Recently in Reviews Category

This week: a good movie and a delightfully bad one.

Get Low (2010)

Robert Duvall stars as a mysterious, widely-feared hermit who decides to have a funeral party while he's still alive and invite the entire town to come tell stories about him. Bill Murray co-stars as the money-hungry owner of a funeral home who decides to take on the task, since the town's been a bit low on folks dying lately. The premise sounds very screwball, and the movie is funny, but it's not a comedy. It's a solid drama with some funny characters.

A lot of the runtime is devoted to funny character moments, but the film goes serious as it approaches the central tragedy that has kept the hermit, Bush, sequestered alone in his cabin for decades. The shift in tone is effective and not unexpected.

It's easy to categorize this type of movie as Oscarbait, but Get Low is a little tougher than the usual fare of that kind. Still digestible, but not the mush we're usually served when it comes to Hollywood dramas.

Piranha 3D (2010)

"The slough-to-tit ratio was very high." --Max

When you hear a title like Piranha 3D, you form certain expectations. Piranha 3D took those expectations and turned them into a delicious smoothie made from the shredded flesh of insufferable douchebags. I like to think I have a fairly strong stomach these days, but there were parts of this movie that made me genuinely nauseous. It's kind of surprising that it managed to get an R. Was the ratings board asleep? Blind? I'm not sure I have ever seen this much human carnage in a film. Ever. I don't think I'll be able to eat meat for a few days.

There's also a lot of nudity. Sexualized nudity. This is a classic teenage horror movie in that sense--you get your T&A, and then you get your blood 'n' guts. It's knowingly ridiculous and cartoony, but it definitely plays to phobias. There is at least one kill that will really bother you if you've ever had long hair.

The 3D is so-so. Post-conversion (rather than filming in 3D) shows its weakness whenever they try to show a chain-link fence or tall blades of grass. Still, I think it's essential to see it in 3D. When it works, it really works--and the cheesiness is to the benefit of this kind of movie.

I know I said in the intro that this movie is "delightfully bad." That's not quite right. It's very good at hitting what it's aiming for. It's not a serious movie. It is, at points, scary and uncomfortable, and the rest of the time it's fun. That's how horror movies should work.

Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World (2010)

I like the books. I like Edgar Wright. I like Michael Cera and Jason Schwartzman. And I love this movie.

Instead of seeing The Expendables this weekend, I actually ended up seeing Scott Pilgrim twice. That's how much I like it. It's pretty rare for me to see a movie twice in theaters, but I think this one actually improves with multiple viewings. There is a lot going on in it--not much of a surprise if you consider that Wright had to compress six graphic novels' worth of material into roughly an hour and a half. But he succeeds wonderfully. Scott Pilgrim has a breakneck pace but never seems rushed.

This film is very funny all the way through, visually stunning, highly stylized and emotionally resonant, at least if you've ever had your own evil ex. It's both very loyal and very not-loyal to the source material--it certainly carries the spirit of the original series, and a lot of the fun lines, but I think it handles some of the details better, especially with regards to the ending. And Michael Cera, for all the nerd doubt, does a great job as the obliviously douchey Scott Pilgrim.

Go see this one in theaters. It's good. There's been a lot of talk that this movie will probably end up getting a cult following on DVD, but I think part of the experience will be lost on DVD (which is true of most movies, to be honest, but this one in particular).

I only hit one of my list of movies this weekend. This week I may hit Winter's Bone or The Other Guys, but it might not happen since I have plans for much of the week. My friend Max will be in town just in time for a concert on Thursday and Scott Pilgrim on Friday, though. I am so excited for Scott Pilgrim. You don't even know.

The Kids Are All Right (2010)

I'm not actually familiar with the director, Lisa Cholodenko. From her IMDb page, I've determined that most of her past work has been in television, on programs I've never watched, and a few movies I've never seen. If all of her work is as good as this, though, I'd like to see more.

The film is about a family headed by a lesbian couple who conceived using a sperm donor, and how their household is disrupted when one of the children turns eighteen and contacts her biological father. The mood fits nicely into the mold of "quirky indie family comedy," but it was a bit more emotional than I usually expect from that genre. Not that it was maudlin (it wasn't), but there were difficult issues in it that I didn't necessarily expect to see in a comedy. There is even a major plot point that will probably bug anyone who's familiar with common male perspectives about lesbians, but it is not what it seems. Everything is handled with sweetness and sensitivity. In the end I can't see this movie offending anyone, except maybe people who dislike the fact that homosexuality exists at all.

I already missed my second Sunday Movie Roundup, but I have a good excuse: I was out of town visiting my bro-for-all-eternity Beckey, her boyfriend Seth, and their roommate Danny, all of whom are supremely awesome. I hadn't seen them for something like four years, I guess because I am a terrible friend. But I will be better in the future.

As it turns out, while I was in Austin, we watched a lot of movies (one new, the rest mostly '80s movies). So I have something to talk about after all!

Despicable Me (2010)

We saw this in 3D (because it was not playing in 2D) at the Alamo Drafthouse, Austin's famous theater/restaurant chain. I wasn't expecting a lot from it, and maybe that's why I found it pretty delightful. The basic premise--a supervillain protagonist--appealed to me right out the door, and Despicable Me kept things sharp, clever and fun for most of its runtime, even when the plucky orphan girls got involved. It dropped the ball toward the end, when the story veered off into saccharine sappiness that was on the border of embarrassing.

I felt like I got my money's worth out of it, but it's more of a DVD rental kind of movie, if you were thinking of seeing it.

Rad (1986)

This is an '80s teen movie centered around BMX bicycles. There is a scene involving BMX bike stunt dancing at a high school dance. To be honest, I kind of feel like this is all you need to know.

This is the movie we watched that I remember the least about. We didn't actually finish it. We were drinking, and I pretty much hit a peak of drunkenness sometime toward the end of this film. Did the main character win the big BMX race? We may never know (but I suspect he did).

Fast Times at Ridgemont High (1982)

I was the one who suggested Fast Times. Because I love Fast Times. It's one of those movies where everyone's kind of a jerk, and most of the characters are always lying or manipulating or, at the very least, fronting, and they are near-constantly thinking about and talking about sex. Basically it is one of the most realistic movies about teenagers ever made.

Revenge of the Nerds (1984)

It is probably a crime that I had never actually seen Revenge of the Nerds before. Not even heavily edited on TBS. Yet I was already familiar with the plot through cultural osmosis: nerds are kicked out of their dorm by frat boy jocks, nerds form their own frat, war ensues based on the jocks' irrational hatred of nerds.

This movie has a strange definition of the word "nerd"--they are mostly conventional science- and computer-loving doofuses, but they also include a flamboyantly gay guy and Booger, who defies categorization, unless "delightfully skeezy" is a social category now. (Note: Everyone present during the viewing of this film agreed that they would have sex with Booger if given the chance.)

The whole thing is basically a cartoon, and it will be sort of baffling to anyone who has actually been to a real college (where exactly zero people go to the homes of nerds to scream, "NEEEEEEEEERDS!"). But it is a funny movie, and part of that is because so little of it has any basis in reality.

I hope you have enjoyed the Mostly '80s Teen Movies Edition of the Weekly Movie Roundup. There are a few movies in theaters I'm hoping to catch this weekend, and a few more coming out next weekend. Here's what I'm looking forward to over the next couple of weeks:

• The Kids Are All Right


• Winter's Bone


• The Other Guys


• Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World


• The Expendables (guilty pleasure, sorry)


• Tales from Earthsea

This is the first in what will hopefully be a regular series, since going to the theater is one of the few things I do regularly. This was actually a slow week for movies--nothing I really care to watch came out this weekend--but I did watch a movie on DVD that I'd never seen before, so how about I tell you about that?

I Heart Huckabees (2004)

Things haven't been all right with me for the last, well, half-year or so. Back in late November I had a painful break-up with my long-time boyfriend--initially mutual, but though the blast radius seemed small, over time the fallout spread a lot wider than anyone could have predicted. I am still dealing with a not-insignificant amount of unpleasantness as a result. It was with the understanding of my situation that a friend of mine recommended I Heart Huckabees. And it was a great choice.

This is a film about existential crisis, about feeling adrift and alone in the world, and those times when you're watching your life fall to pieces around you and there's nothing you can do about it. It's about using suffering to find connection and meaning in the meaninglessness of life. Perhaps counterintuitively, it's also quite funny. It's not afraid to ridicule its characters, who are all, in their own ways, a little broken, a little lost, and a little ridiculous.

I can't really speak for the film's merits for those who have never felt like they're trapped helpless in the downward spiral of life (I'd have to watch it again sometime when I wasn't upset), but if you're close enough to the right situation, this is one of those movies that resonates. It was comforting, reassuring me in a way words alone never could that, even in the most miserable chaos of life, everything will be okay. "If nothing's okay, it's okay." And that was exactly what I needed to hear.

If you've been paying any kind of attention at all, you've heard of this movie. Inception is the new film by Christopher Nolan, about a man who commits espionage by going into people's dreams. This summary is rudimentary at best, and it says nothing about why you should see this film. No, you should see it because it's very smart, and because it's very, very good.

My friend Cathy has already posted her insights. She's already discussed the strange emotional tone of the film, for example, so you should go and read her entry. I'll try not to repeat anything here that she's already said.

Most people recognize Nolan's name from The Dark Knight, but he has been working on this film for over ten years and it shows. It feels a little like Memento. Like that film (and like the dreams the characters construct in Inception), this movie is a puzzle; it's a maze, and it requires more mental engagement than some viewers may be used to. It's not really a confusing movie if you're paying attention, but there are a lot of complicated things going on in the way that the film toys with the meaning of time and reality.

I was fascinated by the rules for constructing dreams and interacting within them. This movie made me wish "dream architect" was a real job.

At its core this is a heist movie, and that heist is depicted brilliantly. Despite the infiltration taking place entirely within dreams, there is still a real, palpable sense of danger and a vital need to evade capture--the penalty for being caught is a great deal worse than jail, and in some ways worse than death. I've heard a little talk that the movie could handle a sequel, but I'm not sure it could. The most difficult form of dream invasion was already handled in this film.

I just saw the film tonight, so my brain is still sort of spinning. I may have more to say about it later after I've rolled it around in my head for a while, or I might not. It is a fascinating film, though, and it absolutely redeems this year's terrible summer for movies. You should see it. Maybe even more than once.

We're fast approaching the end of the year, folks. Alarmingly, this has been a fantastic year for film in general and theatrical animation in particular. There were a lot of animated films that I didn't see for various reasons (I have not had the opportunity to see My Dog Tulip or The Secret of Kells, though I have heard good things about both), but the ones I did see? Uncommonly wonderful.

Wonder what you missed? I'm cataloguing the best of it for you, in roughly chronological order. You should see all of these. They are all both good and important.

Coraline
This film, adapted from a Neil Gaiman novella, hails the return of stop-motion hero Henry Selick, whose beautiful direction can also be seen in The Nightmare Before Christmas and James and the Giant Peach. I saw it in theaters in 3D, and it is both beautiful and terrifying.

Ponyo
The latest Miyazaki picture to appear in theaters stateside, aimed squarely at a preschool audience. I'm convinced that it's impossible for Miyazaki to make anything that is not charming, but Ponyo is one of his weaker films. Nonetheless, it is easily the most adorable movie of the year.

Up
Funny thing about Pixar movies: I like them a lot less in retrospect than I do right after I see them. Up is Pixar's best film to date, and I loved it when I saw it, but looking back, it feels like much less of a standout.

Fantastic Mr. Fox
Two stop-motion films in a year? Holy crap. It must be an animation renaissance. And Fantastic Mr. Fox has Wes Anderson's mark all over it. It's a humorous, charming and visually beautiful adaptation of a Roald Dahl book. I think this is my favorite animated film of the year.

The Princess and the Frog
Ten years ago, I probably wouldn't have mentioned this one at all. It's a 1990s Disney fairy tale throwback, but there are more daring aspects of it that never would have made it into a Disney cartoon in the 1990s (things that feel like the influence of Pixar's hand). The animation is beautiful. The jazz soundtrack is a pleasure. It is flawed, certainly, but I'd like to see more films like this.

And, as honorable mentions, I'd like to point out a couple of very good live-action films with significant use of animation:

District 9
Pseudo-documentary set in Johannesburg after an alien craft crashes there and the (intelligent but buglike) aliens are kept in refugee camps that are more like ghettos. The apartheid parallel is obviously hard to ignore, but it never felt heavy-handed. Of note: the aliens were created entirely using computer animation.

Where the Wild Things Are
It is rare that there is a film for children that doesn't talk down to them. This Spike Jonze picture actually manages it, being instead a sort of grown-up Sesame Street. It explores that strange misery and loneliness of childhood that comes with being "that kind of kid." If you were that kind, you understand. The animation work in this one comes in on the faces of the Wild Things--the faces were computer generated on the giant muppet suits worn by puppeteers. They look amazing.

I would include Avatar on this list, except I haven't seen it yet. The visuals on that one look pretty swell, too. But even if it's crap, this has been a great year. I hope it keeps up in the next year--I'd like animation besides Pixar flicks to look forward to in 2010.

I just watched Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus tonight, and I have to say, I was not drunk enough to be watching this movie. It is terrible, and usually not even in the good way. It's sort of an exercise in endurance to sit through the bizarre "love" story and the boneheaded conversations and the fake Irishman. Racist Fake Steven Seagal was one of the few highlights, in part because of his mode of dress and in part because his only character trait was that he was racist. He is the best character in the movie. This should tell you something about the characters in this movie.

You could also play a drinking game about how often a certain establishing shot is re-used.

Honestly, though, the quality was never in dispute here: I knew it would be terrible. I think I'm just bitter about the ending. I know they were working with a limited budget, but couldn't they at least make the shark and octopus explode or something? A mega shark and a giant octopus who are mortal enemies with "a hate strong enough to overcome their survival instincts" (paraphrased from the not-really-Irish professor in the movie) should have a more climactic end battle, at least.

But on the bright side, the scenes where the shark is biting things (like battleships and bridges and airplanes) are worth the rental price all on their own. Though I only paid 99 cents to rent it, so take that as you will.

The trailers on the beginning of the disc have enlightened me about the existence of such brilliant films as The Terminators and Transmorphers. Will I watch these definitely terrible movies? Only time will tell!

On Friday I had the rare privilege of seeing Cory McAbee's new film Stingray Sam in a theatrical format (with Mr. McAbee there in person) at the Boulder International Film Series. My overall impression: it's great.

Stingray Sam was partly created as an experiment in distribution, made "for screens of all sizes" and primarily available for download online. It's formatted like an old theatrical serial--a series of six ten-minute-long episodes. I can state definitively that it looks beautiful projected on the big screen.

Like McAbee's earlier film, The American Astronaut (also highly recommended), Stingray Sam is a "musical space western," which, if you're not familiar with the genre, is exactly what it sounds like. McAbee's band, The Billy Nayer Show, performs all the music in Stingray Sam. You will want to own the soundtrack.

The series is quite funny, but it has some sweet moments, particularly with respect to the little girl. McAbee's daughter makes her screen premiere in this film, and the real rapport she has with the cast (especially her dad) comes through the screen. Emotionally, it is an entirely different kind of film from The American Astronaut--perhaps in part because McAbee didn't have a daughter yet when making the first film in 2000. In the Q&A session after the film, he also told us that The American Astronaut was very personal, whereas the goal of Stingray Sam was focused more on making an entertaining story. Take that as you will.

On the same night I also got to see a new, virgin print of The American Astronaut, so the parallels and differences between the two films were clearly contrasted. I was pleased as punch to finally see The American Astronaut theatrically--my only previous experience with it had been the old now-out-of-print DVD, which was kind of sloppily formatted and not a great transfer. It was an entirely new experience to see it in glorious 35mm.

Want to watch these films? Stingray Sam is making an international theatrical tour, but they won't be hitting most major American cities. If you aren't one of the lucky few, you can still watch the first episode online free and download the rest in digital format for a reasonable price.

The American Astronaut is currently out of print on DVD, but a new DVD is in the works and will be available in early October. If you like Stingray Sam, you will almost certainly like The American Astronaut and its soundtrack, which is available on iTunes.

In the interest of full disclosure: I love the original graphic novel Watchmen on which the film is based. I am certain this colors my opinions, both positive and negative. I tried, for the most part, to set aside my love for the book and judge the film on its own merits, but you should probably still keep my bias in mind while reading this.

Last night I finally made it out to see Watchmen a second time. I didn't write down my thoughts here after my first viewing because I was certain that my opinion would change. I was right. After letting it stew in my head for weeks, I needed to see it again to clarify my thoughts so that I could finally share my Very Important Opinions with you, gentle reader.

I've read all kinds of reviews of Watchmen. It's been a divisive film when it comes to both critical and public opinion. Some have hailed it as a genre picture masterpiece, this generation's Blade Runner, while others have accused it of being dull and overhyped (though I would argue the latter is the studio's fault, not the film's). This movie is anything but mediocre, though--it's weird and clever and funny and playfully satirical and, yes, significantly flawed, but it's not mediocre.

This is a strange film. It's not really a superhero movie except in name; it plays more like a very expensive art-house picture. It's slow-paced, talky and dense, but it's not boring. It demands thought. Much of the film feels very experimental--in structure, in world-building, in pacing, in shot composition--with varying degrees of success. It's not an easy movie to digest, and I think it's considerably improved by a second viewing. It is subtle and manages to avoid the hamfistedness that plagues superhero-movies-trying-desperately-to-be-deep (see: The Dark Knight).

I'll spare you the obligatory plot summary. The story is honestly somewhat secondary anyway; Watchmen is more of a character study of the massively screwed-up retired superheroes who make up the central cast.

All of the characters get a fair amount of screen time, though to me the film sometimes felt very heavy on Dr. Manhattan's storyline. This may be for the best, because to my surprise, Dr. Manhattan (played by Billy Crudup) was one of the most emotionally resonant characters in the film. Crudup brings a kind of pathos to his performance, and his interpretation makes the character heartbreakingly sympathetic.

But everyone in this story is a little sad, a little lost, and for the most part the rest of the cast captures this, too. Patrick Wilson plays Dan Dreiberg (Nite Owl II) so sweet and earnest that it's impossible to not like him. Matthew Goode's Adrian Veidt (Ozymandias) is different from my initial interpretation of the book's character, but I think I might like his better: he hits a perfect mix of ruthlessness, loneliness, arrogance and well-meaning but broken humanity. Jeffrey Dean Morgan plays Eddie Blake (The Comedian), a man who does a considerable number of awful things but is so devastatingly human in a few choice scenes that it's incredibly difficult to hate him.

And then, of course, there's Jackie Earle Haley's Rorschach, who steals the show every time he appears onscreen. Haley truly embodies the character--his take on our favorite never-compromising right-wing sociopath is pitch-perfect, right down to the body language and the gravelly voice. That he spends most of the film with a "sock on his head," as the actor has described it, makes the performance even more impressive. If you pay close attention, you can actually see Haley emoting under the mask, which adds a whole new level to his scenes. His Rorschach is complex: simultaneously an intimidating badass and undeniably broken--a lonely, pathetic monster of a man and a sort of child who never grew up.

The only central cast member whose performance did not satisfy me was Malin Akerman, as Laurie Juspeczyk (Silk Spectre II). I'm torn on her, to be honest--I don't think she was quite as awful as some folks have been saying. I've known women who talked like that, but at the same time, she was one of the few characters who was difficult to feel much of anything for, in part because her character was simplified, but her line delivery didn't help either. She was sort of emotionally gutted for the screen and she seemed to exist only for the sake of the male characters' story arcs. I was disappointed with her.

Akerman's performance wasn't the only flaw. There were problems with the editing, with the script, with the rigid adherence to the visuals of the graphic novel. The latter was the most distracting to me--at times it made the film seem unfortunately distant. I was also a little disappointed with the depiction of the film's violence, which was extreme and graphic compared to many other R-rated films but, at the same time, it was too stylized to be anywhere near as upsetting as it should have been.

Despite the fact that I can point out these problems to you, at this point I don't know what I would actually change about the film. Imperfect as it is, I liked Snyder's Watchmen. I might even love it. It seems extraordinarily fitting that the film adaptation of the greatest graphic novel of all time--a Grand Experiment itself, and not perfect either--would be experimental and strange and flawed.