The Ides of March (2011)

Oh man. Get ready for some typical Liberal Hollywood Propaganda! George Clooney and the rest of those flag-burning godless hippies are up to their old tricks again! I'm sure the movie will end with them having gay sex on the White House lawn after having nailed the Communist Manifesto to the front door and having used the Constitution as a moist towelette to wipe the blood from the baby sacrifices off their hands!

(The editors wish it to be known that the writers of the previous statement have been sacked)

Hey, when did Glenn Beck get access to my blog? And why is he writing film reviews? Crazy people, I tell you...

So "The Ides of March" was interesting to me because unlike other political dramas, there is only one political party. The movie takes place over the course of a couple days during the Democratic primary, and while the Republicans are mentioned, they aren't a part of the story. What it all boils down to is the two candidates running for the Democratic nomination are working to basically tear each other apart, using Ryan Gosling's character as a chess piece in a game he doesn't fully comprehend.

In a way, this is a more poignant story than if they had done the typical thing of having the two parties spatting back and forth. This is exactly the kind of in-fighting that has made people so weary of politics, especially after four years of the Republican party stonewalling progress in the name of being sore losers under the guise of false patriotism. In this way, it really makes the story that much more tragic, because these are members of the same party - they shouldn't be tearing each others throats out like that. It's really sad to watch.

And as far "liberal Hollywood propaganda" goes, George Clooney's character in "The Ides of March" turns out to be kind of a scumbag. So...not biased I guess? At least they're playing to the "all politicians are sleazeballs regardless of party" crowd. I'm a card-carrying member.

Has anyone else noticed that Ryan Gosling's eyes are really close together? I just thought I'd throw that out there.

 It's like having a staring contest with a perch...

"The Ides of March" was actually a pretty good movie. I'm not always on board with political dramas but every once in a while one comes along that really captures my interest. "Frost/Nixon" was one, as was Oliver Stone's "W." While I wouldn't call "The Ides of March" as good as those two films, it certainly manages to approach them in terms of entertainment value.

What really helps out is the cast, which surprised me because to be honest, after this and "Drive," I am so over Ryan Gosling, and I never really liked him much in the first place. I'm not a huge Clooney fan, either. That being said, they were both pretty good in it, although I still get annoyed by Gosling's mumbling, halfway stoned way of delivering his lines.

It's the supporting cast which really makes this movie work. Philip Seymor Hoffman was quite effective, if not slightly irritating as Gosling's boss, and Evan Rachel Wood portrayed a very human and vulnerable temp who has made some exceedingly bad mistakes to great effect. But for me, the real standout was Paul Giamatti as Hoffman's rival. He just oozes slimy sleazeball and totally deserves his status as the film's antagonist, but he never comes off as a villain.

I thought it was fascinating to have a villain who is really just doing his job - and doing it damn well. Yes, he manipulates Ryan Gosling. Yes, he wants his guy to win no matter the cost. And yes, lots of people get screwed over because of his actions. But in the end, the people who got screwed over, like Ryan Gosling, really brought it on themselves. They can't really blame Paul Giamatti's character for taking advantage of other people's mistakes. That's his job. It's like blaming a shark for eating a seal. It's what they do. And Ryan Gosling was the stupid seal who offered to floss the shark's teeth. What did you think was going to happen?

And by the end of the movie, Ryan Gosling is as big a "villain" as Paul Giamatti is. Or at least, he has reached the same level of sleazeball. It's basically about an idealistic man's evolution into a cynical, back-stabbing douche, which is exactly what all the political players around him are.

And who says Hollywood is biased?

THE BOTTOM LINE - This is a movie which has grown on me since watching it. I think the discussions to be had about the themes are probably more interesting than the movie itself, and it may have its head up its ass just a little, since it IS Clooney directing after all, but "The Ides of March" is by no means boring. Recommended.

In Time (2011)

Oh I was not looking forward to "In Time." I mean, yes Justin Timblerlake is what he is. He's just there, eternally being Justin Timberlake. It's not his fault. And the movie even has Cillian Murphy, who I really like a lot. No, it's wasn't those two I was worried about. What scared me is Amanda Seyfried. I swear to everything and anything holy, she is like the harbinger of doom to any movie she's in. If she's in it, it will suck. It's unholy the amount of pain she causes. She's like a natural disaster that needs to be stopped.


And what do you know? I hated "In Time." It was terrible. But it's the kind of terrible where I'm not sure that everyone would agree with me. You see, my problem is that I think too much about movies. It's called "analyzing" and despite what people have told me for years, no, it's not something to be ashamed of. It just means that I'm not the lowest common denominator that this film and other movies like it are playing to.


You cannot analyze stuff like "In Time." Your brain will melt. The basic idea is that in this world, time is currency. You stop aging at 23, and after that, you have a year. Instead of money in the bank, you have minutes on your clock. If your clock (that you're born with wtf) ever runs down to zero, you instantly drop dead, but as long as you have time, you live forever because...ummm....science I guess. So basically rich people live forever and poor people literally live minute to minute.


Here's a little taste of what goes on in my head during a movie like this:


"How did they genetically engineer every single person in this society to have a clock in their arm? What kills you when time runs out? How do you stop aging? Why would they limit it in such an obviously unfair fashion? How did time become the sole unit of currency? Why? Is this world-wide? Who implemented it? Why would anyone agree to it?  How did it ever get past Congress? Is this the United States? An alternate "stupid" dimension? Is time subject to inflation? Can you print more time? It seems like they would have to since it's constantly diminishing. But it seems like all it is is an electrical signal. If that's the case, instead of stealing it, why don't they hack one of those little machines to deal out more time whenever they want? WHAT HELL IS GOING ON IN THIS MOVIE!?"

At first I was all...

Can you see why these movies are painful to me? Sometimes thinking sucks.


As far as plot goes, J.T. lives in the ghetto "time zone" (har har) but due to a rather confusing and not very well connected series of events, he ends up with a hundred years to spend. His mom then promptly drops dead because of dramatic irony, and J.T. is off to the rich people's area, vowing revenge on...nobody in particular.


Umm, hey genius, maybe I'm not as smart as you, but what about taking it to the people who GENETICALLY ENGINEERED YOU TO DIE!? Instead of stealing from rich people, why don't you try to stop this from happening anymore? What about finding a way to stop you from instantly dying when your clock reaches zero?


Anyway, it's at the rich people's zone that J.T. runs into Amanda Seyfried, or as I shall call her, Squeaky McShorty. They decide together that he needs to become Robin Hood of Time, and she needs to rebel against her daddy issues. She's another one of those entitled brats that movies love to have that feel that the fact that they have a free ride to life (in this case, eternal life) means that they are totally shackled, a prisoner in their own body. She needs to fly free like a bird! The terms "gift horse," "mouth," and "shut the hell up" seem appropriate.


What gets me is that evidently, J.T. and Big Eyes McBadhaircut are the only two people in the HISTORY OF THE WORLD who decided to do something about this ridiculous system and stick it to the proverbial "man." Are you kidding me? If there's one thing people love doing, it's complaining. They will riot in the streets opposing a ridiculous non-issue like gay marriage, but apparently in this universe, something that will cause their imminent death is not something they feel they need to get all that worked up over.


I'm not joking, either. There's no rioting in the ghetto. People really don't even get that mad. Banks have basically no security. J.T. and Slack-Jaw No-Act just drive through a window and, meeting literally no opposition, just walk out with a few thousand years worth of time.


Oh, but that's not the first time. They've been doing this for six days at that point. I'll repeat that. Six days. They have officially gone on a crime spree, and bank security has not gone up one. single. bit. Someone get me David Cronenberg because that just blew my mind.

Then I was all...

Although the plot was grinding to my nerves like broken glass on a burn wound, what really floored me was the absolutely gut-punchingly bad dialogue. It was bad enough hearing J.T. attempt to pull of such gems as "No one should be immortal if one person has to die" with the same gravity as William Wallace saying "Every man dies. Not every man really lives." Although that was funny, the real mind benders came from Big-Lashes Von-take-off-your-damn-heels-so-you-can-run-faster. At one point, while balking at the thought of remaining rich, ergo living as long as you want, this brain genius says:

"Do I really want to live the rest of my life trying to not die by accident?"


That is bone-crushingly stupid. YES, YOU DUMB COW!!! Not dying by accident is one of the significantly major goals of life in general! If you're not doing that, what the hell is the alternative? Sticking your fingers in light sockets, licking strange colorful toads or taunting a bear while having fresh salmon in your underpants? Is she saying that she finds the thought of behaving in a manner that natural selection over the course of thousands of years has deemed worthy of allowing a species to continue to live offensive?


Clearly, this film is not for me. I have a natural aversion to movies like this. "Movies like this" in this case meaning "movies that require you to ask NO QUESTIONS." The concept is just so reality-bending stupid when looked at with any kind of reason or logic that it really makes it impossible for me to enjoy, because every 15 seconds, I'm asking another question about this ridiculous, poorly defined world.


I know that it's supposed to be allegorical, and you're not supposed to think about it any deeper than "what if the saying 'time is money' was literal?" will allow you think about it. But you know what? I can answer that, and it will certainly be a shorter, better answer than the hour and 40 minutes that "In Time" took.


If time was indeed money, it would be really, really, really stupid.

But by then my sexy was back, so I was all...

THE BOTTOM LINE - There is a market for this kind of movie. I'm just not it, and I can admit that. However, if you saw and liked "Source Code" or "The Adjustment Bureau," you'll probably like "In Time," because they all require the same amount of blind, turn off your rational brain acceptance. For those who like to think about what they're watching, skip it.

Dream House (2011)

I'm going to come right out and say it: There are spoilers a-plenty in this review.


Now that that's out of the way, let me assure that it doesn't matter. "Dream House" is so painfully obvious and transparent that spoilers don't really matter. You know what's going on in this movie. So take my advice and read on, because to answer your question: "No, you really don't care if it's ruined for you."


I will come right out and say that I was not expecting much to this movie, and I'll tell you why: Daniel Craig. I am not a fan. It's not so much his acting, although I do find him to be generally stuffy, dull and emotionless, it's more his face. I call him "Duck Face." Just watch him and you'll see it. He's eternally doing the Duck Face! Although I may have found a better comparison more apt to his acting method...

If Bond ever went to Easter Island, he could become INVISIBLE.

I kid, I kid. I will be the first to admit that Daniel Craig actually surprised me in "Dream House." He was good! "Dream House" had him act like a human being so much that it weirded me out. I wasn't used to actually LIKING a Daniel Craig performance but I have to give credit where credit is due. I had never seen him play a role where he was a loving, caring father who actually laughed and smiled before. Normally he's a blank slate that's pretty hard to read. I usually can't tell if he's bored, angry or sad but in this film, he actually has a range of emotions and really does a great job with making you like his character.


The two little girls in were also quite good, as far as child actors go. They weren't annoying, at least. But before I go off praising the cast so much you think that I'm giving "Dream House" a pass, rest assured that it was not very good.

The basic idea is that Daniel Craig is an author who believes his wife and two young daughters are being stalked by someone. Weird stuff keeps happening and everyone in the neighborhood he just moved into is treating him really weird. He then finds out the house he lives in was the scene of a triple homicide where the husband killed his wife and two young daughters 5 years ago. The man has recently been released from the asylum back into society, so Daniel Craig begins investigating into finding this man and stopping him, but nobody will help him or believe him, and in fact, treats him like an annoying freak.


Can you see where this is going? Yeah, he's the patient recently released from the asylum and he's constructed an alternate personality to help him deal with his family's death. Not hard to figure out.

There's not too much to "Dream House." If you've seen the trailer, which I wouldn't recommend, you're basically already 70% of the way through the movie. Any kind of twist that the movie was attempting to pull is so transparent that it really is hard to tell if the movie was even trying to pull it. Are we supposed to know he was in an insane asylum before putting the disc in the player? If you were to have watched the trailer, evidently yes, because they flat out tell you that he had been at about the 45 second mark. You know what, screw that. Read the back of the case. You'll figure it out if you've got 2 brain cells firing before even watching the thing. So where is the twist? And for that matter, where is the suspense?


I had a really hard time determining what exactly the goal of the film was. If it was supposed to be a twist-filled suspense film, it fails catastrophically because of not only the fact that the trailer and description on the back of the case ruin it, but because the story by itself is just so stock that it's impossible to not call it immediately. There is no way a fully functional adult human being, even having not seen the trailer or read the box could watch more than 5 minutes of this film and not call that he was the one imprisoned in the asylum for the accused murder of his family, and that they are either ghosts or just in his head. Maybe I just watch WAY too many damn movies, but come on. It's as subtle as the Hindenburg going up.


Now, on the other hand, perhaps that's not the point of "Dream House." Perhaps the point is not to be a twisty-turny thriller of Shyamalan proportions, but an inward gazing character study. And there may be something to that. Daniel Craig's character is reasonably fleshed-out and likeable, and it did produce enough of a desire to figure out exactly what this guy's deal was. Much of the movie takes place with us seeing through his eyes, since his family isn't actually there, so we are put in his driver's seat, so to speak. In that regard it would imply that this is a movie that is suppose to transplant us into this character's head, and have us discover what it is that makes him tick.


That, unfortunately, turns out to probably be the film's ultimate downfall. While it probably could have made an OK movie had it focused more on character, its problem is that it didn't go all the way down that road. Instead it had to be infused along the way with the predictable PG-13 pseudo-thriller genre in order to get the little teenagers in the theater because the movie was marketed to look all spooky. This movie didn't need more of crap like "The Unborn" or the remake of "One Missed Call." This movie needed some "Jacob's Ladder" to make it really pop. And I tell you, even though "Jacob's Ladder" isn't a horror movie, it's FAR scarier than anything these predictable snooze-fests produce.


See, the problem with infusing it with these kinds of movies means that there has to be a clear cut villain, solution, and ending. I didn't think that it would be possible to have a villain in a movie with a story like this but they manage to produce not one but two of them! How can you justify having a villain let alone TWO when the biggest obstacle the main character faces is his own brain? How can you justify having a solution to that problem? I didn't know mental illness could be so easily fixed, but apparently the cure for a complete psychotic breakdown is simply getting vengeance on someone who wronged you in the past.

And when he does get vengeance...oh is it stupid. So very, very stupid.

You know, in most GOOD movies, there's no cure for something like that. You know why? Because it's far more terrifying. You can't fix your own derangement like that, especially if it's something so severe as seeing your dead family and talking to them without even knowing they're dead. You know how most mental derangement ends up being solved in good movies? With a drill to the forehead or a pillow to face. Watch "π." Watch "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest." Watch "A Beautiful Mind." Hell, watch "Sucker Punch." Each one of these films deals with mental illness and the horrors of it, along with the consequences of having to deal with it, and each one of them in a far, far better way than "Dream House."


There is one final thing I need to bring up, however, because it doesn't happen often with me. This movie did accomplish something. It offended me. I found myself VERY upset at a scene that involves the mother panicking over her daughters because of their gunshots wounds they received when they were killed. Now, they are all ghosts or figments of his imagination at this point, but to see those poor little girls standing there with bullet wounds staining their pajamas red, struggling to understand what was happening in their fever-like state was something that really pissed me off, and I don't even have kids. I can only imagine how mad I would be if I did.


Now I can tolerate a lot of DARK stuff, but that scene is done in such bad taste and is so exploitative of our feelings that I was offended. The movie didn't have enough foundations to fall back on that it was forced to pull out two little dead girls being paraded in front of us as their mother cries in an attempt to understand, all in an effort to draw out some emotion from this stock piece of crap movie. I found myself saying aloud "Oh, boo this movie! Boo!" and I would have proudly stood up and done so had I seen it in a theater. And loudly, too.


THE BOTTOM LINE - A stock piece of wanna-be thriller that could have had potential had it been more intelligent. Notable only for the fact that it offended me with its blatant manipulative use of the little girls. Skip it. Especially if you have daughters! >:[

Drive (2011)

This is going to be more of a rant about style than the movie itself, for two reasons. The first is that as far as plot goes, the less you know about "Drive," the better it will probably be. This is because there are some genuine shocks in the movie that you probably won't see coming, which of course the trailer does a nice job of spoiling, so don't watch it, and I don't want to ruin anything either. The second is that the plot isn't what is going to make you want to watch this movie. What is going to interest you, if you're interested, is the fact that "Drive" is very influenced by the independent film movement, and if you like stuff like that, you're going to love it.  That for me, however, was the thing that ruined what could have been a very good film.


"Drive" stars Ryan Gosling as a stuntman who moonlights as a getaway driver for robbers and such. He's very good at it, and seems to be doing well when he gets pulled into a situation with some mobsters who are shaking down the ex-con husband of a lady living next door he happens to have a thing for. In an effort to help them out, since he has come to like them, bad things end up happening and Driver (we are never told his actual name) has to become a guardian angel for these people. In essence, it's a remake of "Shane" with intensely brutal Robert Rodriguez level violence near the back half. At least, when the film feels like having stuff happening, which for the most part it's not too keen on doing.


I think that at its core, "Drive" is a good movie. I'm just not a fan of its direction. I regret to say that I've not seen any other film by director Nicholas Winding Refn, but if this is his usual M.O., I'm guessing I probably wouldn't like much of his other stuff, either. I know he's kind of a big deal in the more hip, independent film movement, and boy does it show, because this movie has "independent" written all over it. And if that's your particular cup of tea, by all means, disregard what I'm saying here and know that you'll probably like "Drive."


What do I mean by independent? I think the easiest way to describe it is "taking its time." There are long stretches of not much, if anything, being said by the characters in the so-called "conversation." I put that in quotation marks because whether or not it counts as an actual conversation can be argued. It's not that there isn't anything being said, it's that 80% of the content is what's not being said. And that's fine, I can dig that. It means that the actors are forced to emote without dialogue, which makes for good acting.

But I can only dig that to an extent. My problem comes from the fact that as an audience, we know what is being conveyed through looks and meaningful glances pretty quickly. Is that a point in the favor of the audience for being smart or for the actors for being really good? I don't know. But the fact remains that it's never very obtuse what's going on. And because of that, it always seems like the movie is playing catch-up with me. I understand the fact that Ryan Gosling is becoming attached to the family next door to him. I don't need to see 2 minutes of him staring at them with a slight smile on his usually stoney exterior to get that.

You may think this is a static picture, but it's actually 3 complete minutes of the film.

In some ways, as heady as "Drive" is, it really seems like it looks down on its audience. After all, if this was movie for smart movie goers, it wouldn't hold our hand or brow-beat us with emotions like that. We can read faces and expressions to deduce emotions. Overly long moments of the same emotion for so long just seems to scream "DO YOU GET IT?!" Obviously, this is not what was intended, so I can only assume that "Drive" is a movie for people who really like very, very long stretches of build-up.


And why do they like it? To look smart. That's my take on it, anyways. If someone gets a heightened sense of tension or emotional turmoil boiling up underneath from it then more power to them (far be it for me to judge) but I think deep down, that's what's really going on here. "Drive" and indeed, the whole independent film movement is basically tailor-made as a direct response to the faster paced, flashy Hollywood model, and the idea seems to be to just do whatever it is that Hollywood doesn't do. And because of this I don't think that it's always done because the filmmakers are passionate about this style. They do it because it's what is expected of them. Because independent movies are smart, see? And if they make a film this way, the director is smart as well.


I totally understand the purpose behind slowing things down. You do it so that when the action does happen, it's amplified. The juxtaposition of loud and quiet is important to any effective thriller, and sometimes a movie just needs to breathe. But sometimes it can just get obnoxious, especially when you have dynamite actors popping up elsewhere in the film, reminding you of how much more interesting the villains are than the two main characters. They are absolutely blown away by Albert Brooks and Ron Perlman, who knock it out of the park every time they appear, and provide far more tension with actually doing stuff than Ryan Gosling is staring intensely at someone. Why can't we see more of them? Why can't the movie be about these guys?!


Because decent pacing is for those Hollywood hacks who aren't "smart."


This is just my personal taste and grievance with pretentious movies in general. I wouldn't go so far as to call "Drive" pretentious, it's not like it's a piece of garbage Terrence Malick self-congratulatory wank-fest, but it is loitering in Pretentious' parking lot. There are definitely some noses elevated a few degrees above normal here.


There's a good movie in here somewhere. I like the story, the action scenes are downright inspired, including an incredible opening 15 minutes, and despite my comments earlier I like the characters both good and bad. It just needed another pass in the editing booth to shave 20 to 25 minutes off the run-time that it desperately needed. 

It really does have a great cast, though. I've said that before but it bears repeating. I don't particularly like Ryan Gosling, but he was quite good at playing a quiet, brooding, borderline psychopath. Bryan Cranston also fun to watch as always, but the real gems were the bad guys, Ron Perlman and particularly Albert Brooks. The screen was on fire when they were on it. Although with Albert there was something a tad distracting...

You can't not see it...

I'm thinking David Cronenberg could have done amazing things with "Drive." It's actually not too far off from a lot of his stuff as it is. Watch "A History of Violence" or even better, "Eastern Promises" and you'll see what I mean. Cronenberg knows how to pace a film, and knows how to take his time, but he doesn't go overboard with it. You never feel like fast forwarding through a Cronenberg movie.

This one, however, I did.


THE BOTTOM LINE - If you're a fan of independent movies, this is for you. If you go into it thinking it will be a fast-paced explosion fest, it's not. Worth it for some really good acting, but know what you're getting yourself into first. Also, fans of excessive, borderline comical gore would also do well to be warned. Cautiously Recommended, with a BIG "if."

Abduction (2011)

I really don't know how to feel about Taylor Lautner. Although he was god-awful terrible in "Twilight," I can't fault him for that. Everyone was terrible in that except for Billy Burke and Michael Sheen. It's the source material. You can't do anything respectable with it. I do think he has just the slightest bit of potential, given the fact that of the three leads in that so called "saga," he was the only one with more than 2 emotions. Don't get me wrong, I'm not marking any dates in my calender for when his next movie comes out, I'm just saying he has a range greater than a Chia-Pet. That's a legitimate compliment for someone cast in "Twilight."

So how does Taylor's first starring role hold up? Will he surprise us with some acting chops before now hidden by the shlock of the teenybopper material that was holding back huge amounts of raw talent? Or will he once again become an obnoxiously smirking sex symbol for jail-bait and soccer moms to fawn over as he stumbles around removing his shirt at every opportunity? Is this going to be his moment to prove to himself and the world that there is more to the Taylor Lautner Experience than just abs and hair gel? Will he -

Time into film: 4 minutes 32 seconds.

Ok then. Just checking. Matthew McConaughey would be proud.

Seriously, you could forge steel on these abs. This guy is amazing, and as much I complain about it, if I looked like that, I would develop an allergy to shirts, too.


As you may have been able to figure out, "Abduction" was not the gutsy, groundbreaking role that would define Taylor Lautner as a legitimate actor and launch him into the spotlight to run with the big dogs. No, this is just another teenage cash-sink with nothing substantial about it. It exists so that young girls can watch Taylor Lautner try to be Jason Bourne in a setting that isn't dark, gritty, or confusing (or bloody).

Oh and he gets a girlfriend. He has to get a girlfriend. That's of critical import. OMG!

Relationships in spy movies ALWAYS end well.

In order to dumb it down for the kiddies, "Abduction" had to be...well, just a little bit dumb. The idea is that for some reason or another, most likely for his safety, Taylor Lautner's character has been, without his knowledge, raised by foster parents. His dad was a spy or something, as are, without his knowledge, his foster parents. When the truth is revealed through a missing children's website in a rather silly set of coincidences, all of a sudden his identity is out, and people want him dead.


The plot isn't the worst thing I've ever seen. In fact, as silly as it may seem at the moment, generally speaking it does tie itself together well. Most times when something silly comes up, within a few minutes they do back it up with enough evidence to at least make it plausible, and there were a few times when a plot hole I found earlier was fixed by the end. So credit is due to the writers.

The problem, I think, mostly boils down to the fact that it is so blatantly marketed towards a demographic that needs everything clinically NEAT AND TIDY with no challenging ideas or non-happy endings. It broadcast where it was going at all times, and there was never any doubt as to its goals.

You may say that the same could be said of the Bond series, and while I admit that at its core the Bond series has always been about raw entertainment value, I remind you that you're comparing Taylor Lautner to the likes of Sean Connery and Pierce Brosnan, and that dog just won't hunt. As much as I don't like them, even the Daniel Craig Bond movies at least were doing something different and dark. This is just lite fluff.

Like there would ever be that many people at a Pittsburgh Pirates game.

One thing that was a plus in the movie's favor was Mikael Nyqvist playing the villain. He was the main guy in the Swedish "Girl With The Dragon Tattoo" series, and despite my hatred of those films, I don't have a problem with him. In fact, he's a pretty solid villain, and has a certain quiet menace about him which is quite effective, and in a better, darker film could have been straight up scary. The man's no Ian McShane but he does seem like someone who would do very bad things to you if you pissed him off.

The rest of the admittedly impressive cast is pretty much wasted. Alfred Molina is yelling into a blue-tooth headset for most of the movie, Jason Isaacs dies far too soon to be of any real significance despite being the most interesting and believable character, and Sigourney Weaver is just there to look a little like the Crypt Keeper and depress us when we think back to when she used to be really attractive. And even when they are doing stuff, the dialogue coming from their mouths doesn't really sound natural. They don't sound like they believe what they're saying. But it doesn't really matter because this isn't their show anyways, it's Taylor Lautner and his pecs. For the adults, it's just a paycheck.


Hey, you know what? I just realized something. There's aren't any abductions in this movie! I feel cheated. Unless it's himself Taylor Lautner is abducting. Can you abduct your own self?


The best part of the movie, and the one thing I will give it credit for, is the scene where Taylor Lautner and Mikael Nyqvist meet face to face at a baseball game. The way they are walking down opposite sides of a section and the conversation when they meet up is quite well done, and again, in the hands of a better, darker film could have been quite intense. But because we're watching "Abduction" we know that it's going to end in a chase scene because Taylor Lautner still has to slide down that big glass structure and do some suspiciously CG-looking parkour.

Oh, and one last thing! I'm so sick of these movies that have these kids living in multi-million dollar homes, sporting perfect bodies and teeth, with brains and talent to do anything they want in addition to being really popular at school and having a smoking hot girlfriend having to go to a shrink and BITCH AND MOAN about how they "don't fit in" and how they "feel like they're not in control of their own life."

"The fact that I have a free ride to life pains me to my soul."

Shut the hell up, you little entitled brat.


THE BOTTOM LINE - Are you a 14 year old girl? Then you'll think "Abduction" is awesome. Are you not a 14 year old girl? Then you won't. It didn't make me angry enough to say that I hated it, in fact it was better than I thought it was going to be, it was just so forgettable that it's hard to see the point. Skip it.

Top 10 of 2011

2011 was an admittedly pretty bad year for movies. This was actually a tough list to make, and not for the reasons that usually come up. Usually I'm forced into making hard cuts and quantifying why one of my favorite movies deserves to be on the list and another doesn't. This time I had to struggle to fill up all 10 slots. That's not to say that the movies that made this list are bad! I really liked all of these movies, but it was difficult filtering them through all the crap that 2011 piled upon us.

So without further ado, let's take a look at these diamonds in the rough that make up my personal Top 10 of 2011!





10. Insidious

"Insidious" may just be one of the only PG-13 horror movies that's worth a damn. What's unique about the film is that each act is pretty much a different horror genre. The first act is a classic haunted house movie, the second act turns into a possession movie, and the third act gets a little trippy and is somewhat its own niche with what can only be described as an "astral projection" movie, although it does remind me heavily of "The Others."

Most people who saw it commented on how scary it was, and yeah, there's something to that. It was pretty darn scary, although it is another one of those films that is fueled almost entirely on the "jump scare" tactic, which I hate. I feel they are cheap and are more startling than scary. "Insidious" gets a pass from me in this case, however, because the movie never fakes you out. Every time there's a jump scare, it's because something scary is jumping out at you. There's no kitten jumping out of a closet making a earth-shattering kaboom here. Every scare is legitimately earned, despite the fact that you may be able to see (some of) them coming.

"Insidious" isn't anything groundbreaking in terms of horror films, aside from being PG-13 and being good, but it's well made enough to stand toe to toe with pretty much any horror film to come out in the last 10 years.

9. Drive Angry

I love me some Nicolas Cage, and I apologize for nothing. I know that the hip thing to do is to hate the guy's guts but I honestly don't see how someone couldn't be entertained as hell watching him. Say what you want but the man puts more passion into every performance than nearly anyone else in Hollywood, and you can tell he's just having a blast doing it. And for me, that fun transfers over to my watching of the movie.

"Drive Angry" was exactly what I wanted to see: Nicolas Cage being a bad-ass. This is an exploitation flick, pure and simple. It's the same kind of drive-in B-movie schlock that Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez made with their "Grindhouse" double feature. "Drive Angry" is more "Planet Terror" than "Death Proof," though, for anyone worried about that. While it may not have the same level of gore that "Planet Terror" or even "Machete" had, it's still a fun, bloody romp that doesn't apologize for anything, and just takes the insanity and rolls with it.

If you're ready for this film, and you have to be ready for crazy, it's a hell of a ride. Along with Nicolas Cage being awesome and William Fichtner doing a very cool and unique spin on the Grim Reaper, "Drive Angry" was one of the most fun movies I saw in 2011, and left me with a big smile on my face.

8. Season of The Witch

Oh snap! A Nicolas Cage double header! I was waiting for "Season of The Witch" for a long time, since it got its release date pushed back, and then was only showing for like, a weekend. And of course it was in and out of theaters before I even knew it was released. But when I finally got to see it, I found a really fun action flick with two of my favorite actors, Nicolas Cage and Ron Perlman.Sounds like a good time to me.

Whereas "Drive Angry" was an exploitation flick, "Season of The Witch" is a B-horror movie flick. It's straight out of something that Hammer Films would make. Hell, it even has Christopher Lee in it! That's some serious B-movie royalty right there. I always love films with a great atmosphere and this movie nailed it. From the first scene to the last, it felt like a graphic novel with its very creepy and atmospheric sets. This is a movie you can just smell because it's so vivid in its scenery and style.

For my money, few things are as fun as a movie like this. And to the movie's credit, I didn't call the ending. It did not go where I thought it was going to go, and in fact took the gutsier of the paths it could have gone down. That, too, was a pleasant surprise because normally I can spot endings coming a mile away.

7. Moneyball
Out of all the movies on this list, this is the only one that's award bait. I usually don't like movies that are made to win Oscars but this one was actually pretty good. It embodied the same story of one man rising up against impossible odds to prove to himself and the world that he's worth something that classics like "Rocky" and "Rudy" have, and that's kind of unavoidable in a sports film, but it still strikes home on an emotional level that was very effective. I mean, yeah, that story has been done to death, but there must be something to it, right? 

Not too much more to say about that one. Besides, I already wrote one review about it. I don't need to do another mini-one. It's just a solid flick.

6. Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol

Sometimes a movie makes the list purely on the merits of how fun it is. I think the Nicolas Cage double-header proves that. "Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol" was one of the most fun times I had in a theater in a long time, and it's nice to be able to recapture the spirit of the first movie again. This is exactly what the series needed to bring it out of its rut.

I would love to see another "Mission: Impossible." Now we only have to wonder if they're going to start numbering them again. I swear, the titling of sequels needs to be left to people who know what they are doing. In other words, somebody other than Hollywood. Hell, hire me. I can't promise you fancy titles, but there won't be any doubt as to the order in which the sequels go!

5. Everything Must Go

I do not like Will Ferrell the Comedian very much, but I love Will Ferrell the Actor. People look at me cross-eyed when I say this but he is an amazing actor. Just watch "Stranger Than Fiction." Go ahead, I'll wait...

Amazing, right?! That's what I'm saying. "Everything Must Go" reminded me of "Stranger Than Fiction" a bit, despite the fact that it's not really like it very much, but it also felt like "Up In The Air" and "The Beaver," two other films that were also quite good. The thing about "Everything Must Go" is that it's not a comedy at all. If you go in expecting the funny-ha-ha, you'll be bored stiff. If you go in expecting a drama, well, it might choke you up a bit.

Will Ferrell went on record saying that he took this role about an alcoholic selling everything he owns after having the worst day of his life, because he doesn't get offered stuff like that. When a serious role like that came along, he jumped on it. I have more respect for Will Ferrell now for doing that, and I hope he keeps going. In fact, I think he's notably forgotten in this year's Oscar race for this film, because seriously...Best Actor. At least a nomination. Anything to encourage him to keep doing things like this!

4. X-Men: First Class

 Let's be honest with ourselves. The "X-Men" movies have never been very good. Yes, they have their entertaining moments and a fantastic cast, but they've never been objectively good. They're a bit overblown, characters have little identity past their mutant powers, and the stories don't make a lot of sense.

And now we have "X-Men: First Class," and it is the first of the series to not only be a really good comic book movie, but a good movie, period. The characters are (mostly) more fleshed out, which makes sense because there are far fewer of them this time, the story is riveting, and the struggle between Erik and Charles, two friends fated to be driven apart by immovable ideologies, practically sizzles there is so much chemistry going on between the two leads. You know that these two are destined to end up mortal enemies, but even so, the progression building up to that split is so well handled that when it happens, it's still a shot to the gut, and tragic as well as shocking.

Michael Fassbender is quickly becoming one of my favorite actors, and he and James McAvoy absolutely tore it up in "X-Men: First Class." I don't know if another sequel would work, but it's exciting to think of those two in another "X-Men" film.



And now we come to the Top 3! I found it interesting that the criteria for the Top 3 wound up being determined by overall sense of feeling throughout the film. Of all the movies to come out in 2011, these 3 films were the most effective at eliciting an emotional reaction from me, which is something I hold in the utmost importance. Those feelings wound up being disgusted, pumped up, and happy. In that order, here's the best 3 movies I saw last year:


3. Red State

If Kevin Smith keeps making movies, he needs to do more horror. The man has a knack for it, and his first outing into horror with "Red State" is one of the most realistically scary movies I've seen in a long time. It's not a supernatural kind of scary, it's a real kind of scary because this kind of stuff is totally feasible. And it's so easy to see people doing these horrific things in the name of their own obscene, hateful version of religion.

It's not so thinly veiled that the villainous church in "Red State" is supposed to be the Westbro Baptist Church. You know, the "God Hates Fags" idiots. It's so easy to see people following the preacher in this movie, played with Oscar-caliber gusto and passion by Michael Parks (another actor unforgivably snubbed in this award season), because they're already following people spewing this same kind of hate speech that is in the movie. This is scary stuff. And you have to wonder if killings like this are already happening and we just haven't found out about it yet. I hate to say that I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case.

"Red State" may not be for everyone, and it will most likely cause a great deal of discomfort among its viewers, and that's the point. It's an ugly thing that this movie is looking at, and it's looking at it with some pretty high-intensity beams. If you're not squirming in your seat or slightly sick to your stomach during "Red State," you don't have a soul. If anything else, this is a movie that will get people talking afterwards. And potentially really mad.


2. Attack The Block

 If an alien invasion happened, would you fight back? Well, I feel sorry for any nasty alien who lands in the ghetto of London looking to cause trouble because they'll be in for a hell of a fight. "Attack The Block" is so much fun that it kind of defies explanation. You just have to experience it for yourselves. It's one of those films that you just kick back and enjoy. If movies were people, "Attack The Block" would be the guy who bought everyone in the bar a round the minute he walked in the door. You just know it's going to be a good time when he's around.

"Attack The Block" is the first movie from Joe Cornish, who has worked with and is friends with Edger Wright, and it shows. It is reminiscent of "Shaun of The Dead" and "Hot Fuzz," but it has it's own identity, despite Wright's obvious influences. I think it's more of a student learning from a master craftsman. Of course at first the work is going to emulate the teachings, but soon he'll carve out his own identity, and I'll be first in line to buy a ticket.

There wasn't another action film in 2011 that I had this much fun with. From beginning to end, this movie about a group of punks in the ghetto fighting back against aliens put a big smile on my face, and I needed someone to high-five.

AND THE BEST MOVIE I SAW IN 2011 WAS...














1. The Muppets

 I think the word I'm looking for is "magic." There's just something magical about the Muppets. I haven't met a single person who didn't like them. The absolutely brilliant marketing campaign for this movie helped psych me up for it more than almost any other movie that year, and when I finally got to see it with some of my best friends, it wound up being the best experience I had in the theater that year.

Watching this movie was like having an hour and a half long childhood flashback. It was an amazing experience that left me feeling good all over, and anybody who has ever liked the Muppets will probably feel the same. Was it because there was nostalgia involved that I liked it? I don't think so, although it does help. Nostalgia can't hold something up on its own, after all. Fortunately "The Muppets" is a very well made, very very funny film that also tugs on the heartstrings. Pretty much like every Muppet movie, for the most part. And that's a good thing.

If I had to complain about something it would be that I felt there was probably a couple too many "why bother" moments where a character (usually Kermit) is ready to throw in the towel, but is brought back around by his friends. It's good stuff, but it happens like 5 times, and it starts getting old. But then Jack Black and Gonzo are doing something ridiculous and you're busting a gut laughing, and the other thing is forgotten about.

There are so many wonderful moments in "The Muppets," from Gonzo blowing up his factory, to Chris Cooper rapping about how evil he is, to the Swedish Chef's first subtitled appearance, to "Travel by Map," to Neil Patrick Harris' cameo wondering why he isn't in the movie, to the wonderfully catchy musical numbers including the immortal "Ma-Na-Ma-Na" (you KNEW it was coming), to every time another one of your old favorites appears on the screen that it seems like every 5 minutes you've stumbled across your new favorite part of the movie. And I guarantee that "The Muppets" will slap a huge smile across the most sour of faces.

After all...life is a filet of fish. Yes, it is.

Underworld Awakening (2012)

Four days. That's it. That's all it took for me to pretty much forget most of what happens in this movie. I usually like to write these as soon as I see the film, so that it's fresh in my mind, but due to work I've been unable to find the time these last few days to write this up. Plus I had also seen "The Grey" that same night as a double feature with a friend of mine, and I was so excited over that fantastic movie that I wrote the review for that, and left this one for later. Mistake.

I've got nothing for this. It's just that...it's just not really worth talking about. In four days, I've forgotten almost everything about the plot. That could be enough of a review right there, I suppose. But I'll dig deep and try to remember enough to write...something.

Have you seen the other movies? Yes? Good. Because if you haven't, don't bother. You will be so utterly lost without the rest of the films that it would be like solving a Rubik's Cube in the dark. It starts off right after the second movie, in fact there's a little montage of the goings of the rest of the series up to this point, which was a nice reminder but man, does it go by quick. The general gist was conveyed but I was kicking myself for not re-watching the others beforehand.

Of course, that begs the question "would I want to re-watch them?" Meh. I guess. I was never really a big fan but they're passable entertainment if all you want to see is Kate Beckinsdale in tight leather shooting werewolves. Ok, fair enough, few people wouldn't want to see that, but it's basically Blade with boobs. And that's ok, too. I'm just up for any movie where the vampire doesn't mope.

I thought the first "Underworld" was just so-so but "Underworld Evolution" I actually liked quite a bit, just because it stopped the talking (which is always really dull with vampires because they are all so stock) and was essentially an hour and a half long chase scene with a lot of action and a cool villain. That's really all you need sometimes. "Underworld: Rise of the Lycans" is actually my favorite of the series for two reasons. First, it replaced Kate Beckinsdale with Michael Sheen as the main character (yay!) and second, it was really reminiscent of a cheesy, B-grade horror flick that Hammer Films would make or something. The one thing it desperately needed was Christopher Lee. The man did "Howling 2: Stirba Werewolf Bitch" but this is beneath him? Come on!

GTFO.

"Underworld Awakening" has a lot in common with "Underworld Evolution." At the core, they're both essentially chase movies, with Kate Beckinsdale and friends running away from the "big bad" of the moment. This time out, it's both the humans and the Lycans (but more so the Lycans), who want Selene and her daughter because...well there wouldn't be a movie otherwise.

The idea is that the Lycans have found a way to become more powerful, essentially getting rid of their vulnerability to silver. For this, they need Selene's daughter, a test tube baby who is a hybrid between vampire and Lycan. Beyond that, I was a little hazy on the plot. It really was just a vehicle for blowing stuff up. And that's fine, I guess.

There's a whole lot of squatting going on in this movie.

The biggest problem was that while the "Underworld" series has always been about the flashy, over-stylized action, "Awakening" kind of got obnoxious with it. Maybe it's because it was filmed for 3-D, so everything has to be in-your-face and slow motion so we can actually see what's happening. It occurs to me that the same thing happened to the "Resident Evil" series when it got to the forth film, the first one to be in 3-D. That movie was a lot like "Awakenings" in terms of style of action, and to be honest, it just gets old and boring. And I know it's been said before, but what it all boils down to is that it looks like you're playing a video game.

At least in "Underworld Evolution" the action was a bit more...how do I put this...there. You dig what I'm saying? It was there and it had a purpose. Not as much CG, not as much slow motion, not so over-stylized. I mean, don't get me wrong, that stuff was there but it seemed much more restrained and responsible with it. "Underworld Awakening" is the Mythbusters blowing up a car with 50 lbs of C-4 and showing the high-speed playback. They do it just because they can.

And here's the part where I once again become a nit-picking jerk. Why do vampires in this series use guns? Vampires have super-human strength. Can you imagine the kind of damage a vampire swinging around a two handed great-sword at mach 2 would do? Selene shows that off right in the beginning when she takes out like 5 guys in about half a second with a scalpel. And what does she do after? She gets a gun, and proceeds to hit a target once for every 10 bullets she fires, if that. Dude, you're a vampire, use your abilities!

Oh, you say werewolves getting too close is no good? Ok, then. Whips. Silver coated whips with like silver barbs on them. Twirl those things around you, keeping the werewolves at a distance, and you're in business without having to reload anything. And why don't humans just fight vampires with flashlights? Ultraviolet light kills them straight up dead. Throw in a flash bang that gives off UV light. Use searchlights. They can't dodge that, yo. Why are you shooting them with bullets? Use your heads.

Underworld Awakening in four words: "Bang! Bang! Grrr! Pow!"

I could go on with more nitpicks. That's really all I have. "Underworld Awakening" didn't leave enough of an impression on me to do anything expect nit-pick it to death. Why did nobody ever notice that the cop character was a vampire? Why are Selene's clothes kept in a "Break In Case of Emergency" glass case next to the tube she was frozen in for 12 years when they never intended to let her out? Why did they keep her clothes in the first place? Why does Selene's daughter look like Bilbo Baggins' scary face when she is in her monster form? Why are there ancient castle-like ruins and crypts inside a modern dam? Why does shooting a hole in the bottom of a heavy object falling on you reduce the force of its impact? Why do guns carry 227 rounds? Why is the main Lycan villain taken out with a gag ripped straight from the first "Pirates of the Caribbean" movie? Why does this movie just stop without any closure whatsoever?

 AND WHERE THE HELL IS CHRISTOPHER LEE!?

THE BOTTOM LINE: Fans of the series will probably find enough to get them through it with some entertainment, but I'm guessing most would probably consider it the weakest of the series, especially considering its ridiculous non-ending. Overall, very forgettable and unimpressive. Only recommended if you really need to continue the story. Otherwise, skip it.