The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus

This film is certainly a visual achievement that draws on the stifled imaginative minds of adults. The glimpses into "the imaginarium" are pretty breathtaking (I can only wonder what they looked like on a sixty-foot screen). But, I'm sure for some people they'll be misconstrued as an overly vivid acid trip, especially with the movie being directed by Terry Gillaim. Gilliam, in my opinion, is the genius mind that brought the world, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, a quintessential cult classic and defining movie for my generation. But, where that movie was great Imaginarium struggled.

First of all, Fear and Loathing, was so intrinsically tied to drug culture that the wild visions and out of the blue dialogue and plot progression seemed sort of normal, but Imaginarium doesn't benefit from something like this, so when unexpected plot twists or peculiar character developments happen in the film it's just very confusing and off putting. But, what helped the film immensely was the casting and acting. Heath Ledger, in his final film appearance, shines in the movie playing an odd philanthropist. Also, Verne Troyer, Christopher Plummer, and relative newcomer Lily Cole turn in great performances. I'm surprised Cole hasn't been cast in any American movies, I see a lot of potential for her, especially playing a similar role to the one she did in this movie.

It's difficult for me to recommend this movie as its overall impression that it left on me was of a relatively disconnected plot, with a wonderful performance from Ledger and incredibly, imaginative images. But, the child in me really liked it and if you can follow that then you may like it also.

Kick Ass

After seeing this movie a friend of mine boasted that, "If you don't go see Kick Ass, you should get your ass kicked". Although, he may have just been caught up in the raucous, hilarious state of mind that the movie puts you in, he might not be totally out of line with his statement.

I thought the movie was very funny, but I wouldn't call it the funniest movie I've ever seen. A solid script and good acting from Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Clark Duke, and relative newcomer Aaron Johnson made the movie watchable during the earlier parts of the movie, before most of the "ass-kicking" started happening. But, the one thing on my mind after leaving the cinema, was Chloe Moretz or "Hit Girl", her homicidal, spunky, Bride-esque character completely stole the show. I was wondering after her first appearance on screen why the film wasn't centered around her instead of the goofy Aaron Johnson. But, Moretz's character definitely added another dynamic to the movie which will only benefit it in the future.

I say see this movie, definitely not with as much gusto as my friend, but certainly with more of a level head on it. It provides a great escape from the stresses of everyday life, as most movies should and will do, but it'll gross you out, make you laugh out loud, and maybe even feel a little sorry for Nicolas Cage.

The Lovely Bones

I really dislike when I see people weighing in on a movie that's been adapted from a novel and their overall beef being, "That the movie didn't do the book justice." I can sort of see where people who say these things are coming from, but I can't agree with them. You have to understand what it takes to create a movie, a good idea, believable actors, a good story, sometimes a lot of money, amongst many other things. So, a lot of times the book just serves as a platform for the movie to garner an audience. Also, producers need to protect themselves from lawsuits by purchasing the rights to a novel, so when they say it's based on a novel it can sometimes only be to give credit to the author or authors.

I wanted to say this after reading the "review" listed on IMDB.com about, The Lovely Bones. It lambasted Peter Jackson, the director of the movie, for doing the book, which the film is based on "little justice". Jackson crafted a story that is compelling and suspenseful, although it may not be perfect in terms of what is in the novel, it does include some top notch acting from Stanley Tucci and Saoirse Ronan which shouldn't been overlooked. I did think some of the heavily fantastical, CGI scenes were very overblown, but Jackson may have included them to illustrate on the imaginative minds of children.

Date Night

I was a little torn while watching the beginning scenes of Date Night, because it seemed like the writers were trying to hard to force the funniness of the two stars, Tina Fey and Steve Carell. But, before long their overall hilarity took over, combined with a bunch of near perfect cameos and outrageously funny scenes this movie had me cracking up more than enough.

More about the cameos though, J.B. Smoove, or Leon in Curb Your Enthusiasm, has a brief appearance as a cabbie in the movie, but it's about 2 minutes that provide a platform for a lot of raucous laughter from the audience. Also, Mark Wahlberg, has a cameo as Holbrooke, a muscular spy and former acquaintance of Fey's character, Wahlberg I'm sure will provide most women with a solid five minutes of the movie that they wont quickly forget. James Franco and Mila Kunis also provide a few laughs with a short cameo, that most of the trailers for the movie kind of spoiled.

Strangely, this movie felt like it fell into the category of romantic comedy to me, I was expecting just a comedy, but there were a few scenes that lingered at length on relationship issues. Maybe they were meant to serve as potential bathroom breaks for audiences just there to laugh, but overall they didn't seem too forced and both stars are solid enough actors to keep your attention.

Crazy Heart

The major beef that some folks had with this movie was that it was just a mediocre plot that was transcended by an Oscar winning performance. During the earlier stages of this movie I could sort of agree with that, but this film grows on you as it progresses. Jeff Bridges performance is likely the reason for this because as you watch the movie you see the changes in his life begin to affect him and make him a better man. I started to feel for Bridges character and hope for him to be able to turn his life around and find love and a family.

One of the most interesting things about this movie to me, is how an incredible performance can make a movie that probably wouldn't have had that much appeal for people, very relevant. I probably wouldn't have even given this movie any consideration or watched, but the Oscar nod was enough for me and so many others. This makes serious, not hot topic film making with commercial viability in mind something that is attainable when you see a movie like this. It gives hope to young filmmakers who dream of making it in Hollywood because if they can create something with not a lot of money that depicts a character doing something that looks incredible on screen there will be an audience that wants to see what they've made. I apologize if that comes out a bit garbled, but I just really wanted to get that out.

Crazy Heart does include a great performance from Maggie Gyllenhaal, also Colin Farrell turns a solid supporting role which shows some great acting range as well.

Brooklyn's Finest

There's one word that comes to mind when I think about this movie, Authenticity. Everything about this film felt so real, or authentic, from the set's to the acting. Antoine Fuqua followed up Training Day with another gritty movie that explores the world of crooked police work amongst other controversial topics. From the first scene with Ethan Hawke to one of the final ones with Don Cheadle a piece of the puzzle is revealed in a way that even though the ending is obvious it isn't any less entertaining when it arrives.

I loved the acting in this film, especially the performance from Cheadle, who plays an undercover cop. Ellen Barkin, who has a very minute role, also does an exceptional job at being believable and evoking emotions in the viewer (I admit I wanted to rip her head off as bad as Cheadle's character at one point).

The cinematography in the film was rather exceptional as well, with views of Brooklyn that were telling enough to almost be considered a character in the film as well.

Kristen Stewart

I'm taking this opportunity to write my first post completely about an actress. Kristen Stewart, is the lovely subject I've chosen, and you most likely know her from the Twilight series. She's been acting for most of her life, with television credits going all the way back to 1999. Her first major role was in Panic Room alongside Jodie Foster, but she didn't catch her big break till 2008 when the Twilight movie became a phenomenon.

I chose Kristen because she's a pretty controversial actress, there seems to be a 50/50 split of people that love her and those that can't stand her. I think this has to alot to do with her being in the Twilight movies. Inherently all the buzz from teenagers and young adults about these movies causes some people to have a negative opinion. Like any fad in America, there will be those who jump on board and those that protest blindly. I'm not sure why the actors would get caught up in something like this when all they wanted to do was advance their careers, but Kristen did make a reported $2 million up front for the first Twilight movie and supposedly their are talks about writing a fifth book to later become a movie. Anyone who can make that much money at the age of 18 is definitely doing something right and isn't capitalism one of the primary foundations of this country? So, basically what I'm thinking is don't dislike her for being Twilight, find a better reason that if you must.

I had a discussion recently with a guy friend about what makes Kristen attractive and he agreed with me that its her "plainness", basically that she doesn't have any exceptional features and that she incorporates a "girl next door" look. I think this contributes to a substantial part of her male fan demographic and also contributes to the portion of females that don't like her. I've heard comments from women that I'm friends with that she doesn't try hard enough with her appearance. They may have a leg to stand on too after seeing her at an MTV Movie Awards about a year ago. But, is jealousy or whatever it really is reason enough to dislike an actress? Shouldn't some merit be put on how she does actually acting in the films that she's in? I think it should, and if your on the fence or leaning toward the Kristen-haters side, I suggest you check out Adventureland and let me know what you think about her after seeing that.

Cop Out

The on screen duo of Bruce Willis and Tracy Morgan is one that looks incredible on paper. You have Willis, a tried and tested Hollywood A-Lister with movie credits in Die Hard, The Sixth Sense, Surrogates, amongst several others. Then there's Morgan with his ten year run on Saturday Night Live and his very successful NBC show, 30 Rock. The combination of these proven track records is what caused someone to have the idea to pair the two in a major motion picture. They reportedly spent about $30 million and the end product was, Cop Out,"A comedy about a veteran NYPD cop whose rare baseball card is stolen. Since it's his only hope to pay for his daughter's upcoming wedding, he recruits his partner to track down the thief, a memorabilia-obsessed gangster"(Props to IMDB for that).

I went into seeing this movie primarily for Morgan, I love watching him on 30 Rock and expected his random, sometimes moronic humor to shine in this movie. It definitely did, but I found that they're were times when it was too much and I was dying for a new scene, and a new opportunity for him to be fresh and funny. There's a scene though with Willis, Morgan, and a kid, whose name I couldn't find, that is the funniest scene in the whole movie. It involves a stolen Mercedes and an old fashioned cell phone(Trust me, it's dynamite).

Hot Tub Time Machine

I remember seeing a review from some publication about this movie saying, "It's so stupid, it's brilliant!" After seeing it I can validate that statement, but I wouldn't say it's brilliant. Anyways, that's hardly reason enough to see a comedy, especially if it involves spending $10(Give or take). Hot Tub Time Machine, was funny, dumb, raunchy, unrealistic, amongst other things, but it's certainly not this years, Hangover, it's not even close.

The writing was one element that kind of held the movie together, the hilarious dialogue between the main characters was an aspect of the movie that stood out. John Cusack, Craig Robinson, Rob Corddry, and Clark Duke had a certain kind of chemistry on screen that carried the movie when I was watching it thinking, "What could they possibly do for another 35 minutes". Corddry really was hilarious and I'm tempted to recommend this just to see him being outrageous for 100 minutes, but you can catch him on the Colbert Report and save your money.

New York, I Love You

I'm not sure what connections New York, I Love You, has to the film about Paris with a similar name. But, one could certainly see the obvious connections.The movie has a similar structure but some major differences most notably the transitions between different short films. The absence of this made it a little difficult to know when a story ended and another began. Also, the reappearances of some characters made this confusing as well. Although, I preferred the structure of the Paris film, I did still enjoy the New York one very much. It portrayed the city in an interesting light that seemed authentic.

The actors in New York, I Love You, were also better known American actors so this might have benefited the viewer in being able to relate and connect with their roles. Ethan Hawkes acting really stuck out to me in the film, notably him trying to pick up Maggie Q's character while smoking a cigarette.

That was another element that stood out to me the prevalent smoking in the movie. Is NYC really that thick with cig smokers? I've never really noticed it to be more than other places, especially with the reputation that France and the city of Paris has as a land of cafe going tobacco smokers it was odd to see this disparity.

The film though includes some great cinematography, excellent acting, good casting, and a decent score. Definitely worth a watch.

The Book of Eli

After seeing The Book of Eli I'm convinced that Denzel Washington will never be in a sub-par movie for the rest of his career. The guy does get $20 million a movie, so I"m sure he doesn't get many serious offers from people trying to make wishy washy movies.

Anyways, the movie also starred Gary Oldman and Mila Kunis, who both put on great performances. Kunis is steadily becoming a very viable leading lady (There were moans and groans of approval in the theater when she first appeared on screen). She has definitely come a long way from her days on That 70's Show.

The movie starts off a little slow, but I don't think many people minded with Washington being as enrapturing as he is. Before long though things pick up and the end result is a clever screenplay full of gunfights, gruesome machete slayings, a few funny lines, and an unexpected twist ending.

Paris, Je t'aime

Paris, je t'aime, which I recently saw, is a compilation of short films set in Paris. Twenty filmmakers have approximately five minutes a piece to showcase some aspect of Parisian culture, blending together the locales where they shot and the emotion of love, that is so traditionally associated with the city. The list of directors basically reads as a who's who of the most critically acclaimed directors in the business.

This is a difficult film to honestly critique owing to the fact that the scenes are rather short and sometimes a connection between the different shorts isn't easily discerned. But, there were a few shorts that stood out to me for one reason or another. The Coen brothers directed/written, Tuileries, was a humorous depiction of a Parisian tourist being misunderstood in the metro. Steve Buscemi without uttering a single line delivered a solid performance as the main subject of the scene.

Gus Van Sant's short was a bit confusing to me, while I think the point of the scene was to show that "soul mates" can be persons from the same sex and the spontaneity of meeting yours can be as a random as where lightning strikes, I didn't feel the connection the city like some of the other shorts. But, Van Sant does do a rather magnificent job at showing how language barriers can affect interactions between transplanted Americans and native French.

Paris, je t'aime, is an enjoyable glimpse into Parisian culture worth seeing and if your like me it will probably make you want to book a trip.

How to Lose Friends and Alienate People

Simon Pegg need only to show a few clips of his performance in, How to Lose Friends and Alienate People, to any casting director to prove that he can make an audience laugh. After watching him in this film, I'm surprised that he hasn't been in more comedic movies to date exhibiting his brand of humor.

From the pig mayhem scene at the BAFTA after-party to the wizard/dentist in the Hamptons, this movie is quite the raucous riot. It's the combination of well cast actors and a clever, witty script that make this comedy so enjoyable. Kirsten Dunst, Gillian Anderson, Megan Fox, and Jeff Bridges star alongside Pegg in this one, and for the most part turn in more than adequate roles (Minus perhaps Fox). Dunst, is the second lead, and manages to be surprisingly funny in this movie. She does have a scene where she is bawling and drunk, that did seem a bit forced, but it hardly speaks louder than her entire body of work. Bridges is his quirky, funny self, often stealing scenes from Pegg, as his editor boss, Clayton Harding. I particularly liked his reaction to the t-shirt that Pegg's character wears on his first day at the magazine and his explanation of the different rooms associated with arriving as a celebrity.

A Single Man

Tom Ford's, A Single Man, is an introspective character piece set in the 60's. It marks his directorial debut and is also his first screenplay. Taking this into mind the film is definitely a great achievement for Ford (Who according to some sources also completely financed the film). The synopsis for the film is as follows, "It's November 30, 1962. Native Brit George Falconer, an English professor at a LA area college, is finding it difficult to cope with life. Jim, his personal partner/lover of sixteen years, died in a car accident eight months earlier when he was visiting with family. Jim's family were not going to tell George of the death or accident let alone allow him to attend the funeral. This day, George has decided to get his affairs in order before he will commit suicide that evening". The saddening overtone is evident throughout the film and it positively effects the emotions that are brought out in the audience before the end credits roll.

The film stars Colin Firth and Julianne Moore, with the prior garnering an Oscar nomination along with several other awards for his role. Firth manages to navigate between emotional disconnection to his students, colleagues, and the world, to childish flirting in a bar with an ex-student, to drunken exuberance with Moore's character seemingly effortlessly. Moore's performance in the film, although brief shouldn't be overlooked, her role as a convincing drama queen who is tied to the main character's past in England is important to the crux of the story. She is just simply overshadowed by Firth's acting. Also, relative newcomer Nicholas Hoult, turns in an award worthy performance, as a student at the university where Firth's character teaches.

Visually this movie is fantastic, and from the beginning I could tell that Ford must have had some influence on how it was shot as well. The set decoration felt very authentic with the film being set in 1962. But, it's the costume/wardrobe and makeup that really has a "Tom Ford" touch to it. The actors and actresses cast seemed to be chosen perfectly, whether it was Matthew Goode or Ginnifer Goodwin's characters they brought something that genuinely evoked some feeling which I think the director was attempting to get across.

It isn't very difficult to understand why this movie didn't get the distribution that Up in the Air or The Hurt Locker received, because it doesn't have the level of marketability that either of those films have/had. I'm sure most studio's liked the attachment of such a well known global figure like Tom Ford, but didn't want to take the gamble when he hadn't yet proven himself in the movie business. Although, with the critical success that this film has had I bet when Ford decides to direct another film production companies will be a lot more generous with their checkbooks.

When in Rome

I'm reluctant to write this, but what the hell my blog could use some more content anyway. I saw, When in Rome, earlier this week and I was not impressed to say the least. From the wedding scene at the beginning of the movie the audience knows what is coming, Kristen Bell and Josh Duhamel's characters are going to fall in love and get married, probably in Rome as well. So, it's just a matter of having some funny, romantic situations before the inevitable happens.

When in Rome, is definitely conscious of it's comedic roots, which is obvious based on the supporting cast selections like Will Arnett, Jon Heder, Dax Shepard, and Danny DeVito. They all for the most part turn in good supporting roles, but it's Bell who I don't think is funny enough to shoulder the responsibility of carrying the movies comedic aspirations. Duhamel on the other hand is definitely able to keep the audience laughing.

If there's a major reason that I disliked this movie so much, it's because of its predictability and just how outrageous some of the situations in it are. The little yellow car scene in the Guggenheim is outrageous, and my guess is the movies creators wanted it to be so people would find humor in it, but it didn't feel funny, it felt kind of awkward. There are just a few too many scenes like that in this movie for me.