I Make Late Movie Review-Watchmen

Who watches the Watchmen? Not many Americans, apparently, considering this uber-hyped graphic novel adaptation underperformed at the box-office. But DVD's given this flick a second chance-and seeing as this fierce, fiery epic is one of the year's very best, you should too. The plot is a doozy-Rorschach's (Jackie Earle Haley) hunt to find out who's knocking off costumed heroes in an alternate-reality-1980's NYC introduces at least a dozen main characters, spawns a wide web of subplots, and tackles Big Issues ranging from democratic reform to homosexuality. If that last sentence gave you a headache, never fear-while Watchmen rewards deep thinkers with a challenging, brilliant story line (originally dreamed up by temperamental genius Alan Moore), it also succeeds as a compulsively watchable whodunit with plenty of A-grade whoopass gas in the tank. Credit Zack Snyder for this coup de cinema-he's mercilessly whittled down the sprawling novel to its bare necessities, making this a movie perfectly accessible to the average moviegoer, but not neglecting to add a dash or two of fan-friendly, geektastic detail along the way. His previous films have been monuments to his impeccable eye for acting talent, and Watchmen continues the trend-the ensemble cast is across-the-board excellent, turning in commendable performances of great depth and daring. Extra kudos to Billy Crudup, who, along with CGI magicians, miraculously turns his Dr. Manhattan-a giant blue ball of atomic energy with eyes-into the story's most emotionally resonant character. Snyder has also finally found the perfect balance of pop-art glimmer and real-life grain with which to paint this universe-it bursts with invention without ever looking storyboarded. The story-which says just as much about the state of mankind as the state of Supermankind-has been shepherded with great care to the screen by a talented team of screenwriters, cinematographers, musicians (both the brilliantly selected licensed songs and Tyler Bates electro-fueled score fit impeccably), set designers, caterers, you name it. They built the foundation of this world. But you couldn't truly get lost in it without characters you care about-and care you do. It's a tad too long and occasionally overdone, but would you prefer perfect boredom or a flawed miracle? Think about it. A.

I Make Movie Review-"Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince"

They may not fly as high as Carl and co. did in Up, but Harry Potter and his fellow wizards return triumphant in a movie that casts a spell so potent that even the most magic-averse viewer won't be able to resist. First things first: Potterphiles (and Oscar voters) everywhere oughta kiss David Yates's feet. He's found the perfect balance of otherwordly magic and down-to-Earth feeling with which to take the series into its darker final chapters. There's not much plot in the sixth installment of JK Rowling's modern epic-Harry's hunt to collect an old memory from dawdy Professor Slughorn (Jim Broadbent) exists merely to mask the fact that all we're doing here is being set up for the series brilliant, complex final installment (being split into two films). Yates and screenwriter Steve Kloves whittle the Slughorn story down to a subplot, pushing the blossoming teen romances of the tale to the fore. It's a smart move-making what's basically 672 pages of superbly written exposition both fast-paced and personable. It's also a risky move, but then again, these actors can handle it. Props to Radcliffe, whose clever, deeply conflicted Harry will enter the pantheon of Immortal Movie Characters. Rupert Grint's Ron, Evanna Lynch's loopy Luna, Emma Watson's sharp Hermione, Bonnie Wright's fiery Ginny-brilliant, incisive performances all around. Old hands Maggie Smith and Robbie Coltrane still know how to surprise us. Newcomers Broadbent and Jessie Cave-as Ron's squeeze-craft fully realized characters with minimal amounts of screentime. Alan Rickman still makes a fascinating Snape, and Helena Bonham Carter injects her sadistic Bellatrix Lestrange with a shot of kinky malice and a surprising dash of humanity. But the true standout here is Tom Felton, whose Draco Malfoy more than comes into his own this time 'round. It doesn't hurt that the effects, as usual, are stunning; that Nicholas Hooper's score is sensational; or that lenser Bruno Delbonnel gives Hogwarts shadings and darkness and claustrophobia that have never before been implied. But gives "Prince" such punch is its glorious heart. We've watched these characters grow up on film, age and gain and lose and love. The first few films were the set-up-we're inching towards the pay-off now, that place where everything counts double; every hope, every action, every death-yes, death rears its head here, and the effect is wrenching and staggering in ways you don't expect from any film, much less a kid's flick. Is it the best Potter yet? No. Order of the Phoenix is such a flat-out perfect picture that it's likely to remain the crowning jewel in the Potter series. This is not a perfect film. Some of the final scenes seem strangely underheated and sloppy, and Michael Gambon's Dumbledore never hits that perfect note of wizened whimsy that the late Richard Harris had down pat. But this is a damned good film-the kind we need in this day and age. A-

Showstoppers-A Pointless Rant

I'm in Grease right now *JUMPS UP AND DOWN, WAVES*-ask me about tickets!-and there's a song called "Beauty School Drop-Out". In a show full of fun, funky music, this is the song that isn't just content with making you smile. It aims to get you out of your seat, to shake that thang, to clap along, to hoot instead of politely clap-to ride along on the sudden outpouring of crackling energy. This kind of musical number has a name-The Showstopper. Every good show worth it's salt has one-even C-Grade crapola like Seussical has that one song that drives the crowd wild. So what's the Best Showstopper ever? What stands head-and-shoulders over the others to send the audience over the edge every time? Onscreen, there's really no doubt-Jennifer Hudson has the category all locked up. But what about live? Onstage? I really struggled with this, trying to recall every show I'd ever seen-yes, I'm that bored right now. There are a TON of truly great showstoppers. Some find their strength in numbers and sheer choral force-"Circle of Life" with its parade of brilliant "animals" ascending to the stage as the sound of the song builds and builds, "One Day More" with its unforgettable hook and dizzying vocal crescendos. Others are love duets on steroids-"I'll Cover You", "Wheels of A Dream". But the most common showstoppers-from Thoroughly Modern Millie to Company-consist of a troubled woman, left abandoned onstage to let her agonies out in song. It was in this category that I uncovered what I have deemed the Ultimate Showstopper-"Rose's Turn" from Gypsy. The plot is this-stage mama Rose Hovick has alienated her kids. She's out of a job. Her almost-husband has broken off the engagement. If the show is the story of a confused woman quietly imploding, this song is where she explodes-where she lets out her inner thoughts, her deep regrets about being "born too soon and starting too late." It's a song full of key changes, flats and sharps that grows higher, louder, stronger, until that famous final note that seems to come from the soul and not the throat. The entire show we've watched this woman fight the odds and lose. So when she finally declares, that, no matter what, "everything's coming up roses this time for ME!", the explosion of audience approval is potent and palpable. Every actress brings something different to it-Bette Midler a greedy clinginess, Bernadette Peters a sexy vigor, and PATTI LUPONE-who I SAW LIVE IN THIS SHOW-a childlike sense of misplaced anger and need. But the sensation that comes after this number is always the same-the audience shoots to its collective feet like puppets on wires, the whistles and "woo-hoo's!" growing louder and louder as Rose walks about the stage, smile on her face. Often tears, exhilarated laughs, excitable chatter, struggled to catch one's breath. We've been blown away, entertained and made happy in the most primal, simple way-by watching someone standing alone on a stage do something really incredible. That's just my two cents. There are plenty of other excellent showstoppers-"Tomorrow", "Take Me Or Leave Me", everything in between. What's your favorite?

I Make Movie Review-MY Sisters Keeper

Tearjerkers generally fall in to one of two categories:
1. The Genuine Sobber-Wherein you've come to care about a group of characters so much that you, for a moment, share their wrenching pain.
2. The Tear-Yanker-Wherein, in lieu of actual characters and plot, the filmmakers throw sad situation after sad situation at you until your tear ducts have been sucked dry like so many cow utters.
"My Sister's Keeper", the sleek, tasteful, and occasionally underheated adaptation of the spectacular Jodi Picoult book of the same name, lies somewhere strangely in-between. The story is this: Kate (Sofia Vassilieva) has cancer. So her mom and dad (Cameron Diaz and Jason Patric), birth a "donor child", Anna (Abigail Breslin), made exclusively to provide her ailing big sis with surgically removed body parts. It works well enough, until Anna decides to hire a lawyer shes seen on TV (Alec Baldwin-always playing this kinda part these days) to sue her own mum and pop for the rights to her own body. Intriguing, eh? There's a premise for a damn good though-provoking, character-based thriller here. But director Nick Cassavetes (of "The Notebook" fame) pushes the legal drama out of the spotlight, focusing instead on the effects of childhood disease on a family. It's a good approach-taking a plot that flirts with gimmickry and making it personable. But occasionally, so much time is spend on lengthy, often repetitive scenes of relapse and recovery that we actually forget about the legal case--which, seeing as its the central plot point, isn't good. Throw in a lop-sided multiple-narrators at one time techique, and It's not surprising that the film sometimes comes across as meandering and self-important. In the midst of the action however, the story-and the movie-plays its trump card as Anna falls in love with a fellow cancer patient, Taylor (Thomas Dekker). It is here, where movies like this normally derail, that Cassavetes and his actors succeed in a big way. The romance is genuine-laced with the exaggerated emotions and warped thoughts that puppy loves inspires. It's a golden 30 minutes of movie storytelling, and the two actors sell the hell out of it, right up until it's inevitable coda that hits you even harder than you might think-and produces real, deep tears. Other scenes make a truthful connection, too-Diaz's vanity-free bitch-fit when Brian breaks Anna out of the hospital, the shocking (albeit different from the book) revelation at the trial, which hits particularly hard thanks to insightful work from the talented-beyond-her-years Breslin. Sure, there are screw-ups aplenty-the mama-slaps-daughter scene that's typical in these kind of movies doesn't work any better than it normally does, and a sunset-flaked trip to the beach-complete with slow jazz and home-movie style shots-goes way, way overboard. Cassavetes also gives Baldwin the shaft in terms of screen-time or characterization, and shoots the opening scenes in a fade-in, fade-out style that is as frustrating as it is ineffective. But it's a summer movie with A-grade performances, an actual story, and several scenes that cut deep. Take that, John DIllinger. B

Why I Hate Public Enemies

"Public Enemies"...not awful. But horribly, copiously disappointing. I'm so put-out with everyone involved, I'm gonna offer a few more things about this movie that made me really livid-
1) There's this new invention called editing-it involves cutting out scenes that don't matter or that add nothing to the propulsion of the plot. However, in this movie, Michael Mann has apparently hired a chimpanzee (Bubbles??) to perform this task. Pointless scenes that add nothing to anything whatsoever are featured ad nauseum. For example, after a bank robber, Dillinger and crew hide out at a friends house and wrap sandwiches for the road. It has nothing to do with character, as we don't ever get to know any of these people other than Dillinger by name. It's not plot-related. It's just sandwiches, in all their deli-fied glory. Again. Sandwiches.
2) The script. Mann helped write it. You wouldn't know it from lines like "He could be anywhere. But he's not anywhere, he's somewhere-right...here." Wha-?? He also steals several lines verbatim from his older, better movies.
3) Marion Cotillard!! She's crazy talented and won a deserved Oscar...for a French-speaking role. She learned English while making this movie, and boy does it show. Note to Mann: feel free to cast actors who have at least a 3rd-grade education in the language you're filming your picture in.
4) The score. It's big, lavish, and orchestral, which jars with the smaller-than-life performances, the reflective tone, and, most importantly-
5) THE CAMERAWORK.-I'm not just talking about the much-maligned shaky camerawork in this movie. I'm talking about the fact Mann seems to have forgotten how to work a camera. For example, when Depp and Christian Bale have their big "Heat"-esque scene (singular) together, he shoots much of it either from far away or overhead. NOTE: When you are shooting a classic confrontation between two of the best actors of our time, SHOW US THEIR FACES!
in short, Michael Mann has really blown it here. As for why I didn't give it a D or an F??? That implies it was awful enough to deserve some kind of notoriety. Nope. Instead, it's just shamefully shabby.

You NEED to see...what??

"DUDDEEEEEE, YOU NEED TO SEE (insert movie/cd/book/tv show here)"
It's about the most frequently said thing in America, right next to "How bout them Cowboys" and "Did you hear about Michael Jackson?" Everywhere we turn, someone's telling us, whether in person or via text or Twitter or carrier pigeon that this or that is a MUST-SEE or a MUST-READ. But in reality, how many things exist that every person alive NEEDS to see-things that will actually improve or add to their quality of life if they experience it??? Sure, I know I would REALLY ENJOY seeing "Knocked Up" or "Titanic", but Katherine Heigl's tummy and Swim Class with Katie and Leo could not be called necessary. I love the Harry Potter books, but giants and wizards and broomsticks (oh my!) say nothing about the human experience. I am a proud member of the Colbert Nation, but even that TV show isn't really a "must-watch." When you start to think about what movie you think people NEED to watch, you'll find the list narrows down very quickly--in my case to one film.
The movie is Steven Spielberg's "Schindler's List", which will surprise absolutely no one who's talked to me for over five minutes. Ironically, it's not any kind of an enjoyable experience-it's a three-hour visual document of the Holocaust, coupled with the tale of a Nazi who secretly tries to save Jewish lives. Why this one? Because it's bigger than a movie. And because
1. The obvious-we cannot forget the Holocaust. This movie should be shown in schools everywhere.
2. It's a way of explaining the universe. Okay, don't laugh, listen. Here is a movie that, within a few hours, manages to present the entire broad spectrum of human morality. We have the true evil-the Nazis, who trap 1/3 of Europe's popular in their own private hell. We have the in-betweens-member of Hitler's party who feel pity or sympathy and are willing to save a few Jews, as long as it's not at their own personal expense. And then we have the flawed, beautiful good-the titular character, who utilizes his skills to save millions. To quote a line from the movie, there will be generations because of what he did. The movie single-handedly asserts and explains the presence of good, evil, and moral ambiguity in the world. No small task, eh?
3. As a bonus, you can't beat the acting or production value. Ralph Fiennes, Ben Kingsley, and Liam Neeson have never topped their peerless work here. The black-and-white photography is breathtaking. The script is masterful. The music is beautiful as a stand-alone CD. Oh, and for what it's worth, it walked away with a Best Picture Oscar.
So what are you waiting for?? You NEED to see this movie-one that actually helps us to understand the world and appreciate our place in it. As for what you REALLY REALLY FREAKIN' SHOULD SEE...
Check out my Away We Go review =)

I Make Movie Review-Away We Go

Whilst robots are duking it out for a pin-up girl and the dude from Even Stevens and Captain Jack Sparrow is running around with a tommy-gun and making goo-goo eyes behind sunglasses, you're all missing the funniest, cleverest, most affecting live-action movie of the year thus far-a true diamond in the rough called Away We Go. The plot? John Krasinki (he owns in "The Office") and Maya Rudolph (she owns on SNL) play Burt and Verona, a thirty-something unmarried couple trekking across America to find the perfect place to raise their soon-to-be-born baby. A young couple, a long road-trip, an indie-rock soundtrack-think you've seen it before? Think again. The script by Dave Eggers and Vendela Vida is, in a word, splendid. If you thought Juno was funny, get a load of this story-it's so jam-packed with great dialogue and intriguing detail that, if printed on paper, it would be a great stand-alone novel. But for all the odd folks the couple runs into along the way-a delusional hippie-baby mama (Maggie Gylenhaal), a howler of a foul-mouthed ex-boss (Alison Janney-love her), and a quirky, aloof dad (Jeff Bridges) to name a few-the writers and director Sam Mendes always take the time to make them real, heartfelt people. We're never laughing at them, just at their actions. And then there's the lead couple. Thanks to two gorgeously textured and Oscar-worthy performances by Krasinki and Rudoplh, Burt and Verona ooze so much natural humor and chemistry that they may very well be the sweetest, most believable couple the movies have given us this millennium. These are people who, after the movie, you feel like you want to know personally. By the end of the movie, which packs a surprising emotional punch, we've fall in love with Burt, Verona and their whole crazy odyssey. This isn't a movie to sit back and admire. It's one to be madly, passionately crazy about-and one to celebrate. A

I Make Movie Review-Public Enemies

"I'm John Dillinger", Johnny Depp mutters in Public Enemies opening minutes. "I rob banks." If you wanna know anymore about Dillinger, the Robin Hood-esque bank robber gunned down by FBI agent Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale) and his crew at age 31, Wiki the guy. Watch the History Channel. Go to the local library. Because "I rob banks" is about the only thing this clunky, repetitive, incoherent let-down of a movie has to say about its lead subject. That's right, Michael Mann, one of the best directors of his time-Heat and The Insider are among the flat-out best movies ever-has finally made a Good Ol' Fashioned Flop-a self-important, bloated mess of a movie that even its formidable stars can't save. Dillinger was a man who fed off the public perception of him as an everyman striking back against the Depression-era finanical system-in short, a legend in his own time. Unfortunately Mann, a director notorious for his attention to factual accuracy, turns out to be the wrong guy for a movie about a semi-mythical figure. Unwilling to fudge reality and show the glamorous, badass Dillinger America saw, he shoots in gritty, grainy HD, sticks to the mundane, well-known facts of Dillinger's life, and leaves Depp without much direction. Depp, normally one of the most inventive and impressive actors alive, makes an honorable attempt to rise above the mess, but Mann gives him little to do except mumble and bore into the camera with his pretty-boy eyes. Also left non-plussed and stuck in underwritten roles are Bale and Marion Cotillard (as Dillinger's beau). Even Bale and Depp's one scene together lacks any semblance of drama. At least Billy Crudup has some flamboyant fun in a bit part as FBI head J. Edgar Hoover. And Mann is still the best action director the movies have ever given us, and the movies two big knock-down-blow-outs-an explosive gunfight in a dark forest and the masterfully Hitchockian murder that ends the film-are it's only two true thrills. Everything in between-all 143 minutes of it-isn't any good. It isn't awful either. It's something worse-disappointing. C-