Review: NEW MOON

Movie: New Moon
MPAA Rating: PG-13 for action and some violence
Running Time: 130 minutes
Stars: Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson, Taylor Lautner
Writer: Melissa Rosenberg
Director: Chris Weitz

Love is a complicated emotion. It can make us feel great or it can make us feel like utter crap. The latter is what Bella Swan feels when her 'beloved' Edward leaves her after an accident with his family, in this the first sequel to last year's phenomenon "Twilight".

I shall not bother with explaining the story, because you're either a fan of Twilight or you're not, and you're gonna be seeing it or avoiding it like the plague, with or without my opinion.

I shall preface by saying that, I consider myself a medium fan of the series. I've read 3 of the books and am 3/4 of the way done with the fourth. I've seen the first film more times than any straight man in his right mind should have and I was anticipating "New Moon" as if it was the latest movie from the Coen brothers. I've gotten flack from everybody about liking the series, and you know what, who cares? I like what I like, you like what you like. Now with that out of the way, I will begin my opinion on the film itself.

The acting in the film goes from bad to pretty good varying on the actor, but most of this film's audience won't be paying attention to that, but Lautner's 8-pack (Christ dude, give me some tips on growing those!). The movie itself actually has much more of a mainstream studio look to it thanks to Weitz, than the indie look that Catherine Hardwicke had on the first film. It serves the film well, as the special effects have also been improved thankfully (although the body glitter, seriously?!). One of the negatives I have about this is, many people who have not read the books will probably be confused by some of the film. A lot of things are not made clear from the outset or are never explained at all. For someone who's read the book, I did not have a problem with it but I can understand if many others do not get it. It is obvious that this was made for the fans and for the fans only. Some other negatives include the lack of chemistry between Stewart and Pattinson, there are several shots where he looks like he's gonna vomit just kissing her. Doesn't make for a very convincing scene, especially when he's trying to show the internal agony he's going through to not kill her. A highlight would definitely have to be the well put together soundtrack for the film. Although at times it seems that we're watching a bunch of music videos strewn together to make a feature film, the songs are great and the score works well too.

"New Moon" is not gonna be winning awards any time soon (ones that count anyway) but for being a sequel and also being part of one of the most divisive series' of all-time, it is actually a very decent viewing experience (waits while all of the hecklers throw their taunts and insults). I expect to lose a lot of respect for the grade I'm gonna give it but you know what, you can't say anything about the series unless you've actually seen it. Chances are I'll agree with many of the things you say, but it doesn't mean I can't enjoy it for whatever merits I see in it.

And with that, I give the film a solid 3.5/5 stars.

Mini Review: 2012

2012
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Running Time: 158 minutes
Stars: John Cusack, Chiwetel Ejiofor
Director: Roland Emmerich

WARNING: There might be some slight spoilers in the following review.

In a recent interview, Roland Emmerich said that this would be his final disaster movie (following "Independence Day" and "The Day After Tomorrow") and that he wanted to make one that would be the end all of the genre and packed everything into it. He has accomplished that, but the final product suffers greatly from it. There are far too many subplots with many unimportant characters that we just don't care about and it's almost an hour into the film before the actual destruction of Earth occurs. There are also many scenes or entire character arcs that could have been taken out to make a slimmer, less convoluted story and film. The acting from Cusack is very phoned in and uninterested. He looks tired and bewildered the entire time. Most of the acting from everyone else is actually decent (especially the extended cameo by Woody Harrelson) including Ejiofor and Oliver Platt. The script is contrived and features unnecessary bits of humor. The only real scenes in the movie to carry interest are the ones of world being destroyed. After that, you follow along with the characters just to see who will die next and if they'll make it. But do you care about it, not really. Emmerich knows how to make a decent disaster movie, the fact that this one is such a head shaker is disheartening. My opinion, catch it once in theaters at a cheap morning matinee and go about your day, because you'll forget everything once the credits start rolling and the God-awful Adam Lambert theme song starts playing.

1.5 out of 5 stars.

Mini Review: DISNEY'S A CHRISTMAS CAROL

Disney's A Christmas Carol
MPAA Rating: PG
Running Time: 96 minutes
Stars: Jim Carrey, Gary Oldman
Director: Robert Zemeckis

In what must be the thousandth adaptation of Charles Dickens' classic story, Jim Carrey plays the role of Scrooge AND the three ghosts of Christmas that show Scrooge his life in flashbacks, etc. Zemeckis does a decent job adapting this story, but his motion capture films have always suffered and continue to do so with this one. The acting is actually the best part of the entire movie and probably one of the only things I can recommend seeing the movie for. The animation itself is serviceable as is the 3D, although I wish they had strayed away from making things pop out at the screen and used it more for aesthetics and depth of field separation. If you have any intentions of seeing the film, catch it in IMAX 3D, because once it hits DVD and Blu-ray you'll be stuck with a 2-D version or a lame blue and red glasses 3D version of the film which will most likely annoy, rather than entertain. Also, if you have easily scared children, try to avoid taking them to see this because there are some really dark elements to the story and some frightening scenes.

2.5 out of 5 stars (the acting and the story are the best things about the film)

Mini Review: BLACK DYNAMITE

Black Dynamite
MPAA Rating: R
Running Time: 90 minutes
Stars: Michael Jai White, Arsenio Hall
Director: Scott Sanders

Blaxpoitation movies have always floated on the line of the serious and the satirical, but have never ventured full on into the latter territory. Until now, that is. Michael Jai White stars in and co-wrote this hilarious spoof/satire of the blaxpoitation genre of the 70s. Unlike most movies labeled "spoof", this one is actually hilarious from beginning to end (especially if you've seen at least one or two blaxpoitation movies in your life). Not much can be said about the acting and filmmaking itself as any mistakes and errors or over-the-top acting is purely intentional and make the film what it is, a fun action comedy. Do yourself a favor and once this movie hits DVD or if it's playing at a theater near you, seek it out and enjoy one of the best comedies of the year. 4 out of 5 stars

Review: PARANORMAL ACTIVITY

Movie: Paranormal Activity
MPAA Rating: R for language
Running Time: 90 minutes (a guesstimate, because IMDb has the running time listed at 99 minutes and the film itself is much shorter than that)
Stars: Micah Sloat, Katie Featherston
Writer/Director: Oren Peli

My review for this much-buzzed about movie is gonna be quite short, because, if you're at all interested in seeing the movie chances are you've either seen it or know all there is to know about it. Plus, I have zero intentions on giving a plot synopsis based on the fact that I think anyone who sees this movie should know very little about the film to get the full effect (that's not gonna happen now though with the aforementioned hype). I will say though that the film is definitely one of the better horror films I've seen in the last 5-10 years (those who know me, know that I'm not that big on horror to begin with) and the low budget aesthetic that the small cast and crew work with is extremely effective in conveying sheer terror not only on the characters but in the poor saps in the audience. I very rarely get scared or shaken up after watching a movie, but I will admit that I got creeped out watching "Paranormal Activity". There are parts that seem a little hokey, and will cause unintentional laughs but those are pushed aside midway into the movie. The things I loved most about the movie aside from the low budget thrills, would have to be the lack of gore and bad acting. It goes to show that gore when used well is fine but is not always needed (and sure isn't scary). All I will say is that if you've been looking for a good creepy movie to see with your significant other or on a date, THIS is the movie you take them too. Go see this as soon as humanly possible, you will not regret it.

3.5/5 stars.

Mini Review: ZOMBIELAND

Movie: Zombieland
MPAA Rating: R for horror violence/gore and language
Running time: 80 minutes
Stars: Woody Harrelson, Jesse Eisenberg, Emma Stone, Abigail Breslin
Writers: Rhett Reese, Paul Wernick
Director: Ruben Fleischer

The zombie comedy has been done before. For the most part, it's been done very well. This movie continues in that tradition but does it match up to the bar set by cult classics like "Shaun of the Dead"?

The movie suffers a little bit from "everything funny in the trailer" syndrome. There are a few more laughs in there but they are very few and far between sadly. So as a comedy it works, but at the same time it doesn't. As a fun, balls out zombie movie, it succeeds fairly well. Harrelson owns the screen every time he's on it, Eisenberg does his typical Michael Cera-lite impression annoyingly well and both Stone and Breslin work with what they're given. The directing by feature film first-timer Fleischer (who only has a couple Jimmy Kimmel Live episodes under his belt) is flashy and highly stylized and works well with the sweet slo-mo editing. If you're looking for a fun, but sorta flawed horror comedy, then nut up, shut up and get your butt to the theater and check this flick out.

3 out of 5 stars.

Review: JENNIFER'S BODY

Movie: Jennifer's Body
MPAA Rating: R for sexuality, bloody violence, language and brief drug use
Running Time: 102 minutes
Stars: Megan Fox, Amanda Seyfried, Adam Brody
Writer: Diablo Cody
Director: Karyn Kusama

Shortly after the 2007 release of "Juno", Diablo Cody was called the next big thing in screenwriting. A few months later she won the best original screenplay Oscar and began writing a once-a-month column in Entertainment Weekly. "Jennifer's Body" is the second movie she's written and well, it's definitely not up to the standards she set with "Juno".

We all know the plot already, the main character Jennifer (played without an inch of emotion or acting ability by Megan "Needs To Be Eaten By A" Fox) goes to a show at a local bar with her friend Needy (the horribly named character played much better by Amanda Seyfried) and is kidnapped by the band after for some stupid reason, the place burns down and they're some of the few survivors. Little does she know she's been kidnapped by a devil-worshipping band who's front man (Adam Brody) sacrifices her but doesn't kill her. A demon possesses her and she begins killing every teenage boy who comes into contact with her.

I was not really expecting too much from this movie after seeing the trailers, but I did not expect such a mediocre flick. Cody's writing has deteriorated into cliches and unfunny catch phrases (i.e. describing a guy as "super salty") that filled the first 20 or 30 minutes of "Juno" and I'm sure will become a big hit with the 14-year old girls who will enjoy the film. The story also is not that good either and filled with further cliches (the dumb parents and teachers, the skeptical boyfriend). The directing and look of the movie are typical horror movie low budget and are both serviceable. The acting isn't great either. Megan Fox is not only a very unattractive human being (inside and out) but how she got into acting is beyond me (wait, then again it probably involves some favors, of the sexual kind). She delivers her lines as if reading them from Post-Its that are hanging on walls around her. I really hope she stops getting jobs and goes far far away for a long time. Amanda Seyfried (who deserves better movies than this) does what she has to and collects a paycheck. Adam Brody, who I've loved ever since "The O.C." gets a fairly meaty sized role here but doesn't do much other than brood and feign sympathy, he also deserves better movies. To me one of the biggest wastes though is J.K. Simmons ("Juno", the "Spider-Man" trilogy). He is in only a handful of scenes but the scenes that he is in are the best, especially with the Donald Sutherland in "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" wig and hook hand that he sports the entire flick. Why he isn't headlining more movies is beyond me, the guy's amazing.

I hope Diablo Cody takes some time to write her next script and focus on it being good and not her trademark, "faux-wittiness". This is one of those movies I'd recommend waiting for a discount theater or DVD to see. It's not worth $10 a ticket plus concessions. Plus, maybe if we don't support the film, Megan Fox will just disappear from the atmosphere for good.

The film gets 1 out of 5 stars.

Review: GHOSTS OF GIRLFRIENDS PAST

Movie: Ghosts of Girlfriends Past
MPAA Rating: PG-13 for sexual content throught, some language and a drug reference
Running time: 1 hour and 40 minutes
Stars: Matthew McConaughey, Jennifer Garner, Michael Douglas, Breckin Meyer
Writers: Jon Lucas, Scott Moore
Director: Mark Waters

"You can't always run from your past," reads the tagline for this 2009 romantic comedy. It should have said, you can't always run from horrific romantic comedies.

Matthew McConaughey plays his typecast self as Connor Mead, a photographer cad who basically has no soul. He sleeps with women for the hell of it and that's it. He has no real relationships with women, not even his assistant. The only woman he's ever really loved broke his heart years ago (or did she?) and he's never recovered from it. He learned the art of wooing women into bed at a young age from his Uncle Wayne (Michael Douglas, in a role that I was hoping would have made the movie better but sadly he's wasted). Connor goes to his late uncle's mansion where his young brother (Meyer) is getting married to a bridezilla-lite (Lacey Chabert). Connor, of course, does not like or believe in the institution of marriage so he is none too pleased to be there but goes because of his brother. What he doesn't know is that the girl who "broke his heart", Jenny (Jennifer Garner) is the wedding planner/bridesmaid. The next couple scenes are blurry to me but I just remember tons of lame hitting on women and finally Douglas' character shows up and gets the story slightly kicking (it's dead on arrival for a majority of the time though). Connor is to learn about love from 3 ghosts he will be visited by (these people are still alive though yet they're in spirit form, whatever). The rest of the movie is basically trying to show the evolution of Connor's character from cad to nice guy (spoiler alert, but you already know that, because this is a mainstream romantic comedy, there's almost always a happy ending and the main character always learns a lesson).

Wow, I had a tiny sliver of hope for this movie. I liked the idea of it being a romantic comedy take on "A Christmas Carol" and the supporting cast but really all of that is wasted on a film that is pedestrian and by-the-numbers throughout. There are real no surprises or shocks or anything. Even as a date movie, it's pathetic. I am in no ways a biased male film reviewer. I've seen a lot of romantic comedies in my life and I've liked quite a few of them, but THIS was definitely not one I'd ever watch again or with anyone. I wouldn't even recommend it to couples. It has no redeeming value at all. I just felt bad for all the actors in this that I respect, especially Garner, Douglas, Meyer and Emma Stone, who is still too young in her career to be making crap like this, but she thankfully is one of the few shining lights in this movie as the ghost of girlfriends past. The recession must have really been hitting many of these guys and gals hard for them to agree to be in this. Not even McConauhgey, who I can normally stomach in his romantic comedies ("How To Lose a Guy In 10 Days" and "The Wedding Planner" to name a couple), just grated me. I did not wanna see him succeed or get the girl. He did not deserve it. But I am not gonna go on a tangent about "Ghosts of Girlfriends Past", it would be a rant wasted. Another thing, the writers of the movie Lucas and Moore, why would they write such tripe like this?! They wrote "The Hangover" for God's sakes! Thank God they have that modern classic under their belts. And Mark Waters, the director. He's known for fluff like this, but he's also responsible for the two lone saving graces in Lindsay Lohan's career "Freaky Friday" and "Mean Girls". Wow man, can you like stretch your filmmaking muscles please. Every director has at least one GOOD film in them, are those two them? Oh well, there I go ranting again. If you're a guy and you wanna take a girl to see a good romantic comedy, THIS would not be one of them. If you're a girl and you just want a good movie to cuddle up and watch, THIS is not one of those. You've seen it all before and done better. Leave this one on the shelf folks.

My grade for this waste, .5 out of 5 stars.

Update: 9/6/09

I haven't really been posting as much as I'd hoped (watched a couple movies here and there that I haven't taken the time to review like "Inglourious Basterds" which I had intended on writing one but I think my opinion might have been too biased based on the fact that I was getting sick while watching it), but I'm gonna try to keep posting as many as I can in the coming months. Thank you to everyone who reads my reviews and says kind things about what I write. I appreciate it and I write these for you, not for myself. Keep reading and I'll keep posting 'em.

-Justin

Review: GAMER

Movie: Gamer
MPAA Rating: R for strong frenetic brutal violence throughout, sexual content, nudity and language
Running Time: 1 hour and 35 minutes
Stars: Gerard Butler, Michael C. Hall, Kyra Sedgwick, Chris 'Ludacris' Bridges, Terry Crews, Amber Valetta
Writers/Directors: Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor

Over-the-top action films have been around since the 80s when Schwarzenegger and Stallone were in their prime. The 90s toned down (some would say watered down but that's not completely true) the violence and overt sexual content. The late 2000s have seen a resuscitation of the 80s with testosterone fests like the "Crank" movies (also directed by Neveldine and Taylor), "Shoot 'Em Up", "300", "Rambo", etc. "Gamer" is another one of those movies that are aimed for men and mostly men (although I won't say it's not girl-friendly, it stars Butler after all).

Now if you have seen the trailers and TV spots for it, or watched "Death Race" or "The Running Man", then you know what the overall plot is. The only real changes are that the "games" are more interactive, and instead of Jason Statham or Ahhnuld playing the hero, we have beefcake Butler. He does a serviceable job as Kable, the big star of the game within the film. Also in the film is Michael C. Hall (TV's "Dexter" and "Six Feet Under) as Castle, the zen-like creator of the simulation games in the film "Slayers" and "Society". The rest of the cast kinda just pops in every once in a while for some exposition and plot-explanation. In fact, two actors just pop in to collect paychecks (I won't say who, you'll see once you go watch the movie, I'll just tell you one of the characters they play is named Rick Rape....waits while many of you go on IMDb to search).

The movie itself is quite a mess. With such a "high concept" idea, it doesn't really delve into that portion of it too much. All the film is concerned with is showing intense graphic violence at a frenzied pace, which can be okay, if backed up with a well-told story. Then again, who am I to go see a movie called "Gamer" and expect Oscar-worthy story. The dizzying cinematography (while it looks spectacular in digital projection) leaves you wondering what the H-E-double hockey sticks is going on (especially in the first few minutes) for a majority of the running time. I wanted to walk out during the first 25 minutes but as the film progresses it gets a little more interesting (albeit more disturbing at times) and concludes with one of the most hilarious scene stealing moments I've seen in years involving Hall and Butler. The performances in the movie won't be winning any awards in the future, but don't ruin the picture at all. Now if only Butler had been given more dialogue.

I think if the story had been worked on more, we would have had a solid 90-minute time waster. Maybe if we're lucky an extended version will hit DVD/Blu-ray (definitely the way to see it once it hits home video). But with what I witnessed on screen, I can only give it:

2 out of 5 stars.

I'd personally recommend seeing this in a discount theater if you must see it theatrically, but if not wait for home video or cable.

Review: DISTRICT 9

Movie: District 9
MPAA Rating: R for bloody violence and pervasive language
Running Time: 1 hour and 52 minutes
Stars: Sharlto Copley
Writers: Neill Blomkamp, Terri Tatchell
Director: Neill Blomkamp

Every so often, a movie comes around that leaves you and the people around you in utter disbelief at what you're watching that you don't look away or even blink during it. Every so often a movie comes around that shocks you to your core, or makes you rethink your life. Every so often a movie comes around that makes you laugh, cry, cheer, empathize, loathe, or many other gaggles of emotions. Every so often, a movie comes around that is called a modern masterpiece (several of those proclamations have proved false upon multiple viewings). Well, I am here to tell you folks that "District 9" is truly a masterpiece of modern cinema.

Take equal parts "Blair Witch Project", "Cloverfield", "E.T." and a whole lot more originality than what I'm describing and you'll know what you're getting with this amazing film. It starts out with interview footage of our main character Wikus Van De Merwe (newcomer Copley), talking about the alien ship that has been hovering around the town of Johannesburg, South Africa for the last 20+ years. More interview footage is shown before we are thrown into the actual story itself. The people of Johannesburg have grown tired of the aliens that have been sectioned off from them by the government into District 9, a slum area rife with gangs, violence, etc. Apparently a lot more crime has come of them being here and after many complaints by the townspeople surrounding the area, the government has decided to re-locate the aliens to a new area, District 10. Wikus is sent in with the military to evict the aliens (called rather derogative-ly Prawns) and is not met with much happiness (he is often met with hostility from the visitors). The government is also looking to take all the technologically advanced weaponry the aliens are hiding. In searching one of the houses, Wikus finds the motherload of weapons and a cylinder that accidentally opens and sprays him with a liquid that begins to infect him and turn him into a Prawn.

To say more, would only ruin the excitement that you will feel watching this. Prior to seeing the film, I knew that the budget was $30 million, and I figured the special effects would really be hurt by the lack of funds, but it only aids the movie. The effects are amazing! The gore is also well done too, sometimes it even splatters the camera lens. What's even more astounding is that apparently a lot of the dialogue was improvised. The sharky cam, documentary style cinematography is great (rare praise from me considering I don't like my action movies to nauseate).

Much has been said about the film's newcomer director and producer Peter Jackson ("The Lord of the Rings" trilogy), making "D9" after their plans to make a feature film adaptation of the hit video game "Halo" fell through. In my humble opinion, I'm glad it all fell through, because if they hadn't we would not have "D9" and the best movie of the summer (high praise, considering this has been the summer for lame blockbusters, after 2008's "The Dark Knight"), even quite possibly the entire year.

My overall score for the film is a perfect, must-see 5 out of 5.

Review: G.I. JOE-THE RISE OF COBRA

Movie: G.I. Joe-The Rise of Cobra

MPAA Rating: PG-13 for strong sequences of action violence and mayhem throughout

Running Time: 1 hour and 58 minutes

Stars: Channing Tatum, Marlon Wayans, Dennis Quaid, Christopher Eccleston, Sienna Miller, Joseph Gordon-Levitt

Writers: Stuart Beattie, David Elliott

Director: Stephen Sommers

The summer blockbuster has been a name always attached to big, dumb, manly action movies that are made to sell toys and popcorn/soda. This is definitely one of those. They almost always seem to follow the same formula:

Main character with issues

+ Sidekick who is almost always comic relief

+ Love interests for both characters

+ Lots of cleavage shots

+ Things blowing up left and right

- Intelligent dialogue, plot and good acting

--------------------------------------------------------------

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra.

At first, this might sound like the exact formula for a Michael Bay film, but "Joe" succeeds in some areas where the recent Bay "Transformers" films have failed. Notably, the action scenes are well-filmed. You know almost exactly what's going on at all-times. Slow motion is not unnecessarily used either. The special effects, while not perfect (some look like cut scenes from a video game), do what's needed. The best scene in terms of the special effects and awesomeness, would have to be the Paris/Accelerator Suit scene. That and his utter lack of ego, make me respect Stephen Sommers all the more (although, I shall never forgive him for "The Mummy Returns" and "Van Helsing")

But things aren't perfect with this movie. As mentioned in the formula, the dialogue is really really bad. Almost Transformers bad. But thank God, they did not go the base humor route, and throw in crude sexual jokes for no reason. The humor that is there though for the most part is typical one liner sidekick jokes from Marlon Wayans, that also for the most part do not generate any laughs (I think I chuckled at one line). The acting too isn't all that great either, but thankfully a couple of the actors (Eccleston, Quaid and Gordon-Levitt) know they're in a movie that's based on a line of toy action figures and an 80's animated TV series, and chew the scenery to bits. Thankfully, that and the well-done action scenes save this from joining the list of horrible big-budget blockbusters that have stolen what little intelligence I had left in my head (I'm looking at you "Terminator Salvation" and "Transformers 2").

For a super awful movie, this one's entertainment value increased its overall score to

3 out of 5 stars.

Oh, almost forgot to mention, I cannot wait for the Rifftrax version of this movie because I can guarantee it'll one up quite a few of the great riffs my friend and I were laying down watching this.

Review: HANNAH MONTANA-THE MOVIE

Movie: Hannah Montana-The Movie

MPAA Rating: G

Running Time: 1 hour and 42 minutes

Stars: Miley Cyrus, Billy Ray Cyrus, Emily Osment, Vanessa Williams

Director: Peter Chelsom

Writer: Daniel Berendsen

Have you ever wondered what staring death in the face looks like? Or what a celluloid abortion might be? Look no further than this abhorrent excuse for a feature film. There are no words in any dictionary or thesaurus to explain how bad this movie is. Not even comparing it to another bad film, because that would only end up shaming that film. Prior to seeing this bastardization of cinema, I knew little to nothing about "Hannah Montana" the TV show, other than she's a big hit with a lot of teen girls. I decided to give the film a shot, to see if perhaps I could riff the hell out of it, but wow, no amount of sarcastic or witty comments can save it from being the movie equivalent of a lifetime spent in Hell. The acting from 99.9% of the cast is atrocious, as is the piss-poor excuse for a screenplay. The music will make even the most trained in pop-music ears bleed for days. If you have a teenage daughter, a younger sister, a girlfriend or God-forbid, a wife, who wants to see this movie...save yourself the 102 minutes of horror and enter a mental institution because you'll want to check yourself in after seeing this. I weep for the future.

Simply put, this rates no more than 0 out of 5 stars.

January 2009-July 2009 Catch Up

Movies I've watched (theatrically) this year, so far (grades out of 5):

UP: (4.5)

Disneynature: EARTH (3.5)

Star Trek (4.5)

Terminator Salvation (1)

Duplicity (1.5)

12 Rounds (1.5)

Monsters vs. Aliens (3)

Fast & Furious (2.5)

Observe and Report (4)

State of Play (3.5)

Crank: High Voltage (3)

Knowing (2.5)

Miss March (2.5)

The Last House on the Left (1)

He's Just Not That Into You (3.5)

My Bloody Valentine 3D (3)

Push (2.5)

Watchmen (4)

The Hangover (4)

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (1.5)

Away We Go (4.5)

(500) Days of Summer (4)

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (4)

Moon (3.5)

Public Enemies (5)

17 Again (3.5)

Orphan (3)

I Love You Man (3.5)

Fanboys (3.5)

Taken (3.5)

Adventureland (4)

Coraline (4)

X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2.5)

Review: FUNNY PEOPLE

Movie: Funny People

MPAA Rating: R for language and crude sexual humor throughout, and some sexuality

Running time: 2 hours and 26 minutes

Stars: Adam Sandler, Seth Rogen, Leslie Mann, Jonah Hill, Jason Schwartzman, Eric Bana

Director: Judd Apatow

Writer: Judd Apatow

Wow, I sure picked one hell of a movie to start off the website with. I do warn you though, there might be slight spoilers ahead (but I'll keep them as slight as possible). This was definitely an interesting film. It is also a good example of when editors fall asleep in the editing bay. Not to say that this movie does not contain lots of laughs, because it does, it's just hard to remember them when they become second fiddle to the overwrought amount of drama that fills the last hour. Do not get me wrong, I love Judd Apatow and what he's done for comedy in the last 6 or 7 years, but can somebody please say "no" to this guy. Like, first off, who thought it was a good idea for him to make a 146-minute comedy?! When was the last time a mainstream comedy was over 2 hours and 15 minutes in length (the extended DVD releases of Apatow's films not counting)? The answer (at least to my knowledge, please correct me if I am wrong) is "It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World". That film ran much longer than "Funny People" at a staggering, but consistently hilarious 161 minutes, but also didn't try to be 2 different movies at once like "FP". Apatow's films (and the ones he has produced or written for) all have bits of drama, heart, seriousness, whatever you wanna call it. That's perfectly fine, when done well, but "Funny People" feels more schizophrenic than coherent. The first 20 minutes feel very somber with few laughs (but it worked), then once Seth Rogen's character comes in the tone lightens up considerably and more laughs keep piling in. But once Leslie Mann's character is introduced later (and shortly after Sandler's good news that he will survive the disease), the film takes a nosedive with too many redundant and pointless scenes that could have been shortened or excised entirely.

Now, while this is starting to sound like a real negative review, my views on it are not all in the gray. The performances from the cast are great (especially the early scenes of Sandler being diagnosed) and much of the humor is hilarious (although fewer references to Seth Rogen's penis would definitely be appreciated). But sadly the filmmaking itself kinda suffers here too. Much of the cinematography looks flat and amateurish (surprising considering the DP is Janusz Kaminski who has shot almost all of Spielberg's films since "Schindler's List), and some framing seemed claustrophobic and not what you'd expect from a $70 million production. Many scenes seem like Apatow just told the DP to turn the camera on and let the actors talk for a while and see if anything good came out.

Overall, my opinion: the film, while at times super hilarious, wanders around aimlessly looking for that middle ground between comedy and drama and cannot decide which it wants to be. I think with a good 25-30 minutes trimmed here and there, this would definitely be an A-comedy. Hopefully Mr. Apatow will take a few years off and come back with another comedy classic.

On the first viewing, I give this a 3 out of 5 stars.

Welcome to The Rotting-Mission Statement

Hello,

Thanks for checking out my new blog. I used to post my short reviews of movies I'd see on MySpace, but after noticing a friend of mine made a film blog on this site (check his out too getcinerad.blogspot.com), I figured why the hell not make one too. So yeah, I guess you could say I'm stealing his idea, but whatever there's no originality left in the world anyway, why start now?

What I plan on doing on this blog is give you reviews (they may be short or they may be long and detailed, depends how I feel at the time) of the movies that I see, whether they be new releases, DVDs/Blu-rays or films that I've seen in the past and am re-watching again.

My rating system is out of 5 stars, this is a short breakdown of what each star means:

0 stars=Avoid at all costs, not even worth viewing

1 star=Might have one or two good things going for it but overall awful, view at your own discretion

2 stars=A below average film with some good things going for it, at least one viewing

3 stars=An average film that has shortcomings, but is still definitely worth viewing.

4 stars=An almost perfect film

5 stars=Why are you still reading this, go see the damn thing already!!

Some movies fall in between each number, you make up your mind whether to see the film or not from there.

I hope that you enjoy reading the blog as much as I enjoy putting it together.

Sincerely,

Justin

P.S. Comments and suggestions are always welcome.