Review of "This is 40"

A film with a star-studded cast is an exciting but skeptical thing and it seems like Judd Apatow took his pick of the Hollywood litter for his newest flick, This is 40. Before I begin my analysis of this Christmas-time rom-com, I will be straight forward and state that I wasn't a huge fan of the "sort-of prequel" Knocked Up. Nevertheless, my 90's born affinity for Paul Rudd insisted This is 40's place on my Christmas movie must-see list.

This is 40
Starring: Leslie Mann, Paul Rudd, Megan Fox
Directed by Judd Apatow
My Opinion: Not enough funny for two hours, 
but I laughed a lot

This is 40 is about a pinnacle time in a married couple's lives. In the same week, Debbie (Leslie Mann) and Pete (Paul Rudd) are both faced with the big four-o. Financial difficulties arise a long with crises of the mid-life kind and romantic stresses: everything that you'd expect to come with the end of youth, and I guess for Judd Apatow, that also means a plethora of funny pudgy guys (Jason Segel, Chris O'Dowd, Robert Smigel) and one heaping spoonful of eye candy (Megan Fox). Yeah, it was a pretty typical male-oriented Apatow comedy with one very important ingredient missing. This is a romantic comedy, and that means it needs to be for the ladies too. But it's not. The male perspective dominates. Despite the fact that the film is about a couple, we're hardly exposed to Debbie's side of things, aside from her fear of her perfect body sagging or a missing twelve grand from her boutique. Newsflash Apatow: women go through intellectual mid-life crisis too. But, we are only exposed to Pete's emotional and intellectual battle with forty. I don't feel like this is forty for Debbie.

In addition to this predictable flaw, there were several unnecessary additions. I've already mentioned the over-abundance of guys that had to be funny in order to get a date because they were too pudgy to rely on their looks. There were just too many and not enough space for each to exhibit their own little quirks. It was the least funny I've probably ever seen Jason Segel, of whom I'm a huge fan. Also, I will say that Apatow needs to get over Lena Dunham a little. She added nothing except for another awkward moment where she talks about her sex life and adding a "hipster tone" to Pete's record business. Otherwise she was just kind of randomly there... And it was kind of awkward. And why was it Christmas? That added nothing but a stale, sad little Christmas tree sitting in the background. I know I'm coming down really hard, but it was also too long. The film felt like a really long argument.


OK, this was a really negative review and you're probably wondering why there are two eyeballs. Even though there were too many actors vying for the spotlight, the ones that mattered did a really good job. Melissa McCarthy is amazing. She's fucking amazing and I fucking love her. Fuck. It was still really funny at moments and adorable at others. I'll never watch this movie again though, unlike many of Apatow's former films.

"The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" Review

The story is self-explanatory: hobbit named Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) embarks on an unexpected journey with a herd of dwarfs and Gandalf the Gray. Peter Jackson's first installment of a three-part series is shot in 3D and with a frame rate that is double the standard 24 fps, creating a dazzling effect that has received mixed reviews among both audiences and critics. Personally, I found the technique moderately nauseating; it both stuns and overwhelms the corneas to a level of hypnosis that allows for a period of three hours to pass in what seems like a blink of a dragon's eye.

The effect is mystical, but with the landscapes of New Zealand already contributing a fairytale-land setting, I don't know if the added shooting technique was necessary. It did, however, add this strange animation-like element which illustrated the playful, child-like wonder in The Hobbit and coupled appropriately with Peter Jackson's fresh and jaunty vision. For the viewer that can stomach a bit of over-stimulation, it's interesting.

The Hobbit
Starring: Martin Freeman, Sir Ian McKellen,
Richard Armitage
Directed by Peter Jackson
My Opinion: I loved it!

My opinion is much less definitive than that of other critics. For example, the film critic for the Chicago Tribune, Michael Phillips, states that he "hate[d]" the divergent shooting technique. He claims that the picture "looks like test footage, devoid of warmth and texture." I highly disagree with this and find his position a little stagnant. First of all, I'd say that if anything, the film looks over-processed. Furthermore, claiming that scenes such as the ones in Bilbo's home when all the dwarves arrive, are "devoid of warmth" is almost like claiming that Hobbiton is lacking in whimsy. The aforementioned scene is deeply set in a yellow-ish hue that envelopes the viewer with the feeling of participation in the joyful gathering. By contrast, Riverdale has the cool, magical appearance that only high-quality CGI can deliver, but Riverdale isn't Hobbiton. While the highly-disputed technique was not my favorite aspect of the film, it certainly did not make the film look like cloudy, flat test footage as Michael Phillips claimed.

The film is long, that is true, but the adventures are riveting and plentiful. There are trolls, gremlins, orcs, dragons, Gollum, and my personal favorite, the storm giants: masses of mountain in the shape of men, brawling with slow but mighty wallops as if they were gigantic Rock Em' Sock 'Em Robots. The scene will have you on the edge of your seat, as will many of the fierce battle scenes. It also left my head spinning, however.

If anything is a little off about this film, I think it's Thorin, the leader of the dwarves. He's a little too intense. His staid expression is repeated throughout the film with a level of exactness that I found impressive, but quite comical. He's not the dwarf that is supposed to be comical, however; that role is reserved mostly for the fat red-headed one who does a slamming job, might I add. Truth be told, I loved the characters. I loved the dwarves loyalty to Thorin, despite his goofiness. I loved Radagast, the brown. I loved the stoic, beautiful elves, as I always do. And Bilbo proves himself just as Frodo did. It's a wonderfully fun movie, and I don't think you need to take it as seriously as everyone took The Lord of the Rings. Why? Because though visually similar, The Hobbit is a fun-filled adventure that works for short attention spans: in short, it's a children's movie.


*Phillips, Michael. "Digitally Pumped up, The Hobbit is a So-So Trip." The Chicago Tribune. 12.13.12.

Review of "Django Unchained"

When I found out about Django Unchained, I was really excited. A film chronicling the life of a freed slave searching for his lost wife sounded romantic and filled with juicy revenge. Plus, I love Quentin Tarantino for his beautiful blood-splattered death scenes, his long, wispy scenes of witty dialogue and his detailed development of strong, multi-dimensional characters. It all sounds great, but the actual movie is a little underwhelming.

Django Unchained
Starring Jamie Foxx, Christoph Waltz, Leonardo DiCaprio
Directed by Quentin Tarantino
My Opinion: Pretty good.

Django does not warrant almost three hours of my time. It's a fine story, inspiring I suppose with lots of trademark killings, however the film in its entirety lacks substance. He captured the tone of a spaghetti Western quite well, not that I hone any knowledge in that area, however, the story remains a little too one dimensional. Perhaps Tarantino thought that the savory revenge on the ugliest atrocity in American history was a subject pungent enough for epic length. I disagree. I found myself becoming a little to anxious for Django to find his wife and ride off into the sunset happily. The clever dialogue I become so accustomed to in a Tarantino film seemed a little stale in Django, moving the plot a lot with an occasional punchy joke, but providing little more.

In addition to the storyline, the characters rang at a slightly flat note. Outside of his essential role in the plot's movement, Dr. King Schultz, a German bounty hunter played by Christoph Waltz, seems a bit overly moralistic, but the acting rounds him out enough. The white Americans in the movie, on the other hand, are portrayed like immoral beasts. That would have been fun for a two-hour movie, but when it's stretches on, you feel beaten with guilt.

The performances are very good: Leonardo DiCaprio is a little cartoonish, but thoroughly exciting to watch, and Jamie Foxx portrays a sensitive and damaged creature with hot anger boiling in his veins. Also impressive is Samuel L. Jackson as a spiteful but complex character riddled with Stockholm syndrome. Indeed, the acting may carry the film more than the script.

It's not that I didn't enjoy Django Unchained, I found it pretty entertaining. A scene regarding hoods in a raid felt memorably ticklish as well as many other comically relieving moments. However, it's not at the level that I have come to expect from Tarantino. It didn't leave me completely bored, but there was just not enough for three hours. Not bad though, not bad at all.

"Twilight" Review

I was a hater for a long time. Then I saw Breaking Dawn Part I and it changed me, probably for the worse, but it changed me nonetheless. My thirst for camp and unintentional comedy was quenched and my awe of cultural phenomenon was thoroughly stimulated. I was even infatuated with Kristen Stewart's terrible furrowed-brow-form of acting. It's just so bad, but a very entertaining guilty cinematic pleasure.

Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part II
Starring: Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson, Taylor Lautner
Directed by Bill Condon
My Opinon: Not bad

Unfortunately,  Part II is no where near as ridiculous as Part I, and is definitely not as fun. However, it has so many moments of heightened stupidity that I was absorbed for the whole ride. The awkward sex scene, the inconsistent sizes of the wolves, and the battle scene. One of my favorite comedic moments of 2012 is when Bella Swan is experiencing her first moments as a vampire. Her hungry face looks like she's desperately trying to expel a turd that's 10 inches in diameter. Overall, I was happy and will watch it again. Not a bad finale.

"Flight"

If you have trouble flying already, be weary about experiencing this dramatic thriller. Whip Whittaker (Denzel Washington) is an alcoholic, risk-taking airline pilot. At the beginning of the film, it seems like he's living the large life. The film opens with him in bed next to an insanely attractive and naked flight attendant, both of whom are still intoxicated from the festivities of the previous night. He gets a phone call from his ex-wife, snorts some coke and goes to work. His attitude hints that this is a typical day - but it won't turn out that way.

Fight
Starring: Denzel Washington, Don Cheadle, John Goodman
Directed by Robert Zemeckis
My Opinon: Highly entertaining,
way better that "Unstoppable," but
not the best picture of the year.

As the time for take-off nears, the rain comes down in sheets. Despite the ominous weather, the crew gets ready for take-off. The co-pilot notices that Whip is acting strangely, but keeps his mouth tightly shut as they prepare for take-off. Soon after they are airborne, another omen occurs. Abounding turbulence terrifies the passengers as Whip hugs a dangerous air pocket, yet he brings the plane back to a smooth glide. Everything seems fine for a while, but trouble soon resurges. A defect on the airplane sends the plane into a dive. With miraculous dare-devil tactics, Whip lands the plane in an empty field, saving nearly everyone on board.

That scene is enough to keep you from blinking. Everyone around me had their mouth open and their eyes wide. It's easy to imagine yourself in the plane, though absolutely terrifying. The rest of the film follows the aftermath: an investigation and the emotional turmoil that torments Whip. There is a budding romance with a recovering addict whom Whip meets in the hospital that is intriguing but feels a little obvious and artificial. A random appearance of a cancer patient who "knows all the answers cause he's dying," which even the script seems to find a little corny and out of tone. Denzel nails his performance, but don't get your panties wet: he's looking pretty puffy here, and for good reason. I mean, his character is an alcoholic. If he had a damn fine body, it wouldn't make sense. Moving on, the script works and the direction is very smooth. It's a solid watch that has some very juicy moments.

I'm going to tell myself that the events that happened on this flight are extremely rare, because otherwise I can't get on a plane. This is not a true story, just drama, thrills and some damn fine performances. Oscar-worthy? That award hardly means anything, but I don't think it's the best picture of the year. The entertainment value is worthy of three eyeballs certainly. However, it has it's sappy predictability and an excessive nature. I would certainly say that it is Oscar-bait, but it doesn't quite hit the mark for best picture. It's a hell of a ride though.

Review of "Animal Kingdom"

Animal Kingdom is the story of a criminal family living on the edge. As the film begins, the protagonist J (James Frecheville) has just lost his mother to a heroin overdose and has to move in with his grandmother and uncles. Up until this start, he was largely estranged from his extended family, for good reason. As his life with them continues, he experiences drug deals and murder. The body count grows exponentially as the film wears onward.

Animal Kingdom
Directed by David Michôd
Starring: James Frecheville, Guy Pearce,
Joel Edgerton
My Opinion: If you're looking for lovely and deeply disturbing
look no further.

The story is harrowing and illustrates what it takes to be the top of the pack, a lesson that J must learn quickly. However, it's an exhausting movie to watch: terribly depressing with pretty much no pay off, although the cinematography is lovely and the script is deep. The acting is both passionate and chilling and the directing is as solid as a bullet. You will not enjoy this one, however, and it's certainly not for the weak of heart. It's up to you if you want to watch a bunch of Australian trash in a fancy format, but I liked it.

Throwback Shit: "Duel"

Duel is a gripping tale of a car chase in which an innocent businessman, a commuter evidently, becomes terrorized by an anonymous assailant who is after one thing: blood shed. A psychological thriller reminiscent of several Twilight Zone episodes, Steven Spielberg's first feature-length film sets the standard for all of his later works. It's a humble film, little more than a goober of a man in a car and an unseen driver in a rusty truck. However, the angles and cuts that Spielberg chooses proves his ingenuity. The way each frame becomes tighter and tighter provokes the viewer's anxiety, leaving him on the edge of what feels to be their own driver's seat. And that arid desert setting is dismally isolating.

Duel
Starring Dennis Weaver
Directed by Steven Spielberg
My Opinon: Gripping.

The movie barely moves outside of the car, but it doesn't need to venture further. Inside the automobile, we're stuck in this claustrophobic cell that feels so doomed, yet we never quite give up hope.