while moving into a completely new region of the work comedy territory. There's a nice balance between Bateman's home and work life, where both places seem to be falling apart. The only place he can turn to is the bar, where Affleck works, and receive idiotic ideas on how he can attempt to fix his problems. The plot is formulaic, but it still retained little surprises that satisfied the palate. It was constructed well, holding the audience's attention with Kunis' cunning manipulation. She becomes the inspiration for Bateman's desire to exit his empy marriage, which in turn only twists the already bunched up problems in his life. I kind of wanted a little more interaction between the two, but the film worked well without it.

Again, if not for anything else, "Extract" is worth watching for the characters that are surprisingly accurate representations of people you've seen or met. I felt this might've been a tad bit better than "Office Space" primarily due to the tour-de-force of the cast and the dynamic scenarios that challenge the characters throughout the entire film. Just like the title suggests, "Extract" definitely carries that extra flavor of enjoyment.

BOTTOM LINE: I don't know if I'm going to place it in my Top 5 movies of the year, but "Extract" does deliver a fresh batch of funny characters that leaves you with a good taste in your mouth.

PROS:
1. Brad the gigolo -- This blonde airhead was so amazingly stupid that I think he stole every scene he was in.
2. Jason Bateman -- He gave a lot to this role.
3. Lidiea & Gabriella -- The two chatty-Cathy's working the conveyor belt with a little bit of curious racism. They're usually the source of the problems in the plant because they refuse to do their job if they see someone else not doing theirs.
4. Ben Affleck as a stoner -- Following the steps of comedic revival like Tom Cruise, Affleck does this side-character some justice.
5. White trash -- Yep. There's a lot of it. And it's funny if you've been around these people before.
6. Nathan the annoying neighbor -- Everyone has met this guy.

CONS:
1. Kind of like with "Office Space," I was left wanting more.
2. Some of the decisions Bateman makes might not go over well with a more moral audience. But it's sort of justified with the fact that he was slipped horse tranquilizers.

RATING:

1/2 OUT OF 5

New Play: Shakespeare's Inferno

Although this has nothing to do with film, I still think it's an important addition in the world of theatre. "Shakespeare's Inferno" is a play Kirby Ann Witte and I wrote together our senior year at Carlsbad High School in New Mexico. It has now been officially published through Pioneer Drama, and you can check it out online right here.

We had written this play partly as an assignment for our English teacher, Carol Parr, and in the hopes that it might become the play our theatre class would select to take to our annual Drama Fest at ENMU in Portales. It took about a month to write (with the both of us writing sections and e-mailing it to the other, or writing parts together), and that was a bit of procrastination on our part! Mrs. Parr had Kirby and me read a few Shakespeare plays (Henry V and Taming of the Shrew) to expand our cast list a bit. We finished it close to November, with positive feedback from Mrs. Parr and our drama teacher, Mannie Bemis, and offered it up as a potential option for our theatre troupe to perform.

Our Play Production class voted between "Shakespeare's Inferno" and another one act play I had written that summer by request. The class was split, but "Shakespeare" ultimately triumphed. We had auditions in December and hit the road running with rehearsals upon returning from winter break. Danelle Morrill was selected as director, and Kirby took the role of Puck while I performed as Captain Fluellen. It was quite interesting and impressive to see our classmates speak these words we had written. The rehearsals would become painful at times, particularily with line memorization. I felt the heat mostly through gathering costumes for the cast and learning a Welsh accent. But it all pulled through at the end, as it does with every production, and it was amazing.

We performed the second to last week in February 2008 (the week of Valentine's Day) with two day performances on Monday and Tuesday along with an evening performance for parents. Our fellow students in the audience understood the humour very well, which boost our confidence in bringing the play to Portales. We had brought a very successful play the year before ("We're Experiencing Technical Difficulties"), so naturally we felt a lot of pressure to deliver our absolute best. And just so, we did. The moment of our performance was such a blur, but I guess we received nearly a full standing ovation. What felt the best, though, was the lasting effect we had on our audience. Afterwards, Kirby and I had people come up to us, congratulating us on a job well done as well as how they could obtain the scripts for their own productions. I remember standing in our hotel hallway when group passing us shouted, "Hey, it's the Shakespeare people!" while grabbing their friends from the room to come meet us. In short, we felt like celebrities.

At the end of the festival, ENMSU handed out awards to the different plays. "Shakespeare's Inferno" received an Excellence in Directing for Danelle, an Excellence in Acting for Terence Taggart as MacBeth, and an Outstanding in Original Work. That "Outstanding" gave us the best feeling, not only because it was the most prestigious award possible, but we were the only ones to have received one out of all the categories. Mrs. Bemis conveyed to us that the Drama Department was greatly impressed with the calibre of our work. As the ceremony wrapped up, we again had questions about obtaining the rights to our play. And that's when Kirby and I decided we should get "Shakespeare's Inferno" published.

We went through some edits during our very busy summer (having just graduated, gone on vacation to DisneyLand and NYC, and trying to prepare for college), and sent it off to Pioneer Drama Services in August, and Playwright, Inc. a couple months later. We hadn't heard anything for a while, but they had notified us that it would take about 6 months until a final decision would be made. I was beginning to lose confidence that "Shakespeare" would ever get published, until around February 2009 I received a letter from Pioneer Drama explaining they would like to publish the play. They had already included the contracts too. I was amazed that it was happening, and canceled our submission to Playwright, Inc. after they had explained they would not publish it.

Our only drawback was obtaining the rights to the copyright. Pioneer normally would've kept them, but Kirby insisted that we needed that copyright in our hands so we could get credit if ever "Shakespeare" would become popular. But first we had to get the copyright, which was a long and expensive process in itself. I was beginning to wonder if this would ever get done until the copyright finally came through mid-summer and our editor was sending us e-mails about last minutes tweaks to the script.

And now it's finally done. With $5 a script and $30 for royalties, it can finally be purchased. Kirby and I get 10% of the profit (of course, that means 5% for her and 5% for me), and 50% (25/25) of the royalties. We won't get a check until about April, but I'm still immensely thrilled. It won't be a major profit, but it's given me a slight foot in the door and an early achievement that I had never expected to happen :)

Box Office Results: Fresh Sci-Fi District 9 Triumphs

Title	Weekend	Total	Analysis
District 9	$37.0M	$37.0M	Great reviews and word-of-mouth buzz propels twisty, creative sci-fi flick to #1.
G.I Joe: The Rise of Cobra	$22.5M	$98.8M	The last of the summer blockbusters fell almost 60% from Week 1 opening.
The Time Traveler's Wife	$19.2M	$19.2M	Eric Bana and Rachel McAdams romance a mild success as sci-fi/cartoon counter-programming.
Julie and Julia	$12.4M	$43.7M	Cooking dramedy makes its $40M budget back in 2nd week.
G-Force	$6.9M	$99.0M	Animated guinea pig action pic showing strong legs as it approaches $100M "blockbuster" status.

Bomb of the Week: The Goods: Live Hard, Sell Hard is this week's winner due to mere $5.3M take in spite of large marketing push. Perhaps some actors just work better on TV.

COURTESY OF ReelzChannel.com

Movie Recommendation of the Week: Once

Once, 2006

~ Starring ~

Glen Hansard
Marketa Irglova

~ Awards ~

Academy Award for Best Original Song, "Falling Slowly"


~ Synopsis ~

Sometimes, you only get one chance to follow yours dreams. So, when a brokenhearted street musician clicks with a beautiful and feisty keyboardist, the unlikely couple decides they have nothing--and everything--to lose. Over the course of one electric week, the duo writes, performs and records an incredible cycle of songs every bit as spontaneous and soulful as their improbable romance. This truly unforgettable blend of transcendent pop music and raw, naturalistic storytelling is absolutely mesmerizing, because something this passionate and original comes along only...Once.

~ Why I'm Recommending It ~

• It has sort of a raw, documentary feel to it. What I found interesting about it was that Hansard and Irglova were only called in to play these parts when the real actors couldn't quite master the musical performance.
  
• The chemistry between Hansard and Irglova is positively sweet. The "love story" is recognized, but they meet bumps along the way that makes it difficult for them to commit to one another. In other words, the love story isn't "sappy" and that's why it's easy to get into.
• THE MUSIC. It feels like a musical, without the grand dance numbers and spontaneous bursts into song. The songs are hauntingly heart-wrenching and beautifully composed. You watch them create the music together, giving it a very personal feel. "Falling Slowly," "If You Want Me," "When Your Mind's Made Up," "The Hill", and "Say It To Me Now" are some of my favorites.
  
• The names of the two main characters are actually never mentioned in the film. I felt this made the movie more universal and personal--this relationship can be happening to anyone.
• Glen Hansard and Marketa Irglova are incredibly talented musicians. With Glen's Irish lilt to his performance and Marketa's slight Czech-accent in her singing voice, it makes this movie about music and love quite dynamic.

RATING
1/2 OUT OF 5

A Mostly Positive Direction for "Away We Go"

(Note: This is Jezebel's boyfriend giving this guest review. Since Jez lives in a town with a really crappy movie selection, I offered to give reviews of films that are playing in my neck of the woods.)

Usually, when walking around the mall or something with my family, my parents will see a little kid being incredibly obnoxious while the parent is entirely oblivious, and we all feel that we need to comment on this. After experiencing this quite a bit, we've started to use the phrase “We're the perfect parents of other people's kids."

But first of all, I must say that the script, written by master satirist Dave Eggers (If you don't know who he is, he's the editor of the great satire magazine, McSweeney's) and his wife Vendela Vida, is fantastic. They provided some very fun and interesting characters for all the actors involved to live in, and introduced some twists into the genre about pregnancy and road trips. For instance, Burt and Verona find out they're pregnant during oral sex. Without getting too graphic, Burt determines Verona is either starting menopause or is pregnant. Mind you, that's just the first scene. The conclusion of the movie is a conversation in the middle of the night, while both of them are laying down on a trampoline.

The character work also shines bright in this film. John Krasinski is no stranger to playing the understanding nice guy, and he uses that to full effect as Burt. He practically becomes the emotional center of the entire film. While on this large journey, he's also charged with the task of talking Verona out of the emotional breakdowns that come with pregnancy. Being incredibly sweet and a little bit quirky at times, it's really rather easy to see why Verona had fallen in love with him. However, perhaps because of the script, Verona wasn't as strong of a character as I thought she should have been. While there are little bits that show through, she just seems incredibly introverted and aloof for most of the film, which is made even more apparent during one-on-one scenes with Burt. While it looked like she was the one in charge in the beginning, by about halfway into the movie it's pretty much all about Burt.

Part of the fun of road trip movies is the large cast of supporting characters. Eggers and Vida wrote some great eccentric characters in each of the cities that Burt and Verona visit, and for me they really stole the show. Perhaps the funniest supporting role belongs to Allison Janney, who plays the loud and abrasive Lily, Verona's former boss. She prefers a more hands-off approach to parenting, which usually means her kids are dragged along while she acts like they're not even there. Maggie Gyllenhaal also stole the show in her brief role as LN, the ultra-progressive liberal hippie parent who doesn't believe in strollers and shares a bed with her husband and kids, even while they're having sex.

However, my major problem with the film happened within the last half hour. As soon as the couple arrived in Montreal, the entire film did a sudden, sharp change in mood. While the events in Phoenix, Tuscon, and Milwaukee were hilarious, the film suddenly takes a sharp turn into the realm of drama. After an hour and a half of seeing bad parenting, we suddenly see families with good parents that have fallen into bad luck with divorces and miscarriages. While these scenes certainly would stand up well on their own, it felt like too jarring of a change. I kept on waiting for another opportunity to laugh, which didn't come until the conclusion. After a last moment reviewing everything that happened and exchanging vows to never do what they had witnessed other parents doing, they settle upon a place to live, which felt like a good, sweet ending.

BOTTOM LINE: “Away We Go” offers a lot of laughs, lovable characters, and has a script that will certainly catch your attention. Fans of independent cinema will certainly enjoy it. However, be prepared for the comedy to dry up considerably in the final act.

PROS:
1.Burt Farlander – John Krasinski's character was weird, goofy, sweet, and lovable. It's hard not to take a liking to the character.
2.Hilarious side characters – Allison Janney and Maggie Gyllenhaal really steal the show for their brief appearances.
3.The little kid telling Burt and Verona what he knows about babies – you have to see the movie to really get this one. It's the most hilarious line in the movie.
4.Great script by Dave Eggers and Vendela Vida – Especially since it's their first. I really can't wait to see how Eggers does on his next project, the adaptation of “Where The Wild Things Are”

CONS:
1.Verona – There wasn't really much to the character. Most of the time, she was either crying or being incredibly introverted and aloof.
2.The Final Act – This is really a deal-breaker for the movie. Up to that point, it was absolutely hilarious. Once they hit Montreal, the film suddenly sobers up and becomes a drama. If the movie had balanced comedy and drama well enough, this wouldn't have been such a big issue.

RATING
Out of 5



WRITTEN BY: GrouchoMarx

Secrets Revealed in "District 9"

A good alien invasion flick is hard to come by these days. Aside from the kiddie movies from this year (“Monsters Vs. Aliens” and “Aliens in the Attic”), there hasn't been a good effort for a while to make a decent sci-fi movie for the adult demographic. Luckily, that just changed as District 9 opened in cinemas this weekend.

Directed by newcomer Neill Blomkamp and produced by Peter “The Lord of the Rings” Jackson, the film centers on a fictional encounter in Johannesburg, South Africa in 1989. After a giant alien ship stalled over the city, humans cut open the ship and came into contact with an alien race, nicknamed “Prawns” because of their shellfish-like appearance. In a humanitarian effort, the Prawns are brought down onto Earth to give them food and shelter. However, after a crime wave, their presence isn't welcome and they are segregated into a slum, known as District 9.

Fast-forward twenty years to the present, where the ship is still hanging over the city and the people are still weary of the Prawns. Signs are everywhere, declaring certain areas of town forbidden for “non-humans”. However, the people of Johannesburg don't feel that is enough and demand for the Prawns to be relocated to a place out of town where they won't be able to bother the humans. They turn to private contracting group Multi-National United (MNU) to carry out the evictions.

Heading up this task is a well-meaning simpleton by the name of Wikus van der Merwe. During the eviction raids, Wikus comes in contact with a fluid that starts slowly turning him into a Prawn. Now wanted by MNU for research purposes, Wikus goes into hiding in the only place he knows they won't find him: District 9.

The complicated backstory of the film makes up about the first 45 minutes, which is presented as a documentary on the building of District 9 and the upcoming eviction. Instead of a having an omni-present camera showing everything firsthand, things are revealed through interviews with people involved in the incident as well as using news footage and feeds from surveillance cameras. With a plot as outlandish as this movie has, the documentary footage adds an air of reality to the whole film, making it more believable.

The most realistic and daring thing about the movie is that the story doesn't take any sides. Both the humans and the Prawns are shown to have their faults. During the eviction in the beginning of the movie, the agents of MNU are shown to be trigger-happy, and could care less about the welfare of the Prawns. Wikus even deliberately sets fire to a shack full of Prawn eggs, smiling the whole time. The Prawns are shown to have their faults as well, not entirely fitting in with the customs of Johannesburg, committing crimes, and spitting in the faces of MNU agents. While realistic, this dynamic made it hard to root for either side in the beginning.

As soon as Wikus escapes from MNU's labs, where they, due to his newly transformed Prawn arm, force him to test out the Prawns' weaponry on live targets, the documentary angle is dropped and the rest of the story is told almost solely from the point of view of Wikus. While not a professional actor, Sharlto Copley still gives a very believable, emotional performance as Wikus. By the middle of the movie, I felt ready to forgive him for the horrible atrocities he committed in the first act.

The further adventures of Wikus as he goes into hiding and befriends a Prawn named Christopher Johnson are captivating, and while the plot is pretty straightforward, there are still enough twists to make every new revelation in the film completely unexpected. The action sequences, especially the ones with Wikus using Prawn weaponry, are very well done, and unlike other action movies this summer, feel justified in the structure of the film. I personally liked the Prawn weaponry, especially the giant mech that Wikus pilots in the climax.

For a film with copious amounts of CG, the animation was top notch. The Prawns themselves were all incredibly believable, and the character of Christopher Johnson gave such a great performance, that I completely forgot at times that the Prawns were pure CG. Between the Prawns and Gollum from “Lord of the Rings”, I wonder when the Academy will start to recognize performances made by non-human CG characters.

The finale, while gladly defying the stereotypical Hollywood “happy ending”, still felt a little bit truncated, and some loose ends still hadn't been tied up. Instead, it leaves a glimmer of hope for the future of these characters, and leaves a glimmer of hope in me for a possible sequel in four or five years.

The Bottom Line: District 9 is one of the best films of the year, as well as one of the best science fiction flicks I've seen in a long while. The documentary style storytelling keeps it new and exciting, and there's enough action and exploding heads to satisfy any fan of the genre. I really look forward to whatever Neill Blomkamp decides to direct next.

Pros:
1.A cast of unknowns – By not having a big star attached to the film, the entire world feels more believable.
2.Documentary-style storytelling – It's something I haven't seen before in a science fiction movie, and it really helped me become immersed in the world of the film.
3.Breathtakingly good CG characters – There were times I forgot that the Prawns were entirely CG, a testament to the animators behind the movie.
4.Explosions, blood, and gunfights... with a reason – I love a good action sequence, and this one had plenty. However, the action served to further along the story instead of just merely being spectacle.

Cons:
1.Documentary style dumped – After about 45 minutes, the film switches to mostly conventional camera work, which is kinda disappointing.
2.Unlikeable characters – It took me a while to warm up to Wikus, especially since he was an asshole in the first act.
3.The ending – While not aiming for a Hollywood ending, it still felt like not everything was resolved. Here's hoping for a sequel!

Rating
Out of 5



WRITTEN BY: GrouchoMarx

A Bittersweet Marriage for "The Time Traveler's Wife"

The concept of "The Time Traveler's Wife" is a very complicated one: not because it deals with a relationship where the man disappears without warning, but because the moments of time travel occur in such a random, intricate form that it can really only be pulled off within the patient depths of a novel. The film, to me, established the sweeping romance of Clare Abshire and Henry DeTamble as the core of the story, using the other details of their life to support them. On the other hand, the novel used the minor details (everything from Clare's abusive boyfriend in her teen years to the conflict with Henry's suicidal ex-girlfriend to their similar taste in the Violent Femmes) as the center to build up their love story. That's why I felt the movie might fail because it could not possibly include all of these supporting events that really makes their story precious.

First, let's get down to the casting, as I know that was a concern to fans of the book (and for me). When I had learned Erica Bana was playing Henry, I cringed. I'm sorry, he just doesn't do anything for me, and that receding chin sometimes becomes all I see when he speaks. However while watching the movie, he didn't annoy me as much as I thought. I'm not sure if he encompassed the nature of the "rebellious, intellectual librarian," but at least I was able to buy into a little bit of what made him captivating to Clare -- he was kind, attentive, and protecting. Speaking of which, I thought Rachel McAdams personified Clare very well, except I wish I could've seen more how she fell in love with him (when she was 6 and even again when she's in her early 20s). I thought those missing pieces of how she comes to love him would be resolved (like in the book), but there were only snapshots of her adolescence with Henry that revealed simply a superficial side to their romance versus a deep abiding love for the things he's done for her (again, this is all in the book). Ron Livingston as Gomez was a nice treat however. He carried the same slight arrogance as in the book, and I only wish there had been more of him in the movie.

The beginning is very hard to buy into, for both the book and the movie: McAdams is clumsily saying she can't explain things very well while we see Bana's bare butt scurrying along some wet alleyway. Many weird things do occur in this film, so if you're not open to that, you might wanna sit this one out. While the plot might not seem to go fast, the amount of information coming towards you feels like a lot to swallow. The book was the same way, but then hit a nice stride once the novel focused on Henry time traveling back to meet young Clare, cross-cutted with the events happening in the present. The film does reveal a couple scenes of Henry meeting Clare in the meadow, but I wanted it to keep going. That's what made the book so much fun to read! It was fine to return to the present and catch up on the drama of Clare's trouble with conceiving as she waits in frustration for her husband to come back to her, but then it would return to another time traveling moment. You really begin to feel Clare's frustration, whereas with the movie, you feel like you only have a summary of her feelings about Henry constantly time-traveling. You see Clare's frustation in the movie, but to me it felt very two-dimensional. While the movie did focus more on the present, it also had some very tender moments of Henry encountering his mother and meeting his daughter, Alba, which I am grateful for. But the film lacked a certain depth the book had: we see these events Henry experiences as he travels, but it feels as thought we're watching only the reflection on top of the water. We understand the scene has a deeper meaning, but it is not properly conveyed for the audience to grasp it to its full extent. And because of this, some of the scenes felt restless, like you know something big is about to happen but it never quite gets to that extraordinary reveal.

Along with my indifferent feelings towards some of the scenes, there were a few moments I have to mention that turned on my "Upset Fan Alarm." One that bothered me, yet I felt this small detail probably wouldn't make it to the movie, was this: SPOILER ALERT (highlight the section if you dare read)----------->The movie didn't have the balls to cut off Henry's feet after he gets hypothermia. That was such a devastating part of the book, and I think made Henry have more thoughts about his own mortality. They probably did it so beautiful Erica Bana wouldn't go through the rest of the film footless. Or they thought he might look funny....actually, he probably would. Alright, that was mean of me. I'm done now.<----------okay it's safe to read again. And alas, the ending. I had recently read a list of the Top 5 Scenes Time Traveler's Wife fans wanted in the movie. We got the scene with young Henry, Clare and Henry's meeting, Henry meeting Alba, and their wedding: the one thing missing was the ending. Well, I'll say this--the ending the film had was a scene in the book, but not the proper ending. While the film's ending was worthy of a few tears, the one in the book has far more of an impact and really brings closure.

BOTTOM LINE: I can respect the film for trying to rework certain scenes in order to convey information better, but at times the plot felt a little flaky when you knew it was supposed to have sustenance, and Henry and Clare's relationship seemed dense when they were trying to convince you there was more under the surface without much convincing evidence.

PROS
1. Ron Livingston - He added a snarky edge to the scenes he was in.
2. Old Henry's encounter with his mom - A really touching scene.
3. The wedding switcheroo - Fans of the book will understand.
4. Encounter with Alba

CONS
1. Restless scenes
2. Awkward pacing
3. Henry & Clare's relationship sometimes seemed hard to buy - Those sitting behind me in the theater thought so too. For some reason, a 40-year old man hanging out with a 6-year old girl is creepy in a movie, yet not so much in a book. Go figure.

RATING
1/2 Out of 5

Box Office Results: G.I. Joe Crushes Julia Child

Title	Weekend	Total	Analysis
G.I Joe: The Rise of Cobra	$56.2M	$56.2M	About 1/2 of Transformers 2's opening weekend take, but a shot in the arm to August box-office doldrums.
Julie and Julia	$20.1M	$20.1M	Cooking dramedy did decently in spite of just-so-so reviews.
G-Force	$9.8M	$86.1M	Animated family fare beats Potter two weeks in a row.
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince	$8.8M	$273.8M	Potter running out of gas but will likely pass up Up as #2 earner for 2009.
Funny People	$7.9M	$40.4M	Large Week 2 dropoff as this Apatow movie quickly fades from memory.

Bomb of the Week: For the past two weeks you couldn't watch TV without seeing an ad for A Perfect Getaway but it didn't matter. It made just $5.7M and had a lousy per-screen average. And here's the weird thing: it stars Milla Jovovich and apparently it doesn't suck.

Brought to you by ReelzChannel.com

Movie Recommendation of the Week: The Blues Brothers

THE BLUES BROTHERS, 1980


~ Starring ~

John Belushi
Dan Aykroyd
James Brown
Ray Charles
Cab Calloway
Aretha Franklin
Carrie Fisher
John Candy
Twiggy


~ Synopsis ~

After the release of Jake Blues from prison, he and brother Elwood go to visit the old home where they were raised by nuns. They learn the church stopped its support and will sell the place to the education authority, and the only way to keep the place open is if the $5000 tax on the property is paid within 11 days. The brothers want to help and decide to put their blues band back together and raise the the money by staging a big gig. As they set off on their "mission from god" they seem to make more enemies along the way. Will they manage to come up with the money in time?

~ Why I'm Recommending It ~

• Personally, the best Saturday Night Live-inspired film. Belushi & Aykroyd have the kind of comedic chemistry only made in heaven.
• Sharp, tongue-in-cheek humor and a great bluesy soundtrack complete with fantastic dance sequences.
  
• Jake and Elwood are the epitome of cool convicts. They're completely unfazed about the lunacy and danger around them.
• "How much for the little girl?" -- That line is golden.
• You'll try and get your Mormon friends to say, "We're on a mission from God," when they go on their own mission.
• Illinois Nazis. You'll end up hating them.
• The various cameos from music icons and other actors. It makes this film very fun to see.
  

RATING
OUT OF 5

DVD Rental: Just Say Yes to "Yes Man."

I'll admit it, I mainly wanted to watch this film because of Zooey Deschanel (and even more, the chance to see her sing) and was kind of just expecting the same typical, wacky humor that Jim Carrey has made his bitch since the early '90s. And it did have just that, but even still Carrey continues to charm and revamp the comedy he's well known for. It should feel old and yet it manages to compact the freshness of his earlier films. It's kind of like those Green Bags: you can keep stuff fresh for a longer period of time, and although you might be afraid to eat it because of its age, it still manages to taste alright in the end.

Despite my medium expectations, I still really enjoyed the movie: the comedic situations worked, plus the whole message about "just go out there and live your life" didn't feel too sugary to swallow. In fact, I did almost make me want to try new things (yes, I know that's a corn-tastic line, but try and bear with me on this one). The status quo of Carl (Jim Carrey) at the beginning lays out well at a good pace with hardly any drag that let's you know how much of a flake he is about keeping his appointments and how resistant he is to change. We've all had people in our lives like that, or we ourselves have gone through those things. I know I always try and make an excuse when my friends want to go bowling (not because I don't like them, but because I just hate bowling). But Carl's problem seems very deeply rooted to the point his friends (Bradley Cooper included) wouldn't be able to tell the difference if he was dead or alive.

Insert the inciting incident where an old friend of Carl's gives him a pamplet to a "Yes!" seminar. Carl shrugs it off, but when he sees that his stubbornness to pull through for his friends worsens, he decides to make the leap and find out how to be a "Yes Man." But he's resistant to it at first, particularly when a homeless asks for a ride home. Yet, as the film shows (much like "Liar Liar," but the same formula works here without being too cliched), whenever Carl says "yes" to an opportunity, good comes his way. When he says "no," (such as his rejection to an elderly neighbor's sexual advances), something bad happens. It makes Carl trapped in this covenant he made with himself and so allows for continuous conflict through the movie.

Carrey does make Carl's choices and changes believable, showing his reluctance to take hold of each opportunity as well as his casual acceptance that he needs to turn his life around. After meeting Allison (Zooey Deschanel), Carl suddenly becomes fused with more energy to say yes to everything. Deschanel is always delightfully quirky, especially in her electro-pop band "Munchausen By Proxy." I felt Allison was an integral part to the plot because she really completed Carl by showing him he can say "yes" for other reasons besides the covenant he made with the "Yes Man" inspirational speaker (Terence Stamp). Rhys Darby was equally satisfying as Carrey's boss/buddy, a New Zealander with a sincerely naive smile and an affinity for costume-themed parties.

While the movie goes for the conventional "three act formula," I barely paid much attention to it during my viewing. Obviously Allison was going to find out that Carl was just saying "yes" to everything even if he felt resistant to it, but that moment came when I was least expecting it. The film draws to a close as he tries to win Allison back, and although I was hoping for a less conventional ending (girl tells boy never to talk to her again, girl doesn't answer calls, girl finally relents when boy comes to see her), their reunion at the end was still touching without feeling sticky.


BOTTOM LINE: "Yes Man" fits well within the Jim Carrey genre, and although cliched and conventional at times, there were moments that breathed life into the film without getting too old.


PROS
1. Jim Carrey getting a BJ from an old lady ~ Please don't make me go into detail on this one.
2. Zooey Deschanel & Manchausen By Proxy
3. Zooey's scooter & helmet ~ So adorable.
4. Carrey singing a man down from a ledge ~ Alright, it sounds kind of overplayed, but it was a shining moment I felt.
5. The last scene ~ If you've seen it, you know what I'm talking about.
6. Carrey trying to ride that motorbike at the end ~ It was so goofy I couldn't help but laugh.
7. Rhys Darby ~ Well known for "Flight of the Conchords." I love this man and the themed parties he throws in the movie.

CONS
1. Conventional ~ That's really the only criticism I think I have for it.


RATING
1/2 OUT OF 5

The Lovely Bones Trailer

Having read Alice Sebold's novel of the same name, this movie looks like it's going to be a treat.

Starring: Saoirse Ronan (Atonement), Mark Wahlberg, Rachel Weisz, Susan Sarandon, Stanley Tucci

Directed by: Peter Jackson

Release Date: December 11, 2009

Netflix Fridays: RocknRolla

Okay, I know this review is totally a day late in the making, but "Netflix Saturdays" just doesn't sound right to me. Thus, for this film review blog, I decided to include not only the new releases I see, but also the random movies I rent from Netflix. And when I say random, I mean everything from "Metropolis" to "Clerks" (oh, and as an added note, if anyone has any rental recommendations for me, drop me a comment & I might just review it).

Now down to business, as this film is all about the business of crooks and mob bosses with a sharp and slick taste in how they scam their way to the big bucks. A Russian mobster's real estate scam falls apart, attracting the scrappiest thugs to snag the millions of dollars left in the wash. The movie already has all the elements of a typical Guy Ritchie film, and is much like "Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels": guns, Cockney accents, central London setting, and thieves stealing from thieves because they're caught in a sticky situation with the kingpin. This formula does work well to create conflict and minor chuckle-inducing tight corners the players find themselves lodged into, but if you're expecting something a little more in depth, like "The Departed," you might come out of this movie feeling like something is missing. This is just Guy Ritchie's signature style, and for those who like the quirky, swaggering personas in his films, "RocknRolla" delivers a nice slate of these London-bred characters.

But I think my main problem with the film was that it felt like Ritchie has ADHD: the plot movies incredibly fast within seconds of the first frame, and it's up to you to make sense of the fast-talking, set-switching approach he gives to a crime world that some people might have trouble processing. Another thing is that some of the major players have similar haircuts and similar ways of speaking, thus causing you to wonder why Bob is suddenly a heroin addict when it is in fact the rockstar, Johnny Quid. I think most who watch this will recognize Gerard Butler with his jaunty jawline, film veteran Tom Wilkinson, and Thandie Newton as the main femme fatale.

The chemistry of the cast did work particularily well, never missing a beat in their speed-induced conversations and perfect timing in comedic situations. But there were certain times that the scenes bled into one another a little too well and lost its grounding. The plot felt like it was always up in the air but with some pizazz, kind of like a trapeze artist with a gun. There were some brilliant moments, but sometimes they felt rushed, preventing the nuances of the scene to relish in them.

BOTTOM LINE: If you're familiar with Guy Ritchie's style and appreciate his approach to the London mob world, "RocknRolla" will satisfy your taste buds. But if you're experiencing Ritchie for the first time, you'll still be entertained but might feel a little lost midway in the second act.

PROS
1. One Two (Gerard Butler) discovering Bob's homosexuality ~ This makes it better when Bob also reveals that he's in love with One Two.
2. Thandie Newton ~ A fantastic actress with exotic looks. Check her out in "Run Fat Boy Run."
3. Clever lines ~ "Think before you drink before you drive me mad."
4. Good soundtrack

CONS
1. Fast-paced plot ~ I understand that dragging the story along is just as bad, but sometimes I wished Ritchie would just slow down a bit.
2. Characters looking the same ~ It also didn't help that the cast was large, so I had trouble tracking down who was who.

RATING
out of 5

Zooey & Joe: Summer Music Video

I suppose to promote the new indie/hipster flick "(500) Days of Summer," Zooey Deschanel and Joseph Gordon-Levitt performed in a music video event inspired by producer Mason Novick (Juno) and the dancing number scene in the film where Gordon-Levitt's character wakes up feeling rejuvenated after spending the night with Deschanel.

This is such a delightful music video, set to the tune of She & Him's "Why Do You Let Me Stay Here?" and I thought I'd share it with anyone interested in a quirky dance number with this irresistible cute couple.

Half Expectations for the Half-Blood Prince

Speaking as an avid fan of the book series itself, I still do maintain certain holds on how I would like to see the film interpret the precious words JK Rowling "magic-ed" to life. However, with the sixth installment to a movie series nearly 10 years in the making, I decided to take a "chill pill" elixir and actually NOT re-read Half-Blood Prince so I could actually enjoy the movie for a change, instead of just pointing out how they didn't include Snape actually teaching Defense Against the Dark Arts or that Harry is now the master of Kreacher the house elf.
BUT....the film did include quite a bit more than I had expected (and truthfully, my expectations were just relying on what I could remember from the novel). First of all, cinematically the movie was impressive. The scenes within and around the cave for the climax were dark and elusive, skillfully mastering the uncertainty and danger of Harry and Dumbledore as they test their faith in one another whilst searching for the horcrux. Perhaps like many other HP fans, I was glad to see another Quidditch game in its full arena-like viewing. Another small, yet cleverly amusing, use of the camera was the long shot of the Weasleys peaking over the staircase to answer Ginny whether or not Harry was at their home. I just thought that perfectly encompassed the Weasleys and their house (which is practically like another character).
Speaking of characters, while the actors who play the young wizards and witches may not be the best in the biz, they've still played these roles for so long that it's hard for me to even tell if their acting is bad or not. It's how Harry, Hermione, and Ron have always been played! I've also heard some negative opinions on the young actress playing Lavender Brown being far too overdramatic. Yet, isn't she supposed to be this huge bimbo obnoxiously enraptured with Ron? She WAS annoying, but that was the whole point! And besides, I felt it was to the extent that it was rather humorous.
Okay, now down to meaty parts of the plot (and this is directed at HP fans outraged at how much was put on the chopping block): do you really expect anything else, this far in the series, but a partly embellished version of your favorite wizarding book? I completely understand the few upsets in the movie, particularily the Weasley house catching fire, the Death Eater chase in the fields that brought back weird memories of "Signs," Tonks not finding Harry in the train after Malfoy smashes his nose, and plenty others because they were enough for me to mentally say, "Hey! Wait a minute!" But if I've learned anything in my Film/Literature class, it's that identical adaptations are almost always a complete and utter failure. You can still fail with untruthful representations, but sometimes it is better to allow the screenwriter a little freedom and wiggle room in order to prep the intricacies of a novel to its cinematic form.
Thus, with Half-Blood Prince, I did take note that it included all the major scenes, plus imperative sub-plots that helped the story progress rather than dance around aimlessly (where novels have that power and get away with it), were included in the movie. Following Malfoy into Knockturn Alley, Slughorn's party, Ron & Lavendar's love-sickening relationship, Ron making the Quidditch team, etc.--the film did include quite bit while trying to shrink everything down to under 3 hours (and the filmmakers were really pushing it!)
I think the only disappointment I really had with the movie were the lack of Tom Riddle flashbacks and (SPOILER) Dumbledore's execution. From the trailer, it made it really look like Dumbledore was going to give Harry an extensive lesson on the history of He-Who-Must-Not-Be----oh hell, Voldemort!---but instead there were only about two, maybe three (I'm stretching my memory a bit) scenes that revealed the young Riddle. But I suppose if we wanted all those juicy scenes about Voldemort's scruffy mum and insane family, as well as the murders at the Riddle mansion, the movie would need to tack on at least another hour to give complete satisfaction. As well, Dumbledore's death just seemed....anti-climactic. Plus, weren't the Death Eaters supposed to be running around Hogwarts terrorizing the students? That gave the book a more immediate sense of danger, and I don't see why the movie couldn't have done the same. Instead, Dumbledore's death felt far too rushed, and we didn't even get to see his awesome funeral where his white sepulcher bursts into flames. All that would have to follow would be to cue Harry talking about not returning to Hogwarts to his besties and how he and Ginny need to split up in order to keep her safe....whoa, that sounded kind of Twilight-ish there....JK Rowling called it first! Nevertheless, I think that would've made for a better ending rather than Harry, Ron, and Hermione just sitting in the castle recapping what just happened.

BOTTOM LINE: Yes, Half-Blood Prince left out things and indulged a bit here and there, but I felt it was still a good tale with what it had. The screenwriter put together as many possible scenes that they deemed important to the progression of the plot, and the director performed a magnificent job in setting this film up for the darkest--The Deadly Hallows--yet to come. So....whether you hate the movies or not, you know you're going to see it anyway ;)

PROS:
1. Luna Lovegood -- I was so glad there was more of her in this film than I thought would be included.
2. Ginny...is kind of growing on me -- I still think she looks like a twelve-year old with boobs, but her voice is maturing so I was able to handle her relationship with Harry a bit easier.
3. Fred & George's Joke Shop -- Soooo glad the movie included it.
4. Tom Riddle flashbacks -- As few and far between as they came, I still immensely enjoyed them.
5. Felix Felicis -- Quite a funny scene. I love how Harry seems almost loopy.

CONS:
1. Not enough Lupin & Tonks -- I don't think the last movie explained how they got together, so seeing them at the Weasley's probably didn't make an impression on non-HP fans.
2. Anti-climatic end battle -- Hey, Bellatrix. Instead of kicking food off a table why don't you fight some of the students to get some real action going, huh?
3. Weasley house catching fire -- Was that REALLY necessary?


RATING:
out of FIVE

Gentlemen Broncos, Brought to You By the Napoleon Dynamite Creators

I actually came about this through Facebook (oh, Facebook....I am so addicted to you, yet you are useful). It's called "Gentlemen Broncos" and as of right now people are just getting a taste of it through viral videos, such as this one:



You can also visit the main character's, Ronald Chevalier, website and learn all about this pretentious "Sy-Fy" novelist. If Chevalier looks familiar to you, you have probably seen him as Jemaine Clement on the HBO series "Flight of the Conchords."

The film is set for an October 30, 2009 release as of right now. So if you like what you see, you'll probably be seeing more of it within the upcoming months.

Megan Fox Really Doesn't Want to Play Wonder Woman

I found this to be quite humorous, both from Megan Fox (now with the fantastically acclaimed Transformers under her belt) and Jennifer Love Hewitt (yes....she apparently wants this role very, very bad).

Find out for yourself why Fox (because she knows all about what makes a good action/comic flick) is being a pretentious little twit, and why Hewitt just loves those gold bracelets and tiaras right here.