Surrogates

 

Released: 2009

MPAA rating: PG-13

Running time:  1:29

So, here we have a Bruce Willis, sci-fi "utopia gone wrong" film, which is sort of in my wheelhouse.  Did I like it?  Well, of course I liked it. Willis stars as Tom Greer, a police detective in a world where no one ever leaves their house any more.  People just place themselves in these consoles where they hook up to surrogates, robotic alter-egos that may or may not be duplicates of themselves.  Originally developed for the military, the surrogates have become all the rage in the private sector, bringing a massive decrease in crime rates.  When a surrogate is "killed", leading to its owner also dying, we have the first murder-through-surrogate and the opening of a grand conspiracy. Greer decides to leave his surrogate behind and investigate this one the old-fashioned way, which presents challenges as no one he comes in contact with is actually human.  Greer is in a race against the clock as he begins to learn that this goes much deeper than just one surrogate/human murder.   The movie moves along at a nice clip with its requisite action sequences and a pretty decent storyline.  Is it somewhat over-the-top and far fetched? Sure.  I mean, EVERYONE has a surrogate and they appear to be pretty expensive.  How can the general public afford them?? Also, despite the utopian slant of this post-surrogate world, we see battle surrogates in use by the army in some unnamed war.  If everything is so "perfect", why are they still at war?  with who?  Despite these shortcomings, I just had fun watching this movie and I always love watching Bruce Willis do what he does best.  There was also a subplot where Willis and his wife are having some trouble dealing with the loss of their son, so that kind of hit home for me.  

Grade: C+

Trailer: 

Halloween II

Released: 2009

MPAA rating: R

Running time: 1:59

Ever since I saw "The Devil's Rejects", I have been a huge Rob Zombie fan, thinking that was the best horror/slasher film I ever saw.  When he became attached to the reboot of "Halloween", I couldn't have been happier.  His reimagining of the original was a little disappointing, but I was OK with what he did with it.  So, now we have "Halloween II".  The story of Michael Myers (Tyler Kane) and his pursuit of Laurie Strode (Taylor Scout-Compton) continues as she is trying to deal with her near-death experience in the first film and he is presumed dead, though no body was found.  After an opening sequence of Myers chasing her through a nearly empty hospital, which is an homage to the original "Halloween II", Zombie takes the film in his own direction and I wish I can say it was a good one.  This movie is a complete disjointed mess.  Myers bounces around killing randomly, being led by the ghost of his mother (Sherri Moon Zombie) and a white horse.  In the meantime, we follow Laurie and she is a drinking, pill-popping, cursing mess that you not only don't root for, you actually can't wait for her to get killed!  Zombie tries to give somewhat of an artistic spin but I found it to be more out of control than entertaining.  I'll take this opportunity to completely recommend "The Devil's Rejects", while telling you to stay far away from this one.  Just watching this removed me from the Zombie bandwagon completely.  As a filmmaker, he's totally a one-hit wonder.

Grade: F

Trailer: 

  

Diary of a Wimpy Kid

 

Released: 2010
MPAA Rating: PG
Running time: 1:34

"Diary of a Wimpy Kid" is the latest children's book series to hit the big screen.  I am sure this is just the firsty of several films.  The movie follows the trials and tribulations of Greg Heffley (Zachary Gordon), who is entering his first year of middle school and determined to make himself known.  With his best friend, Rowley Jefferson (Robert Capron), by his side, he tries everything he can imagine to get his name out there, from joining the wrestling team to trying out for the musical.  Nothing seems to go right for Greg as a rift begins to develop between he and Rowley, making things even worse.  Although I did not personally read any of the books (no surprise there), I have seen them around the house, so I am somewhat familiar with them.  One of the things they really got right in this film was working the diary entries onto the screen without being a distraction.  The other thing I found really interesting is they actually did not shy away from making Greg very unlikeable at times.  At the beginning of the film, he's your guide, so you are naturally on his side.  As the movie progresses, you begin to realize he is just not very likable at all.  His obsession with making the yearbook clouds whatever personality he may have had, which is exactly the point of the movie and they pulled that off very well.  Although I would not expect adults to see this who are not accompanying their children, I actually found it to be very entertaining and relate-able to any one who has suffered through the social insanity that is school.  The pivotal scene early in the film:

Rowley: "I was told I should just be myself and people will like me"
Greg: "Sure, that would be good advice...if you were somebody else"

Grade: B


Trailer:


   

The Box

Released: 2009

MPAA rating: R

Running time: 1:55

The award for "Movie that falls miles short of an excellent concept" goes to "The Box".  The concept of this movie is nothing short of brilliant: A mysterious man (Frank Langella) shows up at the door of a struggling couple bearing a box with nothing but a button.  His proposal:  Push this button, someone you do not know will die and you will be paid one million dollars.  The movie is set in the 1970s, so that million is that much more tempting.  They have 24 hours to consider the offer, after which the offer is rescinded and will be made to someone else.  This concept is just so good that I had to check this movie out, despite horrendous reviews.   Unfortunately, it turns out that so many critics were not wrong.  After a decent build-up and a fairly solid 30 minutes, the movie becomes a complete mess with secret government projects, alien experiments and special effects just for the sake of having special effects.  The plot takes so many twists and turns, which is usually a good thing, but in this case it just seemed like they had no idea where to go with the story.  I learned later that this was originally based on a "Twilight Zone" episode, "Button, Button" and it appears the filmmakers forgot that the brilliance of "The Twilight Zone" was its simplicity.  Believe the hype:  This movie was just not good.

Grade: D-

Trailer: 

  

The Twilight Saga: New Moon

 

Released: 2009

MPAA rating: PG-13

Running time: 2:10

When the first "Twilight" came out, I had no interest.  It is a vampire romance pretty much aimed at teenage girls, so why would I? It was not until well into it being out on DVD, that I gave it a chance.  I was pleasantly surprised:  It wasn't awful, so, when "New Moon" hit the scene, I knew I would be checking it out.  Waited for the DVD again, but this time I watched with interest.  Like "Twlight", "New Moon" was better than expected and, perhaps, even better than "Twilight" was.  Sure, I could have done with less "shirtless dudes roaming around the woods" scenes, but what are you going to do when you are not the target audience.  In this chapter, our wayward couple Bella (Kristen Stewart) and Edward (Robert Pattinson) find themselves having to separate as Edward's vampire pals/family find it very difficult to control their urge to drink her blood.  While Bella is distraught, she rekindles her friendship with Jacob (Taylor Lautner), who really has designs on being much more than friends.   What Bella does not know is that Jacob is a werewolf, which makes him and Edward mortal enemies, along with being rivals for her love.  Apparently, this Bella is only compatible with monster-types.  Hey, chicks love the bad boy, right??  The wolf effects are top-notch and the werewolf battle scenes looked incredible.  My only somewhat major problem is that Stephanie Meyer (author of the books) plays fast and loose with the rules of vampires and werewolves.  Despite the title, werewolves don't have to wait for the full moon to become wolves, they can pretty much do it at any time..usually when they are angry. Hmmm, maybe they should be green.  Vampires also seem to have no problem roaming around freely during the day.  If you can get past this type of purist nitpicky stuff, the movies are actually fairly entertaining.  I'll probably wait for DVD again, but I will check out the third one.  Team Edward or Team Jacob??  Please, I'm certainly not THAT far into it!  

Grade: C+

Trailer: 

    

Law Abiding Citizen

Released: 2009

MPAA rating: R

Running time: 1:48

Before I get into this review, you should know that I usually enjoy Gerard Butler and Jamie Foxx (well, when he's not singing) in movies.  So, that may make this review a little more positive than it could be.  So, here we go.  "Law Abiding Citizen" refers to Clyde Shelton (Gerard Butler), who is a simple, quiet man who finds his world turned upside down when his wife and daughter are brutally murdered during a home invasion.  He is horrified when DA Nick Rice (Jamie Foxx) makes a deal with one of the assailants to get a conviction on the other.  Several years later, when the man is released, Shelton gets some measure of revenge and is jailed for his efforts.  Oddly, the revenge doesn't stop there and even though he is safely behind bars, he still seems  to be getting to the people involved in the case and the decision to make a deal.  As Rice would be squarely in the middle of those crosshairs, it becomes a battle of wills and investigation skills to find out how Shelton is doing what he is doing before he turns his attention on Rice.  Both actors are good and their scenes together are a lot of fun.  This isn't exactly highbrow drama, so if you're looking for a believable story, look elsewhere. This is pure escapism entertainment and a pretty solid revenge film.  No, it would not win any awards as the writing takes way too many liberties, but I had fun watching it.  

Grade: B-

Trailer: 

Big Fan

Released: 2009
MPAA rating: R
Running time: 1:26

Movies like this are what make me enjoy writing reviews.  Every so often, I come across a small film that not many people have heard of that is just solid.  “Big Fan” stars Patton Oswalt as a devout New York Giants football fan.  He lives with his mom, has a dead-end job as a parking garage attendant but comes to life when he calls the overnight sports talk radio show to pump up Big Blue football.  His status as a regular caller has him in a radio caller rivalry with a Philadelphia Eagles fan as they trash talk each other throughout the season.  His fandom and devotion is put to the ultimate test when he gets the chance to meet his favorite player, Quantrell Bishop (Jonathan Hamm), in a night club.  “QB” is a fierce defensive player and the backbone of the Giants defense.  When Paul (Oswalt) makes an innocent comment that sets “QB” off, Paul is beaten within inches of his life by his idol.  The scandal rocks the Giants season and they start to struggle on the field.  Paul is recovering from his injuries and finds himself struggling with the decision to prosecute his favorite player or “let it go” so the Giants can rise back up to greatness.  The film is a riveting portrayal of fans who are so devoted to their teams that it becomes almost a religious fervor, especially when it’s really all they have in their lives.  I definitely recommend this film!

Grade: B+

Old Dogs

Released: 2009
MPAA rating: PG
Running time: 1:28

Here is a yin/yang moment in life:  Finally get Blu-ray and HD and the first movie we pop in and watch?  Yup, it’s “Old Dogs”.  The good news is it looked amazing!  The bad news is it may be one of the worst comedy scripts I’ve seen in a long time.  Even Seth Green, who I generally like in every thing he does, just could not save this movie.  The basic concept is that Dan (Robin Williams) learns he has two kids with one of his ex-girlfriends (Kelly Preston) and he will need to take care of them while their mom handles some personal business.  Dan recruits his life-long friend and business partner, Charlie (John Travolta), to help him deal with this situation.  The humor is supposed to come from these aging men suddenly faced with responsibilities of parenting, a concept much better explored in “Three Men and a Baby”.  Travolta and Preston’s daughter makes her film debut as the daughter and Travolta cites this as the reason he signed on to the project.  As acting goes, Travolta goes from very good to very bad and this movie is the latter.  You also would expect funnier from Robin Williams, but there is not much good comedy to pull out of this script.   Right off the top, I knew it was trouble when the first big sight gag was a tanning booth mishap that was lifted almost exactly from the TV show “Friends”.  This was book-ended by a final gag pretty much stolen from “Jingle All the Way”.  Comedy doesn’t have to be cutting edge or adult, but this movie’s humor is so watered down, it ends up being childish. 

Grade: D


    

Alice in Wonderland

Released: 2010
MPAA rating: PG
Running time: 1:48

Tim Burton and Johnny Depp have become quite the power duo in making weird, spectacular films in the last few years.  Time and again they come together and pretty much hit the mark every time.  After the enormous success of “Avatar” earlier this year, the stage was set for the next 3-D visual extravaganza and “Alice in Wonderland” answers the call.  The film has Alice all grown up and about to be engaged when she chases a rabbit down its hole, ending up in Wonderland, which she visited in her youth and only has a faint memory of.   Johnny Depp plays the Mad Hatter, who becomes her closest friend and somewhat of a guide in Wonderland.  Alice has been brought there to help restore power to the White Queen (Anne Hathaway).  The residents have been suffering under the reign of the Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter, another Burton mainstay), who especially loves her signature “Off with their heads!!!” type of punishment.  While being a new adventure, the story follows the elements found in the books, with the addition of a wrap-around story about Alice and her pending engagement.  The movie is stunning visually, although it did seem it would be just as stunning without the 3-D.  The 3-D certainly helped add depth and life to the movie, but it was impressive to watch either way.  The one character that really made the 3-D pop was the Cheshire Cat.   While watching the movie and enjoying it, it did occur to me that the Burton-Depp partnership may be growing a little stale.  How many times can they collaborate on bringing weirdness to the screen.  Having had some time to think about that, I am now thinking I can’t wait to see what they come up with next. 

Grade:  B

Trailer:

(500) Days of Summer

Released: 2009
MPAA rating: PG-13
Running time:  1:35


I think I should have loved “(500) Days of Summer”.  It has all of the elements:  a great script, a different take on romantic comedy and an excellent cast.  For some reason, I did not love it as much as I expected to.  Perhaps the main plot-line of a one-side romance was too relatable to my teenage years.  Right up front, you are told that this is a story of boy-meets-girl, but this is not a love story.   Tom (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) writes greeting cards for a living and becomes smitten with Summer (Zooey Deschanel).  The movie follows their relationship, jumping around in a non-linear way.  Summer lets him know early on that she does not believe in love and certainly not marriage.  While he seems to be OK with that (while not fully accepting it as possible), their friendship grows until they eventually become “friends with benefits”.  This is where the movie becomes agonizing (probably intentionally so), as you can see Tom is deeply in love with Summer and Summer does not feel the same way.  I don’t know if this was intentional, but as the movie played on, I found myself starting to truly hate Summer.  Deschanel plays her as sweet as punch, but the fact that she has no problem with stringing him along, knowing how he feels about her actually made me angry.  Perhaps it hit too close to home with my younger days!!  A lot of people love this movie and I can sort of see why, but for me? It didn’t quite live up to the hype.

Grade: B-


Trailer:

Precious: Based on the novel Push by Sapphire

Released: 2009
MPAA rating: R
Run-time: 1:49

“Precious” is vicious, it’s unrelenting, it’s disturbing, but is an extremely powerful film.  I don’t think “entertaining” is the right word, because it is really uncomfortable to watch, but it is riveting from beginning to end.  Precious (Gabourey Sidibe)  is a 15-year old girl living in 1987 Harlem with her abusive mother (Mo’Nique) and her mongoloid daughter (whose father is also her own father).  Precious is desperately trying to hang on to some hope for a future as she carries another child by her father, who is no longer living at home.   She harbors dreams of being a movie or music diva while her entire world is one of horror and diminishing self-esteem.  Her life is brutal in every way, being raped by her father and abused by her mother as she is ridiculed on the streets and at school.  The only hope begins to appear when she is expelled from school and told she should attend an “alternative” school, which is ostensibly a place to get a GED.  Here, she meets Ms. Rain (Paula Patton), who becomes the only person to show any interest in helping Precious.  I won’t go into any further plot details as you definitely want to experience this film as it unfolds.  Thankfully, some of the most brutal things that happen to Precious occur somewhat off-screen or in glimpses as she goes to her “happy place” during these times and the film takes you inside her head to see how she copes.  As far as Oscar-talk goes, Mo’Nique is an absolute lock.  One of the more amazing performances I have seen in a long time, punctuated by a monologue that explains her motivations where you find yourself thinking she actually makes some twisted sense.  Best Director is reported to be a two-horse race between James Cameron and Katherine Bigelow, but how can you not consider Lee Daniels who manages to get amazing performances from Mo’Nique, Mariah Carey, Lenny Kravitz and Gabourey Sibide.  To take that many low-experience people and get every one of them to hit it out of the park definitely deserves some consideration.  I can’t say you will “like” this film, but you will be deeply engaged by it and it sticks with you.
 
Grade: A

Trailer:

Couples Retreat

Released: 2009
MPAA rating: PG-13
Run-time: 1:53

“Couples Retreat” did not fare well both critically and at the box office, which was somewhat surprising to me considering the talent involved.  When I saw that Vince Vaughn and Jon Favreau were involved in the writing, I was even more confused as they usually work very well together.  So, having seen it, am I still confused?  Well, no.  For a movie with so much talent behind it, the humor was so pedestrian and predictable.  The movie did have some funny, entertaining moments (Shark scene and Yoga scene) come to mind, but so many of the jokes were “been there, done that” (Married couples with kids never have sex, large black man has a large…well, you get it).  For the people who made “Swingers”, you just hope for so much better.  The basic storyline involves four couples who are long-time friends.  When Jason (Jason Bateman) and Cynthia (Kristen Bell) find themselves at a crossroads in their marriage, they find there is a place for couples having trouble to assess their compatibility while having some fun in the sun.  Despite  the other couples having no problems at all in their marriages, Jason and Cynthia convince them to join the couple, mostly to get a group rate on the program.  Once they arrive, they find there is plenty of sun, but not so much fun as they are required to participate in group activities so each couple can solve their problems.  This is where all the funny is supposed to be, but as I mentioned earlier, too many of the jokes have been done before…many times over.  The movie was not nearly as bad as I feared.  You sort of get what you expect from Vince Vaughn and the others, but it fell short of the mark.  It was far from awful, but I can’t go so far as recommending it, either.  Vaughn and Bateman fans will like it, so if you are in those categories, you can check it out.

Grade: C-


Trailer:

Trailer of the day: "Green Zone"

The Hurt Locker

Released: 2009
MPAA rating: R
Run-time: 2:11

It’s starting to look like a two-horse race between “The Hurt Locker” and “Avatar” for Best Picture this year.  While I loved “Avatar”, I’m not really advocating it for Best Picture as it was more about the “experience” of the movie than the movie itself.  Interestingly, “The Hurt Locker” is almost equally an “experience” movie.  No, it is not 3-D, but it totally immerses you in the Iraq War better than any news footage could.  The film follows a fictional bomb disposal unit deployed in Iraq as a part of Bravo company.  After an opening scene to establish what exactly this unit does, the unit is joined by SSG William James (Jeremy Renner) and we quickly learn that James does things very differently.  On his first mission, he foregoes the use of robotics to go check out the bomb for itself.  You aren’t quite sure if he is a thrill seeker or simply has a death wish.  As far as story goes, that’s about it.  The movie is basically a string of intense sequences of bomb disarmament and some other military conflict.  Perhaps the most intense is a sequence where the team finds themselves pinned down by a sniper and are caught in a deadly game of who can get their sights calibrated faster?  This is a very good, intense movie that gives you a pretty strong feeling of what it is like in a war-time environment.  However, I now find myself without a clear Oscar favorite.  I would bet “The Hurt Locker” will win, but I definitely did not find it to be as good as all the attention it is getting.  Maybe “The Hurt Locker” and “Avatar” will split the vote and my favorite, “Inglourious Basterds” can sneak in and take it.  (Although I don’t really see that as “Best Picture” material, either).  Oh, and since it is never explained in the movie, I give you the definition of “The Hurt Locker”, c/o IMDB:
To put someone in a "hurt locker" is to physically mess someone up, badly. It is roughly synonymous with causing someone "a world of pain." According to the movie's official web site, "In Iraq it is soldier vernacular to speak of explosions as sending you to "the hurt locker."

Grade: B+


Trailer:

The Final Destination

Released: 2009
MPAA rating: R
Run-time: 1:22

For a movie reviewer (and, let’s face it, I’m not one!!), “The Final Destination” presents an interesting challenge.  On the one hand, it clearly is not a good film.  On the other, I don’t believe it really pretends to be.  The schlock-horror genre it belongs to doesn’t really aspire to any dreams of Oscar, so the thought turns to:  Did it hit the mark it was trying to hit?  For this film, it is a mixed answer.  The "Final Destination” series is one that takes an interesting premise (What if you survive when you were meant to die?) and runs it thoroughly into the ground.  I’ve been watching them from the first one and they are simply silly movies that find more and more elaborate ways to destroy people.  Although they are not spoofs, they certainly do not take themselves too seriously and I actually laughed at out loud at how ridiculous every death scene was in this movie.  They even manage to bring to life one of Dane Cook’s great bits (“Did you hear what happened to Mary? She was killed by a tire!” “A what?” “A tire.  It hit her right in the face!!”  “Why was her face near a tire?” “No, this tire came right after her!!”).  I saw this on DVD, so it was not the 3-D version, although I doubt that made much of a difference.  So, bottom line:  Was it any good? For a horror film, no, but for a borderline comedy?  What can I tell you? I had a good time and a few laughs.  What more could you possibly expect??

Grade: C-


Trailer:

Edge of Darkness

Released: 2010
MPAA rating: R
Run time:  1:57

Mel Gibson returns in front of the cameras as Thomas Craven, a Boston detective whose daughter is murdered right in front of him on his front porch.  Initially, it is assumed that he is the intended target of the hit, but as he begins to look into her work, he finds she had some secrets that may have put her directly in harm's way.  He is visited by a mysterious man named Jedburgh (Ray Winstone, who nearly steals the movie and is swiftly becoming one of my favorite character actors).  Jedburgh is sort of involved with the bad guys, but also seems to want to help Craven blow the cover off the conspiracy.  Craven methodically moves through his daughter's contacts to get a sense of what she did for a living and how that ties into her death.  There is also a subtext where Craven sees and hears his daughter at different points, giving it a bit of a "The Lovely Bones" angle.  This is a movie that suffers because of its trailer on two levels:  On one, the trailer serves as a Cliffs Notes version of the movie itself, moving linearly through the storyline making you think you barely need to see the movie itself.  On the other level, it portrays the film as a big-time action movie, much like "Taken", but it is much more of a mystery investigation than an action movie.  Recently on "Saturday Night Live", they spoofed Mel Gibson doing an interview about this movie and the interviewers comparing it to many of his other films.  While this is somewhat accurate, this type of movie is what Gibson does best and it is a pleasure to see him doing it again. I feared it would be sort of a silly film. but it was better than expected.  It also featured a lead villain who had possibly the coolest office I've ever seen, reminiscent of the lairs of James Bond villains.

Grade: B-

Trailer:

The Soloist

Released: 2009
MPAA rating: PG-13
Run time: 1:57

As indicated in the poster above, this one is all about the acting.  The movie, even though it is a true story, is fairly cookie cutter although it does go off in some directions I did not expect.  Robert Downey, Jr. plays Steve Lopez, a columnist for the LA Times suffering from writer's block.  It's not so much that he has a problem with writing itself, it's more like none of the topics he has to write about are particularly interesting to him.  It is around this time that he comes across Nathaniel Ayers (Jamie Foxx), a homeless man playing the violin who mentions he was Julliard-trained.  This provides Lopez his inspiration.  How is it that an immensely talented violinist is living on the streets?  He learns that he is not a violinist at all, but is actually a trained cellist. Ayers decides he must get to the bottom of this and, at the same time, find a way for Ayers to live to the level of his talent.  The movie takes an in-depth look at homeless people in general and many of the "actors" playing the homeless are actually homeless.  It is an inspirational, sometimes emotional and even educational story, but the real wow factor of the film is Downey Jr. and Foxx, who are at the top of their game.  Sure, Foxx comes from a comedy background and is sort of annoying with his auto-tune singing, but as an actor, he is really extremely good.  Downey Jr. is at least as good, but at this point in his career, that is hardly a surprise.  So, the movie is pretty good, but see it for the acting.  It does not get much better.

Grade: B

Trailer:

Vicky Christina Barcelona

Released: 2008
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Run time: 1:36


My history with Woody Allen films is sort of a love/hate one.  Early in his career, when he made straight-on comedies, I loved him.  As he grew as an artist and became more of an art-house director, I sort of trailed off.  "Vicky Christina Barcelona" definitely fits the art-house criteria, but after hearing some positive buzz from people other than critics, I decided to give it a try.  Well, it certainly was high-brow film-making, like I expected, but it was also more enjoyable than some of those films.  It actually had the "feel" of a foreign film (I'm sure the Barcelona setting has something to do with that).  Right off the bat, you find out that "Vicky Christina Barcelona" is not a character, but a list.  I'll explain.  The story involves around Vicky (Rebecca Hall) and Christina (Scarlett Johansson), friends who take a trip to spend their summer in Barcelona (see how that works?).  Vicky is a straight-laced and engaged woman taking some college courses abroad.  Christina is a much more adventurous type who is pretty much up for anything.  One night at dinner, they are approached by local artist Juan Antonio Gonzalo (Javier Bardem), who arrogantly invites them to spend the weekend with him so they could enjoy the sights and "make love".  Vicky is horrified, but Christina immediately jumps at the offer.  This sets off a chain of events that becomes so complicated it could hardly be called a love triangle, especially when Juan's erratic ex-wife, Maria Elena (Penelope Cruz) enters the picture (Cruz won an Oscar for her role). I was very impressed with Javier Bardem, who exploded onto American screens in "No Country for Old Men" and plays an extremely different role here, equally as effective.  It is an entertaining film exploring the complexities of love and monogamy, but it is certainly not for everybody.  While it is a comedy-drama, it really doesn't get funny until Elena enters the picture and then, only moderately so. One of the best running gags is Elena's insistence on speaking Spanish, while Juan chastises her for doing so, only to end up speaking Spanish himself.   I did like it and I developed a new appreciation for Woody Allen.  His films are still not quite in my wheelhouse, but he is a master craftsmen both as a writer and director.

Grade: B-

Trailer:

The Boondock Saints

Released: 1999
MPAA rating: R
Run time: 1:50


Who are the Boondock Saints?  Conner (Sean Patrick Flannery) and Murphy MacManus (Norman Reedus) are two Irish brothers in South Boston who have gotten it into their head that they have been chosen by God to rid their neighborhood of its criminal element.  After they take down a couple of Russian thugs who are trying to muscle in on their favorite bar, they get the attention of FBI agent Paul Smecker (Willem Dafoe), who is somewhat flamboyant, but brilliant at dissecting crime scenes.  The action and violence is completely over-the-top and Dafoe's performance, in particular, is also.  For fans of ultra-violent crime dramas a la Tarantino, this is an entertaining movie.  It is shocking and funny, although not even remotely realistic.  From people I have talked to about this movie, I've decided this is either a love it or hate it film.  There does not seem to be any in-between.  Well, in my case, I was closer to loving it, but it is not on the level of the Quentin Tarantino movies it looks to emulate.  It is certainly a fun tale of revenge and retribution that somehow manages to find a religious angle to the whole thing.

Grade: B

Trailer:

District 9

Released: 2009
MPAA rating: R
Run time: 1:52

"District 9" is a very thinly-veiled metaphor for apartheid.  Setting the movie in a shanty-town in South Africa sort of makes that point extremely obvious.  The premise is that aliens live her on Earth and have been for quite some time.  However, they are confined to a small area outside Johannesburg, where their ship hovers above.  They are unable to leave as the ship has no fuel and their designated district is over-run with filth and garbage.  As a solution (at least from the human perspective), it is decided that the aliens should be evicted and relocated to another area.  The relocation effort is being led by Wikus Van de Merwe (Sharlto Copley), who almost enjoys his work too much, at least until events find him being very sympathetic to the aliens cause.  Copley does a great job morphing from a comedic role into some sort of bad-ass action hero.  The movie itself starts of as a pseudo-documentary but eventually moves into being a straight-ahead movie.  The alien effects are completely believable as every alien you see (known as the "prawns") look completely real.  In scenes with humans, there is no drop-off in quality to take you out of the movie.  The movie was very entertaining for the most part, if somewhat slow to start. The acting was very good and the movie is set in modern times, not the future, which makes it feel that much more authentic.  While I don't think this deserved an Oscar nomination for Best Picture (10 films is just too many), this is a very good film.  Despite being a metaphor for apartheid, you never really feel the politics beaten into your head.

Grade: B

Trailer:

Up in the Air

Released: 2009
MPAA rating: R
Run time: 1:48

"Up in the Air" asks the question: Do people really need other people in their lives to be happy?  Ryan Bingham (George Clooney) is a man that lives on the road.  He moves from city to city, hotel room to hotel room and, as such, has no ties in any one place.  Sure, he has sisters, but he never sees them or spends any time with them. His job is to go into companies that are downsizing and break the news to the employees affected.  He is so happy with this lifestyle that he also runs a seminar called "What's in your backpack?", in which he explains that all of the people and obligations in your life just weigh you down.  Enter two women to shake it all up.  First, he meets Alex Goran (Vera Farmiga), another person who spends a good part of her time on the road and then, Natalie Keener (Anna Kendrick), a young up-and-comer in his company who develops a way to do the job via a webcam, eliminating the need for all that travel.  Both of these women shake up his world in different ways.  Alex is someone he strikes up a friendship with, but finds himself wanting even more.  Natalie's software threatens to completely put an end to a lifestyle that defines him.  The performances are all very good and the film is getting strong Oscar buzz. I'm not quite sure it is that good, however.  It is a very enjoyable film which is funny at times and still very warm.  This seems to be the trademark of director Jason Reitman ("Juno", "Thank You for Smoking"), who also co-wrote the screenplay. The story lives in the emotions of the characters and it is a completely dialogue-driven film, which I certainly enjoy from time to time.  It's a very good movie that, other than the writing, just falls short of all the Oscar-praise being heaped on it.

Grade: B+

Trailer: