Movie Review: I'm Still Here (by Dave Machado)

The idea behind the creation of I'm Still Here is one of the smartest attempts at a movie in quite some time. Throughout the entire filming, the whole entertainment media was buzzing over whether or not it was a genuine meltdown of actor Joaquin Phoenix or if it was all part of some hoax being played on them. By now, almost everyone has seen Joaquin's appearance on the Letterman show in early 2009 (which ends up playing an important part in the movie). Turns out the person appearing on the show that night was not Joaquin Phoenix the actor, but "Joaquin Phoenix" the character, who is the star of I'm Still Here. Knowing it was a performance before I got a chance to see the film, I worried if the impact that the movie strives for would be lost on me as I would know from the beginning this is no different than any other fictional film. While it didn't void the entire movie for me, I still think it loses a bit of it's power and ends up being an good movie anchored by an amazing performance.

I have a hard time calling the movie a hoax though because it's really no more of a hoax than all the other reality shows on TV today. Joaquin returned to the Letterman show a few weeks ago to discuss the film and talked a bit about how the movie came to be. It all started from the idea that the majority of people buy into these reality shows simply because they are shot like a documentary and the people on them are billed as themselves. The idea snowballed from there into what we see in I'm Still Here. Watching the movie, it's insane to think that anyone would think it is real because of how absurd the things he is doing really are. The movie tries to find the line between "obviously fake" and "so crazy it must be true" and see if it can get away with being perceived as real.

Joaquin Phoenix deserves a lot of respect for this movie. He had already proven himself as an actor but his dedication to this role is phenomenal. He took a huge chance in jeopardizing his career by doing this movie and it paid off. Same can be said for the director, Casey Affleck. Casey is someone who really became a star in 2007 with roles in two amazing movies, Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford and Gone Baby Gone. Now we see he also has talent behind the camera as well. While it's not exactly a polished film, knowing he spearheaded the movie with Joaquin shows he has the smarts to make a really intriguing movie that will get people talking.

So while I really admire the idea and performances that brought I'm Still Here together, the movie itself just didn't intrigue me that much. I spent most of the movie admiring the performance but not invested in the story. There was too much devoted to Joaquin dealing with his entourage of assistants that just didn't work for me. It's where the movie seemed the most "fake" and dragged on a little too much. There are lots of bright spots however, especially scenes where Joaquin meets with P. Diddy to talk about his aspiring hip-hop career. I'm not sure how much P. Diddy was in on it, but I have to assume everything. If that's the case, he did a great job on camera and provides some of the funniest moments in the movie.

The movie also features lots of dark moments where Joaquin's character really goes over the edge. There is one scene in particular where he decides to order some escorts to come over and party. We then get to see Joaquin picking out the girl to call on the computer and upon finding the right one, repeatedly exclaims to the girl's picture how "naughty" she is. It was a very weird moment that made me extremely glad this is all a performance. Luckily, the mood lightens once the escorts arrive and Joaquin begins doing cocaine off one of the girls exposed breasts. 

I was expecting some twist at the end where it shows it was all a setup but I'm glad they waited to admit that until after the movie came out. It allows the movie to live on it's own outside of the buzz of it's release. Joaquin the character may seem like he's gone off the deep end (literally at one point of the movie) but as the title suggests, the real Joaquin is still here, ready to take his bow. I encourage everyone to seek out this movie simply for the performance given by Joaquin. It may not translate to a mind-blowing movie, but it's one of the most important performances I've seen in quite some time. I hope come award season people are able to put aside the controversy surrounding the movie and award him for such a fearless role.

You're Welcome,

Dave

Movie Review: Never Let Me Go (by Dave Machado)

Never Let Me Go is, in very simple terms, an art-house science fiction movie. This is not the science fiction most people are used to though. It is a very subdued movie that takes place in an alternate history where scientists in the mid 20th Century were able to increase the life expectancy of humans to well past 100 years old. It begins very innocently enough, following the lives of three young children who are growing up in a sort of boarding school. We see hints that these children are not treated like normal kids (certain adults seem to act strangely uncomfortable around them) but there is nothing explicitly stated that suggests there is something wrong. It isn't until about 20 minutes in that we learn the role these kids have in society (as told to them by a teacher, who is promptly fired) and from there the movie is able to explore the very interesting themes of mortality and the roles humans have in their own fate.

If you do not want to be spoiled of the 1st act twist, I suggest you stop reading now and just now that I recommend seeing the movie though it can get a bit dry at times. 

What the teacher ends up informing the students is that their plan in life has already been decided for them. They are to be raised in this home and once they reach young adulthood, they will donate their organs one-by-one to other living humans as a way to help keep up the newly high life expectancy.  The children will simply donate themselves piece by piece until they "complete", which is the PC way of telling them they will give their parts until their body can no longer handle it and they die. I love the movie's decision to have us be told of this the same time the children themselves are hearing it. It allows us to feel the same shock they do and it makes for a very heartbreaking scene.

The movie then skips ahead roughly ten years and the three children have grown up into Carey Mulligan, Keira Knightley, and Andrew Garfield. We then follow these three as they are wrestling with the knowledge that their time to begin donating is not too far behind. We learn there are myths about ways to prolong your first donation but are never sure what to believe. I expected the movie to become a chase flick with some of the children taking fate into their own hands but that is not what this movie is about. It's about knowing what your life is set up to be and the sad realization that you have no other alternative.

I will not spoil the second half of the movie but it is a very powerful story that won't soon be forgotten. I have some problems with the pacing and the lack of subtly at times but it really is a movie that people should watch. The performances of the three leads are great. After this and The Social Network, I am very excited that Garfield will be lacing up as the new Spiderman. I hold Carey Mulligan in a similar regard as I have only seen her in two movies but she has been incredible in both so I look forward to seeing her in more things very soon (though her inclusion was not enough to get me to see the new Wall Street. Not even Josh Brolin could get me in that theater). Never Let Me Go is a quiet movie that seems to grow louder the more I think of it. The ideas the movie puts forth slowly creep up on you well after the movie finishes, something I wish happened in more cases. I hope you all enjoy this movie as much as I did because I wouldn't be surprised if you started hearing about it more come Oscar season.

You're Welcome,

Dave

Movie Review: Let Me In (by Dave Machado)

Remakes are a very hard group of movies to properly review. I believe that the only way a remake can be deemed "successful" is if it is able to tell roughly the same story as the original but make everything so fresh and new that it almost seems like a different movie altogether. This may seem like a tall order but every once in a while, a movie succeeds at this task. Examples include The Thing, The Fly, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, and even Dawn of the Dead. Let Me In however does not belong in this small group. While it may be amazing to someone who has yet to experience the original (Let The Right One In), this remake simply follows the same storyline and visual style far too much for it to be considered as a worthy remake.

That's not to say I didn't enjoy the movie. I just felt that the it played like a great but very strict cover song. All the same beats were hit in the same style as the original except a few minor changes here and there that really add nothing to the story except to say it had some differences. Nothing from the original is "topped" in this movie but there are times where it comes very close to at least equaling it. The superb acting in this movie by the two kids Owen and Abby (Kodi Smit-McPhee and Chloe Moretz) along with Abby's "guardian" (Richard Jenkins) really saved the movie for me. Without their amazing performances, there would have been very little to enjoy about the flick other than the parts that I already loved from the original.

I really hate to bash Let Me In because if it wasn't a remake and was the first movie to adapt this story, it would probably be in the top 10 of 2010 for me. But I just can't get over the fact that an American studio felt the need to remake a foreign movie not even 5 years old. I am at least thankful that everyone involved did a great job with the movie because it easily could have been made into a terrible cliche vampire film. Director Matt Reeves (Cloverfield) gets some really great performances and some amazing scenery on screen (aside from some very cartoony cgi) and seems to hold the original in high regard. I actually think the issue is that perhaps he holds Let The Right One In in too high of a regard because he seemed afraid to take a chance and try something radically different with the story. 

I've heard a lot of critics say that if you have't seen Let The Right One In, then they highly recommend Let Me In. I disagree. I think that if you haven't seen Let The Right One In, then I highly recommend you see Let The Right One In. We don't live in a society where foreign movies are hard to find anymore. You can log on Amazon and have the original shipped to your house in just a few days or simply get it from Netflix (It's part of the "Watch Now" catalog!). As for Let Me In, I wouldn't hurry to see it in the theaters. I still recommend giving it a try at some point on DVD simply for the perfect performances but I do so with hesitation. Studios need to try making more original movies and to stop taking foreign films and "Americanizing" them simply because some idiots won't watch a movie with subtitles. If you are going to remake a movie, prove the remake's existence by having it be its own movie, not a dull copy. I hate to say this about such a well made movie but even if the end result is good, the reasoning behind it's creation is incorrect.

You're Welcome,

Dave

Movie Review: The Social Network (by Dave Machado)

The Social Network is a movie that opened up to a lot of critical praise. I typically worry when a movie is this well liked upon its initial release because the cynical part of me starts to question the validity of the hype. Is it simply good marketing that results in convincing people they loved the movie (fearing they would seem like a crabby contrarian for taking the opposite opinion) or is it the real deal? I'm not saying that audiences are easily duped but it's surprising how often it ends up being just good marketing. Fortunately, The Social Network belongs in the category of "the real deal" because after you strip away the hype you are left with a truly incredible movie.

Now I understand the strangeness of discussing the dangers of over-hyping while at the same time hyping it myself, but it really is just a great film. The one thing that struck me most about this film is that it doesn't feel like a movie David Fincher directed or Aaron Sorkin wrote because it doesn't fall victim to their usual weaknesses. Fincher's movies always have a sort of "bloated" feeling to them for me and Sorkin is known to have his characters be a bit long-winded. Don't get me wrong, just because I think they have weaknesses is not meant to say I am not a fan. It's just important to realize that neither of these things describes The Social Network and so instead of having the movie seem like a generic entry into either of their catalogs, the movie feels fresh and dynamic in the sense that it doesn't come with the baggage of the people who created it. Instead the movie becomes a greatest hits mixtape of both creative forces where it's just the hits and none of the misses.

The Social Network starts off with a bang by opening up with Mark Zuckerberg (played perfectly by Jesse Eisenberg) getting dumped by his current girlfriend at a local bar. Everything you need to know about Mark as a character is exposed in this opening scene that to me was easily the best of the movie. It's always hard when a movie opens so strongly because you sit and wonder just how they could possibly keep this up. While I don't think The Social Network reached the same dizzying heights seen in the opening scene (seriously, it features some of my favorite back-and-forth dialog that I've seen in a long time), I don't consider it a major fault to the film because it would be impossible (and exhausting for the viewer) if the film kept the lightening quick pace of that opening exchange. I simply consider it a fantastic prologue to help you get into the mind of Zuckerberg before we begin the real journey of the film.

The movie is framed around Zuckerberg being questioned for two lawsuits he is currently involved in, both having to do with Facebook. One on side, he is being sued by 3 classmates from Harvard who are claiming he stole their idea for Facebook. The other is a more personal issue because he is being sued by his former best friend and co-founder of Facebook, Eduardo Saverin (played by Andrew Garfield, who to me was the best part of an amazing cast) for being pushed out of the company without proper compensation. Both these lawsuits boil down to one person's word over another, and as someone in the movie even points out, when that is the case, most of what is said is exaggeration and the rest is simply lies.

I've noted above that Eisenberg and Garfield do excellent work but really the whole cast deserves credit. Eisenberg and Garfield may do most of the heavy lifting in the movie but it would all fall apart without the strong supporting cast. Chief amount them is Justin Timberlake, who plays Napster co-founder Sean Parker. I'll admit to being surprised how Timberlake disappeared into a role that could have easily been distracting. It ended up being an example of perfect casting because the role called for someone who is so charismatic that it would be easy to see how an outsider like Mark Zuckerberg could fall under his spell and not see how imbalanced he really was. To me this movie is the beginning of a new era of his career and I really look forward to his next move. 

I have already heard some complaints that the movie is not true to life but anyone who uses this as a negative towards the film has completely missed the point. The makers of this movie realized that the story to tell regarding the creation of Facebook wasn't found in the facts, but in the emotions of those involved. That is the real purpose of the movie. It's not being billed as based on a true story, but people will easily confuse it as such simply because it deals with characters based on people that really exist. Fincher and Sorkin have taken the conflicting words from all parties involved and made a semi-fictional take on real life events. It doesn't matter that the end result may be all exaggerations and lies because it's an amazing story that has become one of the best movies of 2010.

You're Welcome,

Dave

Movie Review: Hatchet II (by Dave Machado)

There has been an unfortunate trend lately to call any new horror movie that plays like an 80s slasher movie an "homage." However, there is a big difference between an homage to 80s horror and a new original movie that maintains the same gleeful fun mainly seen in those movies from past decades. Hatchet II is not an "homage" to the fun slasher movies of the past. It simply is a fun slasher movie. There are no gimmicks on display to make it seem like a dated horror movie. Sure, the movie wears its love of older supernatural slasher movies on its sleeve, but it does so in a way that allows it to be its own thing. Hatchet II is a fantastic horror movie that does what every sequel should, prove its own existence while topping everything from the first movie.

I love the world Director Adam Green has set up in his movies. There are a good amount of returning characters from the first Hatchet and it truly feels like the continuation of the story that began with the original one in 2006. There are also some clever nods to other things Green has done like Frozen (pay attention to a certain news report) and my personal favorite, Jack Chop. Green's ability to combine the new school of horror with what is now considered an older school was one of my favorite things about this movie. It really comes across that Green loves this genre and Hatchet II is an awesome celebration of all things bloody and gory.

It would be easy to simply rattle off all the cool little cameos and references in Hatchet II (Joe Lynch! Behind the Mask! Newbury Comics!) but that was only part of the fun watching it. The real enjoyment I got out of Hatchet II were the glorious kills. The reason they are so amazing (and the reason I feel like Hatchet II is so important) is because it has been released to major theaters without an official rating. This is pretty much unheard of so I feel like it is every horror fan's duty to seek this movie out. I made a special trip to Boston and encourage others to follow suit. You won't be disappointed either because the stuff they were able to get away with instead of cutting it down for an R rating makes for one hell of a fun time.

Another strong point of Hatchet II is the lead, Danielle Harris. It's great seeing the little girl from Halloween 4 and 5 get a chance to really kick some ass and go full-on Ripley in a horror movie. Danielle is not playing the scared helpless girl in this movie. She gets her hands dirty (and bloody) and I had a blast watching her on screen. It's a great role and makes me look forward to what she does next. Speaking of which, any fans of her and Director Adam Green can actually get to meet them both if you go to Rock and Shock in Worcester on the weekend of Oct. 15-17 (I'll be there!).

Hatchet II is not my favorite horror movie of the year (I had a lot more fun with Piranha 3D) but it is still a movie that every single horror fan should see. Victor Crowley is the best horror monster created since Candyman and I would love to see this series continued even further. I have no problem saying that the Hatchet series will be required viewing years from now similar to how my generation devoured all of the Nightmare on Elm St. and Friday the 13th movies. There will always be critics saying these types of movies are what's wrong with America and that's fine because the reason we love horror movies like this is that they are like a great big in-joke. So while they sit in wonderment at how someone could enjoy seeing a person's head get ripped off from getting choked by their own intestines (Yea, that happens. It's as awesome as it sounds...), we can simply ignore them, sit back, and enjoy the gore that Hatchet II offers by the bucket-load. Just please don't call it an homage movie.

You're Welcome,

Dave

Movie Review: Triangle (by Dave Machado)

Watching a great movie can be a lot like putting together a jigsaw puzzle. A movie typically begins by giving you the basic setup of the story, which is fairly easy to understand. I consider this the "outline" portion of the puzzle, the part everyone always starts with so you can begin to see what exactly you are working with. The complexity of the movie from that point on determines the size of the puzzle pieces that the viewer is left to put together. There are always movies with big pieces for viewers who don't want to do much leg work. Fortunately, there are also movies like Triangle that know certain viewers enjoy a challenge and therefore give them lots of little pieces to work with. Like any big puzzle, you may be frustrated while you attempt to put it all together, but once things fall into place and you take a step back, you really start to appreciate the challenge it put forth.

I won't go too deep into the plot of Triangle because giving you answers (or even clues) as to what the movie is really about would be like turning the jigsaw puzzle into a childish paint by numbers.  Sure the end result could still look the same, but half the enjoyment comes from your own discovery. What I can say is that it is a thriller that focuses on a small group of people who get caught in a severe storm while relaxing out at sea. Their boat capsizes and after spending a while floating in the sea, a giant ocean liner appears seemingly out of nowhere. They board the ship which seems to be eerily quiet and empty except for a few passing shadows and sounds. What's the dark secret of the boat? I'll let you find that out for yourself. 

Lots of movies attempt to unravel a sprawling mystery but end up having at least one small plot hole that can't be explained. To go back to the jigsaw metaphor, it would be like completing a large, beautiful puzzle only to realize there is a small missing piece. Sure the final result is impressive, but whenever you or someone else looks at it, their eyes will go directly to the missing piece. Luckily, Triangle does not have any missing pieces. I was both surprised and impressed at how well everything fit together. It took some re-watching of key scenes after I initially finished the movie to fully understand it, but once I did, it made the movie that much more enjoyable. All the answers are right up there on the screen, it's simply left up to the viewer to put them all together.

That's not to say Triangle is a perfect movie because it's not. But for a small thriller, it has an incredibly tight story and some amazingly haunting visuals that will stay with me for a long time. Director Christopher Smith has an excellent visual style and the movie is surprisingly beautiful at times. I was a fan of his previous horror movie Severance and was happy to see how much range he showed this time around. Severance had a very unique wit (though very dark) that I was happy to see mostly missing from this movie. Triangle is a more serious effort and he luckily didn't feel the need to inject any silly gags that would break the tension. That's not to say I didn't enjoy Severance because the humor worked in the universe he set up for that film. Actually, if you haven't seen it, I highly recommend you check it out. It features my favorite rocket launcher gag of all time.

Triangle is also helped by a fairly impressive (and mostly unknown) cast. The movie is anchored by the role of Jess (Melissa George).  Melissa does a fantastic job with such a complicated character and really adds a lot to the role that could have easily been too "schticky." The rest of the cast does a good job for the most part but since the movie really belongs to the character Jess, most are never given enough to do and therefore become fairly one-note characters. I would have liked to see more complex supporting characters but like I said, Melissa does such a fine job pulling her weight around on screen that it simply makes everyone else seem more 1 dimensional.

The movie goes a little too heavy on symbolism at times but I can forgive it because it's never so bad that it ruins the movie. This is simply a pet peeve of mine and will most likely not even be an issue for most viewers. Other than those few nitpicks, I was highly impressed with Triangle. It's the type of movie that surprises me how little of a following it has. I hope more people check it out in the years to come because it accomplishes a lot for such a small film. I understand it may be too "confusing" for some but as I said before, the answers are right there on the screen. You just need to take the time to put it together yourself. For those willingly to try out this puzzle, you'll be extremely happy with the end result.

You're Welcome,
Dave

Movie Review: Catfish (by Dave Machado)

Every once in a while, a movie comes along like Catfish that seems to pull people in based solely on the reason that it is being marketed as a "twist" movie that needs to be seen to be believed. I typically have reservations about these movies because I feel like the hype of the movie (and specifically the twist) will have become so big that there is no way the movie can live up to it. The marketing for Catfish makes it out to seem like a pseudo-horror movie with some dark secret lurking in the shadows. Even the poster, with it's red on black color scheme suggests something pretty sinister. This ends up being a fairly questionable marketing strategy because while it does hook people in, it doesn't exactly deliver what it seems to promise. That is actually a good thing though because where Catfish ends up going was genuinely surprising and was done in such an anti-climatic way that I have no reason to question the movie's authenticity.

For those who have yet to see the movie, don't worry, I have no intention of spoiling Catfish for you. The basic setup though is that a photographer (Nev Schulman) begins receiving paintings of his photos from an 8 year old artist named Abby. He slowly develops a friendship with her whole family through Facebook and eventually starts a "relationship" with Abby's older half sister Megan. Two aspiring filmmakers (Ariel Schulman and Henry Joost) who share an office with Nev in New York see the potential for a good short documentary film and begin filming Nev's story as he gets closer to this family. The three of them end up getting a gig not too far from where the family lives and decide that once they are finished shooting there, they would stop by the family's house so they can all finally meet.

It's unfortunate that this movie has come out the same time as Casey Affleck's I'm Still Here, which has turned out to be a fabricated story being sold as a real Documentary. We now know that Joaquin Phoenix was playing a character the whole time and that it was not a documentation of his emotional "downfall." The movie was meant to be an interesting study on the fact that if we see someone playing "themselves" and it's billed as real, then most people will take the creators word for it, no matter how outlandish the subject matter is. I fear this will cause people to be cynical towards movies like Catfish, which I think is in fact 100% real. It would be a shame if the true message of the movie gets lost in the arguments over the authenticity of it.

The screening of the movie I attended was followed by a quick Q&A session with director Ariel Schulman and star Nev Schulman. The question came up about their response to people wondering whether the movie was real or not and their response was quite simple. They themselves never even thought that some people would consider it all a hoax because they lived through it so of course it was real. Nobody likes being duped and I think for that reason, some will still stand by their feeling that the movie was faked simply because that way if it ever came out that it was a hoax, they could line up to give you a nice and quick "I told you so." I don't think that moment will ever come so it's unfortunate that those unwilling to make that leap of faith in the filmmakers are losing out on the important issues the movie brings up.

I apologize for being cryptic but this really is a movie that should not be spoiled. I may do a more spoiler filled post at some point depending on the response to the movie as it becomes more well known but in the meantime, I suggest trying to find a local showing in your area. I didn't walk out 100% loving the movie as I felt there were some things that placed the movie in a morally grey area that I am still trying to sort out, but I am glad I got the chance to see it. It won't change the way you use Facebook, but it may make you question how you chose to communicate with people over the internet that you don't personally know.

You're Welcome,
Dave

Movie Review: Devil (by Dave Machado)

Devil is a movie that you can like, perhaps even really like, but not love. It's a high-concept horror movie that is filled with so many logical holes that it begins to resemble a game of Jenga. I spent the whole running time wondering when that final piece of intelligence would be removed, causing the entire movie to topple over itself. Yet somehow, when the movie was finished, that tower of blocks was left standing and the movie was able to get away with having so many issues purely because it was so damn fun to watch. It may lose a lot of its bulk to bad logic, but it is smart enough to keep its base intact, providing a great thriller with some genuinely creepy moments.

The movie focuses on a group of 5 people stranded in an elevator. They are all suspicious people to begin with and start to turn against each other as they realize something is horribly wrong with their situation. The previews hint that one of the passengers is not who they claim to be and are in fact the devil. The movie does a good job in the beginning of making you question whether or not something truly supernatural is occurring but does not stick with this theme long enough. The filmmakers don't seem that interested in this debate of whether or not evil really exists and because of this, the movie loses a bit of steam going forward.

Speaking of losing steam, the movie makes the confusing decision to go back and forth between the people in the elevator and the cops and security guards trying to get them out far too much. I would have preferred something more risky where the movie focused on only one of these groups for the entire runtime. That way at least if it was a failure, it would have been a respectable failure. Instead we are forced to go back and forth between both scenarios, which I felt made it so neither ever got the real attention they deserved. The movie never allows enough time for the real sense of panic to rise up on either side, which just doesn't make sense to me based on what we see happening.

One of the things that really bugged me about the movie is how the people in the elevator react to the first death. The movie ends up taking on a very Agatha Christie feel as one-by-one, the people in the elevator start to die mysteriously (when the lights go out of course.). But once the first death occurs, I was stunned at the lack of reaction from the rest of the people in the elevator. They seem to react to the death the same way they would react if one of the people happened to faint while the lights were out. Sure, there is some nonsense talk about having never seen a dead body before, but they aren't flipping out, which is something I think should have happened. The movie has the characters keep their cool for the sake of storytelling but from a reality standpoint, it starts to pull those Jenga pieces away at a very quick pace.

It seems that a lot of the smaller things that bugged me stemmed from the fact that the filmmakers set up the rules they wanted to work within before fully fleshing out the details. So when the characters are face with a problem that has a logical workaround, they skirt that issue under the rug and try to divert attention away from the glaring issues. One such rule is that the cops outside the elevator are able to speak to the survivors using the P.A. system, but for some reason, the other side is broken so they can't hear anything coming from within the elevator. The only connection they have is what's picked up by the elevator security camera. This leaves many times where the movie simply gives in to the fact that some things can't be communicated because there is no sound coming from the elevator. Apparently these cops cannot read lips at all and the people in the elevator are terrible at charades. 

The movie tries to mine far too much tension out of this problem so it's never brought up how illogical it is that none of this is attempted. They try to pull something by saying the camera isn't sharp enough when they try to have the people hold up their IDs so they can properly identify who is in the elevator, but that is not a good enough excuse for me. I wish the movie was a bit more tongue-in-cheek and it didn't try to be so serious at times. It's hard to take a movie seriously when the address of the building where everything takes place is 333 Locust St. It seems baffling to me that a movie would choose something that corny and not stick with a B-movie tone. Again, it's as if the filmmakers are not brave enough to chose one thing over the other and instead try to have the best of both worlds, which is something that a small horror movie with an 80 min. runtime is not able to handle.

Devil tries to play out like a religious morality play. It contains some pretty bad narration by the very religious security guard who is the first to suspect something is wrong. The movie begins with his voice over but we don't actually become introduced to his character until later on in the movie. It is an odd and somewhat lazy choice to have him relay a story his mother used to tell him about the devil coming to earth to make people pay for their sins. It becomes even an odder choice when we see just how useless the character actually is within the scope of the movie. It's as if they needed a way to get this extra information across and the only way they knew how was to create this one note supporting character and then allow him to narrate the most important parts of the film. They could have at least given his character a good pay off but instead he ends up playing no role in the outcome, other than to annoy me with this cliche ramblings about the devil.

It actually surprises me how many negative things I have to say about this movie because as I said earlier, I enjoyed it overall. The movie is being billed as the first entry in "The Night Chronicles" which seems to be a possible anthology of unrelated thrillers to be setup by Producer M. Night Shyamalan. I would love to see a couple little flicks like this pop up every year. Devil plays out in a twisty Twilight Zone kind of way that could easily make it part of a universe being setup between multiple films. If you are a fan of horror movies, then I 100% recommend giving this movie a shot. Hopefully you will find enough good in it like I did to consider it an entertaining story and something that I look forward to revisiting on DVD. However, for those who only enjoy horror when it's smart and edgy, you may just want to wait in the lobby for the next elevator to arrive.

You're Welcome,

Dave

Movie Review: The American (by Dave Machado)

They don't make enough movies like The American. I went in not really knowing what to expect from this movie, other than the fact that George Clooney is always fantastic and I was looking forward to seeing him play an assassin. I anticipated a fun Bourne style action movie with a bit more subdued European style. Perhaps something light and fun that would be visually stunning but slightly forgettable. What I ended up seeing however was a beautiful and compelling character study about the life of an aging assassin. I've seen it described as an art-house action movie and that is a fairly good description. One other good way to describe it would be "phenomenal."

The past few years, I've come to realize how much of an amazing actor George Clooney is. Since 2007, his list of accomplishments is fairly impressive. Movies like Michael Clayton, Burn After Reading, Up in the Air, and even Fantastic Mr. Fox were great movies made even better by his inclusion. I'm not breaking new ground with this statement, but I really do see him as the modern day Cary Grant, who just so happens to be my other favorite actor. Clooney's ability to go so easily from comedy (Burn After Reading) to more serious fare like The American is what sets him apart from a lot of other leading men out there today. I feel he has recently entered a new phase in his career that to me is one of the most exciting transitions an actor has made in quite some time. He seems to have a great eye for picking movies and I will now look forward to almost anything he is in.

In the American, Clooney plays the stereotypical aging assassin who has decided that after a successful life of being great at what he does, it's time to pack it in and try to lead a normal life. That really is the only stereotypical thing about this movie though. It takes that premise and brings it to such a refreshing place that it makes it all feel new again. The movie forces you to feel the pain that his life choices have caused him. He is a lonely man with no friends or a home. It's the type of action movie where you actually dread any action that could take place because you fear for the safety of this character that you have come to admire. It's also one of the more visually gifted movies I have seen in quiet some time, spending lots of time showcasing the beauty of the small Italian village the movies takes place in.

So luckily, George Clooney isn't the only great thing about this movie. Part of his last job involves making the weaponry needed for another assassin (played by the gorgeous Thekla Reutan) to complete her job. I loved all of their scenes due to the delightful tension that continues to get stronger as the movie progresses. Normally if the other spy was played by a man, there would still be tension as we are not sure who Clooney can trust, but by having this other spy be a beautiful woman, it adds a dangerously sexy appeal to all of their scenes. The scenes of Clooney putting together the needed weapon while sitting alone in his workshop were some of my favorite in the movie. You can tell from the mix of determination on his face and the ease of his hands quickly putting the pieces together that Clooney's character is a real artist. I was left only slightly disappointed when these scenes ended and it didn't pan out and show that his character made the dildo chair from Burn After Reading.

Thekla's assassin character is not meant to be Clooney's love interest though. That role is played by Violante Placido, who is so stunning it's almost offensive. Her character, Clara, is an Italian prostitute that Clooney is able to find a sense of comfort from. They quickly fall for each other and it's not hard to see why. But of course we know that it's never safe for a hitman to have a love interest but we also know that a hitman can never really trust anyone. Their relationship is played out so perfectly in this movie that my only complaint is that they didn't have a lot more scenes together. It's sort of an irrational complaint though because the movie moves at such a quick pace that it never feels like a scene is wasted. I'd be afraid that adding even one extra scene may tip it in the wrong direction. At only 105 min. it is a movie that knows how to get the job done and does it in a mostly non-showy fashion, much like Clooney's character himself.

I am left quite flabbergasted at the mixed reviews of this movie. Sure it's not perfect (there is one glaring issue I have but it so admittingly nit picky it is not even worth mentioning here due to spoilers) but it is still a very smart movie that left me extremely satisfied. This movie seems to scream out that summer is over and school is back in session. For those "kids" who still crave the inane loudness that comes with summer movies, I can see how they may be disappointed in this relatively quiet study. But for adults ready to get back to actually learning something from the movies, The American is open for enrollment.

You're Welcome, 

Dave

Movie Review: The Last Exorcism (by Dave Machado)

The Last Exorcism is another "found footage" movie focusing on a fake documentary being made about Reverend Cotton Marcus, who after years of questioning his faith, has decided to allow a film crew to follow him to an "exorcism" so he can show how fake it all really is. Things don't go exactly as planned of course and what follows is an impressive film that is able to accomplish a lot and not feel too restricted by the "shaky cam" gimmick. It's a film that constantly stays two steps ahead of the viewer. Every time I thought I had the movie figured out, a game changer was thrown my way, constantly making me question (in a good way) where this was all headed. The movie does a wonderful job of building the characters and thankfully focuses less time on random jump scares, which sometimes plague these types of movies, making them feel unbearably forced.

Reverend Marcus is an engaging character and I was very happy to see that he was portrayed as a modern man who just happened to be raised in the church. He is a product of his environment but at the same time he is breaking off from his traditional upbringing based on a practical and logical mindset. The Reverend is a great showman, so great that he may have even tricked himself into believing his sermons that he began giving at such a young age. It was a relief to see the movie go this route instead of having him be a broad caricature of a rich southern preacher who gets his jollies swindling his poor followers for his own financial gain. He may be flawed (he admits to being a fake but says he provides a needed service and in return is able to support his family) but he is sympathetic enough so when the film starts to take a turn, you actually care about his outcome.

There is a great scene early on in the movie of the Rev. showing off his "magic tricks" to the camera after performing an exorcism. He closely resembles a young kid gleefully showing how he performed a parlor trick in front of his family. I think it's interesting to see how much Reverend Marcus sees himself as an magician/actor because it adds an intriguing layer to the moral debate of his character. When you really think about it, who are actors but con men playing the roles of other people? They put on a different persona for the camera and are rewarded financially based on how good they are at becoming a fake person. Some movies are so engaging to us that they even help us work through our own issues as we watch them. Is this really that different then how the Reverend helps these people by performing an exorcism? Sure the argument can be made that we know the movies are fake to begin with while the Reverend's followers truly believe, but whose to say that subconsciously, they know it's all a game but need to see the performance played out for them in order to feel relief?

The main question of the movie is whether or not this family needs a show or the real thing. The "possessed" girl (played to perfection by Ashley Bell) is a home-schooled teenager that has had her family torn apart due to the death of her mother from cancer. She lives alone on a large farm property with her now alcoholic dad and her socially detached brother. Ashley Bell plays sweet and innocent in such a loving way that it's even more shocking when she starts acting "odd." It's no question that this girl is in need of help.  What the movie does is make you question whether the help needed is of a spiritual or psychological kind.  I don't want to get into any spoilers related to that in this review because I went in fairly clean and felt that aided in my enjoyment of the movie. As I said before though, the movie never gets predictable and changes things up right until the very end.

The summer is never a great season for horror so it is welcoming to see such a good old-fashioned one get released now. I'm glad they decided on August instead of a couple months from now because while Fall may be the best season for horror, it's hard for smaller movies to find an audience when they are one of multiple horror movies opening up in the same month. I would have hated seeing this get lost in the shuffle between Saw VII and Paranormal Activity 2. While I have my own personal gripes with the "found footage" gimmick, I will admit that those movies always play better in a theater and I believe The Last Exorcism is no exception. At the very least, you'll walk out of the theater with a great new banana bread recipe.

You're Welcome,
Dave

Movie Review: Machete (by Dave Machado)

Sometimes the idea of a movie is a lot better than the final product. Machete began it's life in 2007 as one of the fake previews in the movie Grindhouse. The preview set up the story of a blade-obsessed Mexican agent who is double crossed by the American Government. With his family killed and everyone out to get him, he mows down everyone in his path in glorious gory detail until he is the last man standing. I'll admit that even when I saw this preview, I hoped that someday it would get the feature length treatment as the concept seemed too cool to pass up. Turns out I was wrong though as Machete stretched out to a 90 minute feature just doesn't pack the punch that it was able to deliver as a quick 3 min. montage of kill scenes.  

One aspect that has been giving Machete lots of press is the surprisingly large cast that has been assembled. This actually became one of the bigger faults of the movie for me because unlike another cast focused movie like The Expendables, the cameos in Machete sometimes took me out of the movie and stopped me from just sitting back and enjoying what was on the screen. Again, it goes back to idea vs. execution. The idea of having Robert De Niro, Jessica Alba, and Lindsay Lohan sounds entertaining but once you see what they are given to work with, it never develops beyond a cool idea. The casting either just turns out to be too meta (Lohan), too culturally wrong (Steven Segal), or you just don't buy them as a certain type of character (Alba).  Luckily, the two most distracting roles (Steven Seagal and Lindsay Lohan) are fairly small so it doesn't effect the movie too much.  
Some of the casting does work though. Jeff Fahey (Frank Lapidus from LOST) is fantastic as Mr. Booth, the aide to De Niro's Senator McLaughlin. Fahey seems to "get" the movie and he plays the character perfectly. I was also surprised at how much I enjoyed Michelle Rodriguez as Luz, the taco truck driver who is also leading the "Network" of illegal immigrants into the country.  Rodriguez always gets stuck playing the "sexy/tough" role in action movies and Machete was the first time I actually felt that's what she was. Kudos also goes to Cheech Marin for a fun turn as Machete's brother/priest. So while the stunt casting wasn't perfect, there were a few instances where it thankfully made the movie better.

One interesting thing about this movie goes back to it being based on a fake preview. I was actually surprised that the movie made use of the more iconic parts of that preview. It was disappointing to see that the coolest parts of the preview ended up being most of the coolest parts of the movie. I would have hoped that they simply discarded the fake preview and simply made newer, better moments and just kept the Grindhouse trailer separate. There were a few scenes that even felt awkwardly shoehorned in simply to have the scenes from 3 years ago placed in the movie. This isn't to say that nothing about this movie was exciting. There are still lots of inventive scenes/kills but I was left hoping for a lot more.

The last few weeks have seen an interesting group of movies emerge through the late summer haze. Piranha 3D, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, The Expendables, and Machete were all movies with a built-in cult fan base. While I thought Scott Pilgrim and Piranha succeeded in their attempts at hooking in an audience with a promised genre experience, I believe The Expendables and Machete slightly missed their marks. These latter two films fall into the pile of movies that were hyped up before their release and could never quite reach the levels of perfection we all anticipated in our minds. I still consider all four to be some of my favorite times at the movies this year, I just can't see myself revisiting Machete that often while I look forward to wearing out my copies of both Scott Pilgrim and Piranha 3D. 

You're Welcome,

Dave

Movie Review: The Tillman Story (by Dave Machado)

The Tillman Story is a new documentary that looks into the 2004 death of United States Army Ranger and NFL player Pat Tillman. Tillman's death is not news for most people as it received a lot of coverage based on him giving up a new contract with the Arizona Cardinals in order to serve overseas in 2002. It was first reported that Tillman was killed in enemy combat during intense fighting but as the weeks went by, it slowly leaked out that it was actually friendly fire that killed Pat. This fantastic documentary by Amir Bar-Lev looks into why Pat Tillman's story took so long to come out and how his family dealt with the Government's attempt to turn his death into a giant recruiting poster.

Pat Tillman did not want to be a hero. He had his own reasons for joining the military and just wanted to be treated like any other soldier. Unfortunately with the Government nosediving into a massively unpopular war, it seems they decided to take his unfortunate death and spin it as the tale of the All-American Hero who wanted to die for his country. People can debate all day about the necessity/evil of war and about the true meaning of a hero, but that is not what this movie is about. It is about the blatant disrespect our own Government had not only for Tillman and his family, but for us as a nation.

This is a film that will have you shaking your head in disbelief as the events unfold on the screen.  It becomes tragically comical after a while as you see the way the Government scrambles to come up with reason after reason of why it took so long for the truth to come out.  It's never comforting to see the people we are supposed to trust grabbing for their underwear as the lights are flicked on but it's impossible to feel any sense of sympathy for these rubes.  On the flip side, the true heroes of this movie are the surviving members of Pat Tillman's life.  They openly discuss details with such refreshing honesty that they come off as very real people, which ironically is sometimes lacking in Documentaries.  They are not putting on a show or trying to sugar coat the things being said in the movie and for that, I respect them deeply.  

Perhaps the one additional thing I wish the movie covered was how often things like this have happened in this war. How many other soliders are there whose families were lied to but because they weren't high profile enough or because their family wasn't strong enough, the truth will never come out? I understand this is just The Tillman Story, but I would love for it to spark a flood of other stories that can allow more closure for those families who felt they never got any. I'm always leery of Documentaries being too one sided and being made for the same people who already feel the same way as the filmmakers. But every so often, I catch one that not only surprises me, but is actually eye opening. I was very happy to see that The Tillman Story is one of those movies. It's a very personal tale that respects Pat Tillman for who he was and not for who the Government wanted him to be. 

You're Welcome,

Dave

Movie Review: The Expendables (by Dave Machado)

I'm not exactly the manliest man out there.  I've never really bought into the "Manly" lifestyle and I don't even use Axe Body Spray.  Yet as I drove to the theater to see The Expendables (listening to the new Katy Perry album!), I was filled with excitement for the giant dose of testosterone I was about to receive.  It's probably no coincidence that I left the theater with a pounding headache as my body was simply not ready for that much manliness on the screen.  The Expendables may not have been the amazing action movie I had hoped for, but with such an amazing cast, it was still one of the highlights of the summer for me and a great action flick.

When reading the cast of The Expendables (Sylvester Stallone, Jason Statham, Jet Li, Mickey Rourke, The Incredible Hulk, Santa, The Brawny Man, etc...) you already start to envision the crazy action scenes they will be able to create.  Unfortunately, your imagination will probably do a better job than what you actually get to see.  I don't want to knock the movie too much because I did enjoy it, but without the cast of heavyweights they were able to get, the movie is pretty much a generic action movie.  It's the type of action movie that has been relegated to Direct to DVD Hell for the past decade or so.  Since these movies have mostly gone unseen, what was once generic has become a welcome throwback. 

Say you had a great girlfriend in the late 80s but somewhere around 1995 you decided you were getting tired of her bullshit (sorry, I'm still trying to get that extra testosterone out of my body now...) so you part ways.  You heard she was doing OK through friends and that she hadn't settled down and was still the same girl from 1985.  This was a little sad to you because you yourself had grown a lot since then and settled down and started a family.  But then one day in the summer of 2010, you bump into her by chance.  She's still the same damn girl from 1985 but since you've been away from that fun lifestyle for so long now, you almost envy her lifestyle.  Watching The Expendables is like having sex with that woman.

Back to the actual movie, the other problem I had was the use of quick editing in the fight scenes.  The movie likes to have multiple fights going on at once so between the quick cuts within each fight and the quick cuts back and forth between mini-battles, it becomes a little disorienting.  The style works better in large open spaces but there was one scene that took place in a narrow hallway that left me waiting for the fight to just end so I could find my bearings again.  This is a general complaint of modern action movies but I just wished it strayed from that convention and really stuck with the action as it was unfolding.  It's hard to feel the impact of a fight when you aren't allowed the time to really feel each punch thrown.  

Other than those gripes, and an insane appearance by a character in the final scene that had me literally laughing out loud, I thoroughly enjoyed this men on a mission tale.  I would love to see this turned into a franchise.  Hopefully a sequel would raise the stakes a little higher and some of the B-level Expendables would be given a little more room to breathe.  We could sit and list actors all day that we would love to see in these movies, but I would be fine sticking with the core group set up in the movie.  For the time being, The Expendables works great as a late summer blockbuster.  Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go relax with a glass of wine and the latest New Yorker...I mean I need to go lift weights and eat a live cow.

You're Welcome,

Dave

Movie Review: Piranha 3D (by Dave Machado)

The one thought going through my mind as I watched Piranha 3D was that I could not remember the last time I had this much fun while watching a movie.  I even felt a little guilty while watching it after I realized that that it may actually be my favorite movie of 2010.  After years of "insta-cult" movies like Snakes on a Plane and Grindhouse where the "cult" aspect of the movie was forced down our throats before we even saw a single frame, Piranha 3D was able to sneak by without much hype and build-up.  I'm not sure if that made for a more positive experience, but I can honestly say that Piranha 3D is the movie I have been waiting years to see.  Please don't mistake my love of this film as me saying it is the "best" movie of the year.  It's simply the most fun, gory, naked, and disgusting movie I've seen in years.

I typically watch a lot of horror movies and consider myself a fan of gore.  I, unlike some people, can differentiate the horror on the screen from real life and I simply get a kick out of seeing things I couldn't see in real life.  I know that woman didn't really get her face chopped off.  I'm simply fascinated at the effects and enjoy seeing how far movies are allowed to go within their budget to reflect "reality" in the fatal blows and wounds of the victims.  Having said that, even I was taken aback at what they were able to pull off in this movie.  I can't remember the last studio released, R-rated movie that had this much gore.  Actually, I can't remember any recent horror movie showing this much blood and guts.  The things that they were able to get away with in this movie astounded me and also left me with a dumb smile on my face the entire time.  This movie is like the crazy sick wet dream of a drugged up 15 year old who is obsessed with horror movies and boobs, and I mean that in the best possible way.

I will be the first to admit that this movie is not for everyone.  In fact, I would say that this movie is not for most people.  But for the people who like these kinds of movies, they are in for a giant treat. I don't want to spoil any of the gags in the movie since that would take away from the pure joy of experiencing it first hand like I did.  Though I will say though that Jerry O'Connell walks away as the MVP in this movie.  Now typically I would hate any movie on principle of it making me type that sentence but it's true.  Almost every line out of his mouth as a sleazy "Joe Francis" type is pure gold.  There are also some great cameos sprinkled throughout the movie that work perfectly.  As for 3D gags, the movie proved to me that 3D isn't always terrible.  I enjoy 3D when it's used as a gimmick and not some lame "world building" trick.  Just throw body parts and scary fish at the screen and I'm happy to throw down a few extra dollars.  

I hope Piranha 3D finds an audience.  I'm sure we have an unrated Director's Cut coming out way in time for Christmas (someone get me Criterion on the phone...) that will only be more over the top.  But until then, if you want a movie that actually lives up to what it promises, then Piranha 3D is your best bet.  I would love it if in a few years we can look back at the release of this movie and see that it's when movies stopped worrying about becoming a cult movie before the script is even finished and instead focuses on just making the coolest possible horror movie out there.  Those are the movies that truly end up as cult favorites.  But at the very least, where else can you see a detached penis floating in the water other than Piranha 3D?*

You're Welcome,

Dave

*Eat, Pray, Love

Movie Review: Scott Pilgrim vs. The World (by Dave Machado)

I had a strong feeling that I was going to love Scott Pilgrim vs. The World.  Being a huge fan of Director Edgar Wright, the cast, and Brian Lee O'Malley's original graphic novels, it wasn't a stretch to safely assume this would end up as a Best Of 2010 entry.  The week before the movie came out, I even picked up both the Score and Soundtrack and became obsessed with those as well.  Then the reviews started rolling in and it seemed a bit mixed.  People were having issues with the movie related to the likability of Scott Pilgrim (some of whom I believe were just sick of Michael Cera) and the believability that we the audience should care about whether Scott ends up with Ramona or not.  I pushed these bad feelings aside and patiently waited to see the movie myself. Now, after having seen it, I can easily say that it lived up my insane hype and is easily one of the top 3 movies of the year so far (along with Kick-Ass and Inception).

Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is not a movie that should be viewed literally.  It is a brilliant satire on what it's like to easily fall in love as a young adult and to feel the pressure of living up to your significant other's past trysts.  It takes this concept and throws it into a world where super powers do exist and where every sound effect is taken from old video games.  Basically, it places you in the mind of a young 20-something geek, in our case named Scott Pilgrim.  Scott truly believes that Ramona is his soul mate and will stop at nothing until they can be together forever...this week.  That's what I think is so great about this story.  Scott Pilgrim is an impulsive character and when he's fighting these evil Exes, he's doing it with a great deal of passion.  But again, viewing this as a satire, I see that passion melting away, once one of these two become sick of each other.  But that doesn't take away from Scott's victories at all.  His love for Ramona is just the MacGuffin used to stage some of the coolest fight sequences I've seen in quite some time.

Special attention should be given to the cast of this movie.  There is not one wasted role and everyone brought in for even the smallest part is perfect.  It's not worth listing specific favorites because it would easily turn into just me going through the entire cast.  However, I will say that as far as the Evil Exes go, Brandon Routh was incredible.  I haven't seen him in much since Superman Returns but I really hope this puts him back on the map.  I'm not sure how complimentary this will sound, but Brandon Routh plays an incredible douche bag.  It's almost a shame that the Exes only get a couple scenes a piece because I could easily watch an entire movie based on each one.

All cast accolades aside, the real star of the movie is Edgar Wright and his editing team.  I believe Edgar had already proved he had an amazing sense at how to consistently keep a films momentum up but with Scott Pilgrim, he takes things to a new level.  The way this film is edited makes it worth seeing one more time just to sit back and just enjoy how he lets the story unfold.  Things are cut at a breakneck pace but are done in such a way that it never feels disorienting or annoying.  The best (and in this case, most appropriate) comparison would be to the speed at which you read through panels in a comic book.  One panel can convey a whole conversation and Edgar Wright is able to do the same thing with one scene that literally only contains one or two lines of dialog.  In a fair world, this would at least earn this movie an Oscar nomination for Best Editing.  

So luckily there were no surprises and I fell in love with Scott Pilgrim.  It's been a tough year for quality movies so it's good to see such a fantastic one sneak by the studios.  Sure it's technically not "original" since it is based on the graphic novels, but as far as other movies like it, it pretty much stands alone.  We've seen similar things attempted in movies such as Crank and Speed Racer, but Scott Pilgrim takes what they setup and blows it all out of the water.  Scott Pilgrim is a fantastic work of art that I look forward to rewatching for years to come.  The fact that it has a Mega Man reference is simply icing on the cake.

You're Welcome,

Dave

Movie Review: The Other Guys (by Dave Machado)

The Other Guys is a movie that left me confused.  Now don't get me wrong, this is not a confusing movie by any means, but I had a hard time determining whether or not I enjoyed what I saw as I was leaving the theater.  As with the other McKay/Ferrell collaborations, this is a very absurd comedy. The thing I respect most about this movie is that it's not afraid to spend minutes on one joke and keep pushing it further and further until it finally reaches a ridiculous conclusion.  It seems comedies today rely too heavily on the cut-away/split-second gag that it was refreshing to see a movie spend such a long time on silly topics like a lion vs. a pack of tunas. I've always been a fan of jokes that go on so long they continue to see-saw back and forth between "hilarious" and "when is this ever going to end!"  Luckily, Adam McKay's crew has a great sense of comic timing and more often than not will end a bit on the "hilarious" side of the spectrum.  Seeing how well this movie meshed the buddy cop formula with intentional comedy makes me finally have a reason to see Cop Out so I can compare them, Goofus and Gallant style.  

One issue with comedies that tend to be more incongruous than the rest is that the real payoff is on repeat viewings.  This always seems to be the case with McKay's films.  Aside from Anchorman (which I considered a classic before my first viewing was complete), it took a few times seeing Talladega Nights and Step Brothers before I really started to enjoy the entire movie and found myself giggling like a fool at things that simply went over my head the first time I saw it.  I firmly believe The Other Guys will fall into that same category.  In fact, just in writing this, I've stopped several times and just laughed about little things I originally didn't find funny.  There are gags that come so far out of left field that you might laugh a bit but are more shaking your head in disbelief.  It's only when you step back and think about what led up to that moment that it truly becomes hysterical.  I know this type of comedy may not be for everyone, but I can honestly say it's better than whatever they try to pass off as "comedy" in movies such as the close approaching Vampires Suck.

One last thing that must be said of The Other Guys is that the supporting cast is mostly spot on.  There are many quick cameos that will get you excited and almost everyone gets at least one great bit/line.  The one thing that almost didn't work for me though was the casting of Mark Wahlberg.  I'm hoping I come to appreciate his role more as I revisit the movie but it just didn't click for me at first.  I believe what caught me off guard the most is that Wahlberg isn't simply playing the straight man but is actually just as over-the-top as Farrell.  This shouldn't have surprised me though as McKay has never been one to have a stereotypical "straight man" character.  I think Veronica Corningstone from Anchorman is the only one I can think of that would fit the bill.  Still, I'm not saying Wahlberg isn't good in the role, it was just that my expectations were elsewhere so it took a while for me to get comfortable with his character.  Again, something that will be fixed on repeat viewings.  So while I don't consider The Other Guys a comedy classic, I still believe it is a solid movie from one of the best comedy directors out right now.

You're Welcome,

Dave

Movie Discussion: Inception (by Dave Machado

Inception is a masterpiece.  It's the type of movie that comes along once in a great while and reminds me why I love movies so much.  After having seen the film twice I feel like I have a good grasp on what the movie is about yet I am still hesitant to review it.  I've read so many amazing articles about this movie that I wasn't sure I had anything useful to contribute other than "me likey Inception!"  Luckily for you however I am compelled to discuss one topic that has been on my mind since the infamous cut to black.  Spoilers from here on out so if you have not seen this movie yet, stop reading and go buy a ticket right now for the next showing.  

The main debate of Inception seems to come down to whether or not the top stopped after Cobb was finally reunited with his children.  I think the top would have kept spinning but it doesn't matter because I interpret the cut to black as Cobb waking up from his dream.  Some people agree with this theory and believe every second of the movie is a dream.  Now I don't buy that argument but I think we enter the first level of dreaming a lot earlier than some people think.  There is a scene after they meet up with the chemist Yusuf in Mombasa where Cobb asks to try out the sedative that Yusuf claims is very powerful.  I believe from this point on, the movie is Cobb's dream and the real Inception is his team trying to make him get over his issues with Mal.  That is why that at the end of the movie, only after he has finally come to peace with everything and is literally ready to face his children again, he wakes up and will be able to successfully complete jobs again.

My favorite part of this ending (or any interpretation of Inception) is that is uses the "it's all a dream" cliche and makes it meaningful.  I have always had a problem with scenes in movies that turned out to be dreams or when certain characters turned out to be hallucinations.  I believed that it negated the importance of said scenes and/or actors and was a waste of time.  Inception is what finally made me realize how stupid that argument was and that I was looking at movies the wrong way.  

The reality of movies is about as realistic as our own dreams.  We are watching actors playing parts for our entertainment.  Even though we know what's on screen is fake, we still follow along and are interested in the well being of the characters.  Yet we get upset if this fake character has a dream where something happens that we thought was important.  But why is this upsetting?  Is it because we ourselves get upset when good things happen in dreams but turn out to be false?  The character's "reality" and "dreams" are equally fake in our world so it seems silly to get upset over saying one part is worth your attention and the other is not.  The purpose of a movie is to tell a story and to see a character go through a journey of discovery.  It should be the end result that matters and that is what I think Christopher Nolan is trying to say with Inception.  We are invested in Cobb as a character and even though most of his arc takes place in a dream, his character still achieves what he desired and is therefore better off in the end.  In fact it is only through dreams that he is able to attain that.

There are so many other ways to view Inception that I could go on forever but I think this is enough to chew on for now.  Other interesting ideas such as Inception as an autobiographical story about making movies (similar to 8 1/2) is another fascinating take that I feel has already been explained to perfection by Devin over at Chud.com.  If you have a chance, go read his article as I think it is exceptionally well written and gets across the point a lot better than I could.  I hope I haven't turned anyone off to their own view of Inception because I think this movie is purposefully ambiguous.  I love hearing other people's take on the movie as I am not one who gets defensive over the way I see it.  We all bring personal baggage to films that distorts our view but it's important to stay open minded about what others have to say.  Always make sure your "Mal" doesn't take over and ruin the experience for others.

You're Welcome,

Dave

Movie Review: Predators (by Dave Machado)

Predators was a movie I had been looking forward to ever since I heard it was being Written/Produced by Robert Rodriguez.  I consider myself a fan of the first two Predator movies but not so much the Alien vs. Predator spinoff franchise.  I’ll admit to never actually seeing the second one but the first was pretty bad and lacked what made the earlier Alien and Predator films special.  So when I heard that someone whom I already respected in the movie industry was going to be behind the rejuvenation of a franchise much in need of new blood, I became very anxious to see the end result.  Luckily once the credits rolled on Predators I was satisfied with the film they made.

The film pretends that the Alien vs. Predator movies never existed (or at least never directly references them) and instead builds upon the mythology setup in the first two movies which consisted of Predators coming to earth to hunt down humans for sport.  The welcome twist for the new movie is that the Predators also bring humans (and other alien life) to their own planet to setup a gaming reserve so they can hunt and evolve their own tactics.  This fits nicely in with what we know about these creatures already and allows for some fun additions to the mythology.  We now learn there are multiple types of Predators and also Predator “dogs”.  As with humans here on earth, these different species are at war with each other in addition to hunting the life forms they bring to their planet.  It’s never stated but heavily implied that the “classic” Predators we are used to seeing are the lower/weaker species and not the ones who are controlling the “imports” being brought to the planet.

Speaking of “imports”, the group of survivors brought to the planet are an enjoyable collection of badass clichés from around the world.  It’s like an EPCOT World Showcase of killers (who of course all speak at least some English) with people from America, Israel, Mexico, Russia, Japan, and Sierra Leone.  They all wake up in the foreign jungle with no clue how or why they were brought there.  Luckily they all have weapons though…really, really big weapons.  So it doesn’t take long for them to band together and start to piece together what’s happening.  I think special recognition should go to Adrian Brody as the American mercenary and Topher Grace as the poor confused American Doctor (every unit needs a medic right?).  I’ll admit to being confused by their casting at first because they both don’t scream “badass” at all.  Luckily Topher Grace is cast perfectly as the nerdy smartass in way over his head (or is he?) so it didn’t require AHNOLD levels of muscles to pull off.  Adrian Brody however does play a badass in the movie and pulls it off nicely.  I would have never thought Mr. Brody could play a tough brute but about 15 minutes into the movie I was sold on his performance.   This is not to say the rest of the cast is poor by any means.  I actually thought it was one of the few ensemble movies where there isn’t a weak link in the group.  Fans of seeing big mouthfuls of scenery being devoured onscreen will also love Lawrence Fishburne’s role/cameo.  I won’t give too much away but you can tell he is having a lot of fun with his role (as was I).

Any fan of the previous Predator movies will enjoy this movie.  If you like over the top sci-fi action, this has your share of it for the entire summer.  A movie like this won’t win many people over though.  You will go in already knowing whether you will love it or not.  It delivers exactly what was expected of it and because of that I am thankful that the Predators were given one last hunting season to show that they can learn from their “mistakes” and become an optimal fighter in the multiplex.

I give this movie 3 ripped spinal cords out of 4.