sea of scenes

Are you a sucker for Sucker Punch?

2011-03-27T19:54:00.014-04:00

--reviewed by X

If you've been keeping up with movies at all for the past few months, you have undoubtedly seen the trailer for Zack Snyder's Sucker Punch. I recall the 2^nd (or 3^rd I forget… I've seen that trailer way too many times) time I was watching it before some movie, and the response of one audience member was, "okay… so hot girls, nice action… I'm down for watching it." I must admit, when I saw the trailer for the first time, the same thought entered my mind. The movie is definitely geared towards videogame/anime loving nerdy young adults, who, at one time or another, had fantasies similar to that of hot girls in fetish outfits battling samurai/dragon/airplane/whatever.

The film follows the story of a 20-year-old girl, Babydoll (Emily Browning), whose mother dies and her evil stepfather admits her to a mental institution. To make matters worse, in order to make sure Babydoll never bothers the stepfather again, the stepfather bribes the corrupted and perverted head of the mental institution to lobotomize Babydoll in 5 days. To escape from the harsh reality of her current surrounding and the final lobotomy, she finds a measure of peace in her imagination and ultimately salvages what she could from the situation. Zack Snyder and his wife and producer Deborah Snyder said in an interview with io9 (beware of spoiler in the interview) that they "thought of the movie's structure in terms of The Wizard of Oz, where the fantasy world serves as a metaphor for what's going on in the real world." I thought the movie was more similar to Pan's Labyrinth, a foreign film directed by Guillermo del Toro, about a young girl whose life is so terrible that she uses her imagination as a means of escape into a fairy tale like world. The difference is that while Pan's Labyrinth focuses more on the art of film making, which critics love (it won 3 Oscars), Sucker Punch is more of a movie made for entertainment, which critics hate.

Because Sucker Punch had so much anime/videogame feel to it, I was expecting all professional critics to focus only on the flaws and ignore all achievements. What I am surprised, however, was how much the non-professional critics took a similar approach to the movie, because contrary to what all the reviews said, I actually enjoyed the movie and thought the movie had a lot of merits that deserved recognition.

Other than the great visual effects that were very similar to those of 300 (also directed by Zack Snyder), Sucker Punch actually had a coherent and, dare I say, somewhat deep storyline that was quite thought provoking. The trailer has already told us that much of the movie took place in an imaginary world, but Sucker Punch doesn't just stop there – it actually had two imaginary worlds, a world where Babydoll imagined the mental institution as a brothel, and an anime/videogame fantasy world like one that was shown in the trailer. What makes the latter world interesting, other than having hot girls fighting insane creatures while wearing fetish outfits, was that contrary to what the trailer led us to believe, the fantasy was not a product of Babydoll's imagination, but the product of another character's, a character who joined Babydoll in her quest for freedom. By putting the fantasy world in the imagination of someone other than the protagonist, Zack Snyder cleverly allowed the fantasy world to be subjected to tremendous romanticizing; thus the reason that the girls were so powerful in the fantasy world was a tribute to Babydoll for organizing the escape.

One could argue, "Why the use imaginary worlds; why not just show Babydoll breaking out of the mental institution?" The short answer is that it'll make for a much less interesting movie. The more insightful answer, however, is that just like Zack Snyder's previous works (most notably 300 and The Watchmen), Sucker Punch is told through the story of a narrator. Therefore, whatever happens in the film is not only allowed to be subjected to romanticizing, but needed to be romanticized.

Another aspect of the movie that I really loved was how much detail Zack Snyder focused on each scene. I especially loved the way he transitioned among the real world, the brothel world, and the fantasy world. So real was the brothel world that I had to pick up every little detail to know whether the characters were in the real or the brothel world. In addition, Zack Snyder constantly used his trademark slow motion to focus on the key elements of the movie, foreshadowing what is yet to come. Though some may find his use of slow motion corny and boring, I honestly thought that he used the slow motion very well in this film, for it helped me focus on specific things in the movie that I should remember for later scenes. Zack Snyder also did a great job of putting subtle references to famous videogames. For example, in the scene where Babydoll was obtaining the map, the Nazi soldiers from World War 1 resembled much like the enemy soldiers of Kill Zone 2, and the scene where the girls try to disarm a bomb in a train was a clear reference to the cutscene shown in the Final Fantasy XIII trailer. As much as I respect the knowledge and experience of professional critics, I believe most of them simply cannot appreciate this kind of videogame reference because they haven't played these modern videogames. Therefore, the moment they see these references, they instinctively resort to trashing the movie.

Like most movies that are made to entertain, Sucker Punch certainly had its share of flaws. One glaringly obvious example was the subpar acting. To quote a great person for whom I have much respect, "[Emily Browning] is cute, but she's more anime-girl cute than real-life cute." I cannot agree more; in fact, I think Zack Snyder picked her based on her anime-girl cuteness alone. A more debatable issue is the fine line between exploitation and empowerment. Zack Snyder has the follow to say regarding that aspect:

Everything in the movie is about a show within a show within a show. Someone asked me, "Why did you dress the girls like that, in those provocative costumes?" And I said, "Well, think about it for a second. I didn't dress those girls in the costume. The audience dressed those girls." And when I say the audience, I mean the audience that comes to the movies. Just like the men who visit a brothel, [they] dress the girls when they go to see these shows as however they want to see them.

He then goes on to talk about how this actually empowers women rather than objectifying:

They start out as cliches of feminine sexuality as made physical by what culture creates. I think that part of it was really specific, whether it's French maid or nurse or Joan Arc to a lesser extent [laughs], or schoolgirl. Our hope is we were able to modify them and turn them into these power icons, where they can fight back at the actual cliches that they represent. So hopefully by the end the girls are empowered by their sexuality and not exploited.

While I do see where Zack Snyder is coming from, I doubt the sincerity of his answer. Personally, I think the reason he dressed the girls up the way he did was more of a marketing decision. He probably thought to himself, “Hey, 300 made a lot of money, and that movie had good looking men dressed in underwear. If I make a movie exactly like 300 but with hot girls instead of guys, the movie would sell even better!”

Overall, I'd say the movie was definitely worth the money I spent in watching it at IMAX. I was entertained throughout the movie, and there was enough substance for me to discuss it with my friends for a fair amount of time. Though I expected it to be hated by critics, I am still very shocked at the negative reviews it got from non-professional critic websites such as spill.com and io9. Perhaps it was my low expectations that made the movie enjoyable for me, but I will say this with absolute sincerity: I will definitely give the film a second viewing on my computer to catch all the foreshadowing that I've missed in my first viewing, for the film had enough depth to be watched more than once.

Rating: RECOMMENDED

Note: The 2 blockquotes are taken from Zack Snyder’s interview with io9's Alasdair Wilkins. The original interview can be found here (beware of spoilers in the interview).

What happens when your best simply isn't good enough?

2011-03-21T00:01:00.000-04:00

Rating: MEHHH

Two of my friends have a simple reply for the title question: "Your boss would yell at you." Either that, or you'd get fired. And then you'd be a loser and live on the street, asking people for change, and going "GOD BLESS!" whenever someone gives you that nickel (or quarter, if you're lucky).

But of course, that wouldn't make an interesting movie. Instead, the movie focuses on how you can be better than your best -- through taking a drug that lets you access all of your brain, making you an enhanced version of yourself (or to put it in nerdier terms, it makes you go Super Saiyan).

In the start of Limitless, we are joined by Eddie Morra (Bradley Cooper), in a scene that looks like he's about to jump off a building into his death. Before we see whether he died from the fall, however, the film flashes back to the time before it all started -- when Eddie was just a normal human being. The pre-drugged-up Eddie was the epitome of a loser: he was a writer who can't seem to get away from writer's block; he was overdue on rent for his tiny apartment in Chinatown; and to top things off his girlfriend dumps him after she's been promoted to an editor. Just as when it seemed Eddie's life has hit rock bottom, an old acquaintance of his gives him a pill -- a miracle "FDA approved" (or so the acquaintance claims) drug called NZT that allows Eddie to tap into the previously unused part of his brain and allows him to be the perfect human being. The effect of the first pill soon wears off, and like any drug addict, Eddie's solution is to take more NZT, even increasing the dosage for a better effect.

Eddie's life soon turns around. His girlfriend wants him back, he finishes his book, and he becomes a genius investor who makes Warren Buffet seem like a novice as he goes from ragtag to riches almost overnight. So now that he has the power to whatever he wanted, he does what any man with a lot of power does: try to get more power. And this 21st century, power means sleeping with women, ripping off Wall Street giants, and pissing off some very dangerous people.

A.O. Scott has already made the comparison between NZT and Adderall and how being smarter doesn't mean being a better person, so I'll refrain from boring you by repeating what he already said. However, I also thought that NZT symbolized drugs and alcohol abuse. Though the latter two substances aren't performance enhancing in any way, it's not a stretch to compare Eddie's behavior with that of a stressed out high school/college student undergoing a lot of pressure. As a (many would call lame) person who has never touched any form of drug at all, I can't comment too much on this aspect, but word on the street is that drug addictions begin by starting from something simple, thinking "gee, how much more can my life suck?" Such was the attitude when Eddie swallowed his first pill, but before he knew it, he was addicted his enhanced self, and was willing to do anything to for another dose of NZT. Oh and there's a small problem if he stops taking it abruptly: he dies.

Don't get me wrong though, the movie makes no effort to preach to the audience the dangers of drug use. In fact, the ending sends a bit of a mixed message. But that was fine with me, as it was rated PG-13, so if you didn't know that drugs are bad for you before watching it, then you probably won't get very far in life anyway. Overall, the movie was pretty fast paced, exciting, and had enough twists to keep my attention for its duration of 1 hour 45 minutes. In other words, if you're bored and looking for some entertainment, Limitless would not be a bad choice. However, it lacks the deeper philosophical message of The Adjustment Bureau (reviewed here) nor the exciting action sequences of Battle: Los Angeles (reviewed here), so I would recommend it, but cautiously. It was good, but not that great, just... MEHHH.

Call of Duty: Defying the Critics

2011-03-13T22:58:00.012-04:00

--reviewed by Jay

What do Street Fighter, Tomb Raider, and the last installment of Resident Evil have in common? The answer, they are all movies based on popular video game franchises, and they are hated by nearly all critics, garnering 16%, 19% and 25% ratings respectively on Rotten Tomatoes. These three catastrophes are not the exception but part of the rule, for the reactions to big screen adaptations of video games have been so overwhelmingly bad that one can almost hear the collective groan of audiences and critics alike when the trailer for the next inevitable attempt flashes across the screen.

Sure Battle: Los Angeles is not officially based on any video game, but just from its trailer and various clips shown around the web, it wouldn't be much of a stretch to imagine the words Call of Duty floating in front of the title. So perhaps no one should be surprised when critics united in lambasting Battle: Los Angeles (33% on Rotten Tomatoes). However, it would be a mistake to take these reviews at face value; their categorical condemnation of the film reveal more about the intellectual laziness and arrogant self-righteousness of their authors than the film’s actual merits.

In my attempt to write a compelling review, I thought it would be interesting to deconstruct the arguments of notable critics who loathed Battle: Los Angeles so much. The first adversary that came to mind was New York Times critic A.O. Scott. Extremely knowledgeable and always well grounded, I thought rebutting his criticisms would make for a lively debate. Imagine my disappointment then when "Right then, as it lurches from Act II to Act III, Battle: Los Angeles reveals itself to be a lousy movie…" came to be the most substantive sentence in his entire piece. No matter, on to the next target.

After a few more minutes of searching, I came across Roger Ebert’s half star "F You" to the movie (maybe he needed more material for the next edition of his book, Your Movie Sucks). The usually reasonable Ebert sounded especially shrill and petulant here, like a bratty toddler who didn’t have his milk heated to the perfect temperature, so forgive me if I occasionally overstep the bounds of polite conversation.

Ebert: Meteors fall to Earth near the coasts of the world's major cities. They contain alien troops, which march up from the beach with their weapons of war and attack mankind. No reason is given for this, although it's mentioned they may want our water.

Me: I believe you answered your own question – they came for our water. Even if no reason is ever offered does it really matter? Does any alien invasion movie/book include an extended exposition detailing the reasons for attacking earth? Did Star Wars ever give a reason for why the rebels are fighting the Empire other than the rebels are good and the Empire is evil? The movie is not called Battle Plan: Inside the Alien War Room, it’s called Battle: Los Angeles. If you are looking for in-depth psychoanalysis of alien personality, I suggest you play Starcraft.

Ebert: The aliens are hilarious. They seem to be animal/machine hybrids with automatic weapons growing from their arms, which must make it hard to change the baby. As the Marines use their combat knives to carve into the aliens, they find one layer after another of icky gelatinous pus-filled goo.

Me: I’m sorry, I forgot you had a Phd in extra terrestrial physiology. The director should have hired you as a consultant in order to ensure the aliens look and feel more realistic. Perhaps they should have also included some shots of aliens giving birth and breast-feeding their young in order to satisfy your need for anatomical correctness.

Ebert: (Referring to the editing style) In a mess like this, the frame is filled with flashes and explosions and shots so brief that nothing makes sense. When I think of the elegant construction of something like "Gunfight at the OK Corral", I want to rend the hair from my head and weep bitter tears of despair. Generations of filmmakers devoted their lives to perfecting techniques that a director like Jonathan Liebesman is either ignorant of, or indifferent to.

Me: I believe the editing style is deliberately chaotic in order to emphasize the frantic pace and confusion of a firefight. Not to state the obvious, but the ways we fight and film battles have evolved since the days in the old West when opponents faceoff in the open and blast away at each other. As even a novice of first person shooter games (let along a U.S. Marine) knows, concepts such as taking cover, coordinating fire and reloading are crucial to survival and winning the battle. Generations of filmmakers may have indeed devoted their lives to perfecting techniques to emulate the “Gunfight at the OK Corral”, but have you considered that perhaps those techniques may no longer apply, or are at least in need of modification?

Ebert: Young men: If you attend this crap with friends who admire it, tactfully inform them they are idiots. Young women: If your date likes this movie, tell him you've been thinking it over, and you think you should consider spending some time apart.

Me: Why the need to make it personal? Should I close my review by calling you a washed-up has-been who’s mad because you can no longer identify, understand or keep pace with not only changes in popular culture but also innovations in cinema? In the words of Thoreau, "How vain it is to sit down to write when you have not stood up to live".

Alas I will not end on such a sour note. I respect Roger Ebert’s opinion and judgment a great deal. I do not believe Battle: Los Angeles is a perfect movie; it is not. In fact it is filled with more flaws than achievements. Like Ebert and many other critics point out, this movie has boilerplate dialogue and a clichéd plot. The characters are types and eminently forgettable; by the end, I barely remembered the name of Aaron Eckhart’s character. But it was not devoid of merits. Contrary to what critics claim, it is technically proficient. The frequent use of shaky-cam and extreme close-ups (modeled after District 9) on individual Marines work to not only maintain the movie’s frenetic pace, but also highlight the extreme danger and isolation that each soldier must endure. In this (what I imagine to be very realistic) context, there is no time to think, let along spill out long uninterrupted lines on existential philosophy. Thus, even though the dialogue was (very) below par, it was neither frequent nor central enough to become too distracting. Also to its credit, the movie’s patriotism was understated and never strident or in-your-face (no "America, FUCK YEAH!" unfortunately); the approach of the Marines and filmmakers was pragmatic, businesslike, not melodramatic and contrived. In the end, Battle: Los Angeles is exactly what its trailer and posters try to sell you on, a badass action movie about Marines fighting aliens from space. Who knows, you might even pick up some tips in time for Modern Warfare 3.

Rating: RECOMMENDED

Additional note from X: Jay pretty much said all I wanted to say, that this is a movie for people who want to have some fun. Therefore, I am very glad that the producers made this movie, because if you were disappointed by Transformers 2 like I was (i.e. you loved the original Transformers movie and hoped the sequel would be equally as good), then this movie is definitely what Transformers 2 should've been. In fact, Michael Bay should be very scared, because Battle: Los Angeles definitely showed Michael Bay how to make an alien invasion war movie, and if I were Spielberg, I'd be sitting there thinking "damn it, I really should've hired Jonathan Liebesman to direct the Transformers series instead!"

How far would you go to be with the love of your life?

2011-03-06T00:21:00.013-05:00

Three weeks ago, I saw a Chinese movie directed by Zhang Yimou by the name of Under the Hawthorn Tree about two young adults who fell in love at a time when the society looked down upon dating so early. The two lovers carried their affairs in secret, but when the girl's mother found out about affairs, she (the mother) told her that if he really loved her, he would keep his distance from her. Like a good Asian boy he complies. This compliance is meant to convey his true love for her, that despite wanting nothing else to be with her, he was willing to sacrifice it for the good of his lover.

Like Under the Hawthorn Tree, The Adjustment Bureau, written and directed by George Nolfi based on a short story by the name of "Adjustment Team" by Philip K. Dick, is also about how much one would be willing to sacrifice in the name of love. Matt Damon plays David Norris, a young, ambitious, idealistic Congressman seeking election for a seat in the Senate. However, upon a short encounter with Elise (Emily Blunt), when they share a brief but meaningful kiss, David realizes his true love lies with Elise, not at the hands of registered voters of New York City. The adjustment bureau quickly notices the spark, and was determined to separate the two lovers because according to "the plan", their love was never meant to be. Unlike the male protagonist in Under the Hawthorn Tree, David refuses to back down, and fights against his fate to be with the one he loves.

In other words, if Under the Hawthorn Tree is a Chinese version of Shakespeare's classic masterpiece Romeo and Juliet, taking place under the Cultural Revolution when Chinese people were overly naive, I believe that The Adjustment Bureau is a modern day version of Romeo and Juliet, taking place at a time when most of us believe in free will as opposed to fate.

In my opinion, although Under the Hawthorn Tree was very emotionally moving, The Adjustment Bureau is the better movie, because it sends an additional message: don't be afraid to go after what you want. Even if it means going against the will of a powerful, if not divine being. The movie makes it no secret that "the chairman" is a symbolism for God, and the people of the adjustment bureau are His angels ("we've been called that [angels]", says Harry Mitchell, a member of the adjustment bureau in one scene). However, in the film, even God is not all powerful, as He only has limited enforcers in the adjustment bureau, so if a nuclear warfare were to break out, even He could not prevent the catastrophe that would follow.

The film also makes a strong case that free will does take its toll. As Thomson, another adjustment bureau member reminds us in another scene, that although "the chairman" has blessed us with the gifts of intellect and reason, it was those same gifts that caused the world to be on the brink of destruction during the Cuban missile crisis. To add additional pressure for David to keep away from Elise, Thomson informs David that if he chooses to be with her, not only will it ruin his dream, but will also ruin her dream (she is fated to be a famous dancer, and then a famous choreographer). As if to add insult to injury, Thomson flexes his muscle, causing Elise to sprain her ankle, then telling David that he is the one to blame for her injury.

After a few twists and turns, the film reaches its climax with a showdown between David and the Thomson, which was very exciting and kept me on the edge of my seat (as did all other parts of the movie), I have to admit that the resolution was a bit of a cop out (I won't ruin it for you). In fact, if the movie had a resolution that was as epic as the rest of the storyline, I would not hesitate to give it a MUST SEE rating. Unfortunately, the ending did disappoint me a great deal, so as it stands, I'm giving it a solid RECOMMENDED.

As a final note, I would like to say that you were planning on watching this movie at all, you almost certainly should see it in the theater. Director George Nolfi (FYI, this is his first movie as director) incorporates beautiful cinematography, as well as great sound mixing (or is it sound editing? I'm not sure). I especially loved the clicking noise of the dressing shoes of Thomson and his enforcers against the tile floor as they chase down David to set him on his "correct" path. The noise was complimented by their perfect formation, as they all send a clear message: we are the ones in charge, and we WILL hunt you down.

If you are a believer of choice and free will, then CHOOSE to go see the movie; I think it's definitely worth the time and money.

SeaOfScenes rating: RECOMMENDED

*EDIT* The author of the short story "Adjustment Team" was previous misspelled. It has now been corrected.

Thoughts on results of Oscars 2011

2011-02-27T23:45:00.004-05:00

A quick disclaimer before you read the rest: this is only the 2nd Oscars show that I've watched (the first being last year's), so my knowledge is extremely limited. Please feel free to disagree and educate me.

Compared to last year's academy award, I have to say this one was less suspenseful. Whereas last year's Oscars had a ex-husband vs ex-wife showdown at the end (James Cameron vs Kathryn Bigelow), the winner of this year's Best Picture, The King's Speech, was very much expected. The same could be said for the other 2 major awards, best actor and best actress, where Colin Firth and Natalie Portman were very much favored to win.

But that didn't make this year's academy award any less enjoyable. I felt that the hosts James Franco and Anne Hathaway brought much more life and energy to the show than last year's hosts, Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin. For one thing, having two good looking young actors was much more pleasing to the eye than having two old people. But more importantly, I had the feeling that Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Martin were trying a bit too hard trying to be funny, whereas Mr. Franco and Ms. Hathaway had good chemistry together, seemed much more natural with their jokes.

One huge complaint though, was that the show lasted for almost 3 hours including commercials. I blame this on the excessive amount of categories present, most of which I couldn't care less about. For example, there are two categories for music, original score and original song; two categories for sound, sound mixing and sound editing (what the hell is the difference anyway? seriously, can someone please explain); two categories for something "visual", best visual effect and best cinematography (again, would someone please take time to explain in the comment what the difference is). Then of course there's best costume and best makeup, which, sorry if I'm being insensitive, but I don't give a rat's arse about those two categories.

I do like, however, that because of all these minor categories, my favorite movie was able to take home 4 oscars: best cinematography, best sound mixing, best sound editing, and best visual effects (I'll leave you to guess what the movie is). But still, the presence of all these minor awards just made the show a overly long, and had me falling asleep wondering when they were finally gonna give the Best Picture award to The King's Speech and end the show.

If only everything in the world came with a hall pass...

2011-02-26T01:58:00.017-05:00

Movie: Hall Pass
SeaOfScenes Rating: FUCK YOU!!!!

Let's face it, in today's society, there are much too many bad movies out there. But just because a movie is bad, objectively speaking, doesn't mean one can't enjoy it. In fact, I like to categorize bad movies into 3 categories. The first ones are the movies that I objectively know is bad, but enjoy anyway because I had so much fun watching it. The best examples I can think of are Transformers (the 1st one, not the sequel), G.I. Joe: Rise of the Cobra, and Ninja Assassin. Although critics hated those movies, I had a lot of fun watching them, and I'd watch them again when I'm bored. The second category consists of movies that are so bad to the point that they are almost good, and I end up having a good time by laughing at how bad the movie was. The best example I can think of is M. Night Shyamalan's latest joke of a movie, The Last Airbender, in which everything was done so poorly that it was almost as if Mr. Shyamalan was trying make a comedy, much likes Team America: World Police, just to point out how poorly made some movies are. Then there is the third category, which consists of movies that just shouldn't have been made in the first place. These movies just piss me off while I'm watching them, and make me feel like I have wasted a few hours of my life that I will never get back.

Hall Pass is a prime example of a movie in the third category.

The storyline of the movie follows two married, middle-aged men, Rick (Owen Wilson) and Fred (Jason Sudeikis) who are given a "hall pass" from their wives to do whatever they want for a week, which includes having sex with other women. In other words, the movie is just another version of last summer's comedy hit The Hangover, about the stupidity of adult men. The difference however, is that the two men in Hall Pass, unlike those in The Hangover, are married with children. Therefore, while I can have a great laugh at the stupidity of grown men engaging in self destructive, inappropriate activities of 4 single men still in their youth, I find it extremely difficult when the joke is on two men with young children, who will inevitably look at their fathers as role models, engaging in similarly destructive and inappropriate activities.

Fans of the movie will undoubtedly argue that I missed the point of the movie, because at the end, the two men realized how stupid they were being, and went back to their wives and children. Perhaps they have a point, but I would argue that the point of movie was less in how the two men realized that their families were the most important things in the lives, and more about using the hall pass that the two men got as an excuse to make extremely inappropriate sexual jokes.

For example, in one scene, Rick gets stuck in a public bathtub, and two completely nude men enter the scene to help him. I'm usually fine with nudity, but the camera then chooses to focus entirely on the penis, filling the entire screen with the image of the male genitalia. Fans of the movie can once again argue that I am being homophobic, that if the focus were on a pair of boobs, I would find it awesome and gawk at it until I start drooling. My counterargument: I would not gawk at it even if the focus were on a pair of boobs (which are shown in a later scene), and even if I did, filling the screen with a pair of boobs would not make it a good movie. There exists an entire genre for these kind of scenes; it's called pornography.

The lines in the movie were equally as mindless and offensive. If movies like Borat are meant to test the limits of how much the average American can withstand offensive behaviors of a foreigner, movies like Hall Pass are meant to test the limits of how much the audience can withstand mindless and offensive jokes. Although there were some funny lines in the movie that gave me a chuckle here and there, those lines were quickly forgotten as they were surrounded by garbage ones such as a group of guys asking each other "which one would you choose, making out with a guy or having a guy blow you?" followed by "hmmm that's a tough one, how long would I have to make out with the guy?"

It's too bad that in real life, we don't get hall passes for anything besides letting us use the restroom without getting into trouble in elementary school. I, for one, would really love a hall pass to be able to swing my fist at producers of the movie for making a movie that wasted a little over 1.5 hours of my life.

I watched the movie for free (legally), but if I could go into the past and be given the choice, I would pay the full price of $13 NOT to watch this movie.

9/11 heroes and love story during the Cultural Revolution

2011-02-13T19:57:00.009-05:00

This weekend, I had the pleasure watching two great movies: United 93 and Under the Hawthorn Tree. The former is a Paul Greengrass movie about the events that took place in 9/11, with its main focus on the plane that fell in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, while the second was a Chinese movie, directed by Zhang Yimou, that tells a simple love story that unfolded during the Chinese Cultural Revolution.

Though each was good enough merit its own entry, I will write both in one setting for the interest of saving time and making sure both movies get reviewed. I will start with "United 93" just because I saw that movie first, so scroll down if you're only interested in "Under the Hawthorn Tree."

United 93

As a resident of New York City, the first thing that comes to my mind when hearing the words "9/11" is the Twin Towers going down. I remember I was in 8th grade, and an announcement came from the principal saying "something tragic" has happened. All the teachers put down their usual lesson plans (except my math teacher, who continued the lesson as if nothing happened) to talk about what happened. My dad picked me up after school, and reality finally hit me when I saw the smokes when I turned the news on.

So when I first saw the trailer about "United 93" a few years ago, my first thoughts were "Is Hollywood so evil that they've gone to the point of cashing in on the terrible tragedy that killed thousands of innocent civilians?" That could not be further from the truth, as the movie focused less on the three planes that hit their targets (both Twin Towers and the Pentagon), and more so on the one that fell in Pennsylvania, of how the civilians on that plane took a stand against the terrorists. The point of the movie could not be any clearer -- you don't need to be the Man of Steel to be a hero, you just need to show courage in the face of danger.

Instead of taking the usual tragic movie approach of focusing on the planes that hit their targets, "United 93" uses those planes mainly as a means of setting up the mood of the story -- something horrible is happening. We never see how those three planes were hijacked; Paul Greengrass instead focuses the first part of the movie on the control center during the first three hijacking. In my opinion, this was a very smart move on Greengrass's part. By focusing the attention on what went on in air control, the movie successfully portrayed the surprise on everyone's face when first two planes were hijacked. Imagine you're going through your ordinary day, getting your coffee, trying to clear up air traffic, when all of the sudden, you hear "possible hijacking on United 11" and then "United 11 just disappeared... it was over New York City, but it just disappeared, and Air Control New York did not report any planes landing."

Again, a simple message: it's easy to point fingers at other people for letting the terrorists destroy the second tower even after the first tower went down, but when you see what actually went on, it's more complicated than "hey you didn't do your job well."

The movie then quickly picks up its pace after the attacks on the two towers, focusing more on the plane that is the title of the movie. Paul Greengrass shows everything from the erroneously belief of the terrorists that they were doing this in the name of God, to the horrified looks on the passengers' faces when the terrorists started stabbing people, to the climax when some passengers realized this wasn't just another hijacking, that their country was under attack, and decided to fight back. Although the action resembled none of the ones seen in the Bourne trilogy (of which the 2nd and the 3rd installment was also directed by Paul Greengrass), the action was not any less dramatic. If anything, when the passengers of United 93 fought back, it was more dramatic than the mentioned action movies, as I couldn't help but cheer for the heroes who stood up for courageously in the hopes of preventing a catastrophe.

Because of its great portrayal of a historic event, I believe that this movie deserved a MUST SEE rating. Greengrass's "shaky cam" worked very well for the film, as it gave the movie a more realistic, documentary-like feel, and didn't make me feel dizzy at all. Good work, Mr. Greengrass!

Under the Hawthorn Tree

Whereas "United 93" was an extremely intense movie about a tragedy, "Under the Hawthorn Tree" <<山楂树之恋>> was an extremely simple movie about the love of a young man and a woman that took place under the Cultural Revolution. Based on a book of the same title, the movie is directed by none of than Zhang Yimou, who are known (in my books) for overly complicated storylines that make no sense with a lot of CGI to make things look really pretty but once again, making no sense.

Okay, that was slightly biased, to say the least. But after seeing House of the Flying Daggers <<十面埋伏>>, I could not dissociated that atrocious movie from its director. You can argue with me all you want, but I will always consider "House of the Flying Daggers" to be on my list of "worst movies ever seen" list.

Now that I've finished bad-mouthing Zhang Yimou, I should point out that Zhang Yimou did directed some extremely good movies too (my favorite was To Live <<活着>>). He was also the one who directed the opening and finishing ceremony of the 2008 Olympics in Beijing.

This movie was one of the good one that Zhang Yimou made. Being famous of his poetic cinematography, Zhang Yimou definitely shows his mastery in that art. The young lovers have their first spark at a village that's known for its hawthorn tree that is part of the title. The film then uses a lot of flash forwards, linking them together with words like "3 years passed, and the two did not see each other."

The film, in my opinion, is a remake of Romeo and Juliet set during the Chinese Cultural Revolution. Although their love was strong, it had to be hindered because dating under the age of 25 was looked down upon, and she was too naive to know what was good for her (she once got mad at him, believing he made her pregnant just from sharing a bed together WITHOUT intercourse).

Unfortunately, there isn't much more I can write on how good the film is. The beauty of the movie lies in its simplicity, and my limited writing ability just can't give it justice. So I'll just leave you with this -- I am neither a fan of Zhang Yimou nor the romance genre, but this movie left me almost teary eyed at the end. In fact, the only reason I'm not giving it a MUST SEE rating is that I feel the movie is a bit too cliche, and although Zhang Yimou clearly shows his mastery in cinematography through this film, it lacks creativity.

"Under the Hawthorn Tree" is a solid movie to be RECOMMENDED. If you watched it and weren't moved by it, either you're not Asian (it is hard to understand for non-Asians due to cultural differences, I'm not being a racist), too white washed, or lack a soul.

*EDIT* I am not saying there is anything wrong with being non-Asian or white washed. There are a lot of great western movies that Asians will never understand simply because of the difference in culture. I wish this edit would clear up any misunderstanding -- again, there is NOTHING WRONG with being non-Asian or white-washed.

First a Transporter, Now a Mechanic

2011-01-30T09:41:00.008-05:00

When I first saw the trailer for The Mechanic, the first thing that came to mind was, "great, another Transporter movie." Accordingly, I went into the theaters expecting to see another mindless action film with lots of explosion, forgettable storyline, and extremely corny dialogue.

I was actually in for quite a pleasant surprise.

Don't get me wrong, the movie is mainly an action flick, and its story does fall into the predictable category. In fact, I'll break it down right now:

1. There's this guy Arthur Bishop (not that his name matters), who's really good at killing people. I mean, not just good. REALLY GOOD. To emphanize, the movie starts off with Bishop smoothly taking out a leader of a drug cartel.
2. This guy is forced by the people he work for to do something he doesn't want to do. But being a professional killer, he still begrudgingly does it anyway.
3. He finds out he was betrayed by the people he worked for, gets pissed, and kills everyone. How can he do this? Because, as we saw before, he is the best. They got other professionals to kill him? Doesn't matter, he's just the best, so he never gets caught by surprise, and the most injury he sustains fighting the second best is a punch in the face (by this time, you're supposed to go "WOAH, HE IS GOOOOOOD", in bold, capital letters, with special emphasis on the word good).

So what makes me like this movie much better than the Transporter trilogy? For one, the dialogues in this movie are actually fairly good, for an action movie, that is. The movie spends a good amount of time in the first 30 mins or so on developing the relationship between Bishop and his new apprentice. For another, the ending was, dare I say, quite unexpected. I did see the general picture coming, but the details were different enough to make me sit up on my seat and go "wow...." when it happened.

Overall, I have to say I enjoyed the movie, though most if it was probably due to my low expectations. But if you're into action flicks, and you got some time to kill, watching this movie is not a bad idea. That is, provided you've seen all the better ones, such as Taken and Casino Royale (I won't even bring Batman Begins and Dark Knight into this, those movies are just on a much higher level). That's just my way of cautiously recommending this movie.

14 year old girl goes on quite the adventure

2011-01-09T22:54:00.006-05:00

Yes, it's truly been a long time since this blog has been updated. While we can always use the "not enough time" excuse, but, at least in my case, the real problem is that I've been too lazy to write stuff. Anyway, I just watched True Grit with a few friends, so I'll try to write a short review of it. Disclaimer: it's 12am and I gotta get up at 7:30 tomorrow so I apologize for the hasty writing and lack of research.

True Grit, directed by the Coen Brothers, is a film adaptation of the 1968 novel by Charles Portis, and a remake of the 1969 film, both of the same name. The movie centers on Mattie Ross (played by Hailee Steinfeld), a 14 year old girl seeking revenge for the death of her father. In order to seek revenge, she hires Rooster Cogburn (played by Jeff Bridges), a deputy US marshal, but complications arise when a Texas Ranger, LaBeouf (played by Matt Damon) also goes on pursuit of the same killer, since La Beouf wants to see the killer hanged in Texas for his previous crimes, whereas Mattie wants to see the killer hanged for the murder of her father.

I realize critics have been raving about it, and it has 95% on Rotten Tomatoes, but personally, I found most parts of the movie (more specifically, all the parts before the big showdown which was almost at the end of the movie) pretty dull. My main complaint comes from the Jeff Bridges trying to sound like a tough guy by mumbling all his words, which did make him sound sort of a badass, but it also made me struggle to understand what he was talking about. The heavy accent didn't help either, and I ended up almost falling asleep on certain parts of the movie.

Now, I realize that as an art work, it is very well done, just as the other works that the Coen Brothers have done, such as No Country for Old Men, which won 4 Oscars in 2007, including Best Picture and Best Director. However, as someone who watches movies primarily for entertainment, I felt bored throughout most of the movie, and that's why in my book, this movie isn't anything more than a MEHHH.

Thoughts on this half-season of South Park

2010-04-30T04:30:00.008-04:00

Time flies. It really does. It seems only a few days ago when I posted an entry about the new episodes of South Park, but the half-season is already over.

I'd say this is one of the better half-seasons that we've had. The two-part episode celebrating the 200th episode of South Park was great, as we finally found out the fate of Cartman's father. The episode also made a lot of references to the previous seasons, which made me feel really special for having watched every episode and being a true fan.

Perhaps it is good to have a beautiful mind, but an even greater gift is to discover a beautiful heart

2010-04-26T03:18:00.005-04:00

I just saw A Beautiful Mind, and since I'll probably be going through my buddy list on AIM and telling my friends how I feel about the movie anyway, I might as well just write it here as a blog post.

First of all, I have to say, my judgment of the movie is extremely unfair, because I'm not really into biographical films, and my expectation for the movie was very high since it got 4 Oscars (all won in the important categories, might I add). And yes, the movie is very, very good, and I definitely recommend it. With that being said though, I do have a couple of complaints:

1. The movie takes over an hour to develop. I understand what the Director Ron Howard was trying to accomplish, and watching the young John Nash (Russell Crowe) being his awkward self in graduate school was certainly entertaining, but I had no idea what the movie was about for almost half the duration of the movie. As a result, I found myself quite bored during the first hour.

2. Because the film covered a huge span of time, it had to jump from one time frame to another. In one scene, we would see John Nash as a graduate student in Princeton University, and then all of the sudden, the film would skip to Nash as a professor in MIT. I don't know if it's just me, but I found this pretty confusing, especially since the makeup on Russell Crowe looked exactly the same (this did get better at the end, when the film jumped to Nash's later years his hair was white, and he looked significantly older). The change also made the film seem very sporadic, and I felt that it lacked a sense of continuity.

One thing I was really impressed was Russell Crowe's performance. I've seen him in Gladiator, 3:10 to Yuma, American Gangster, and Body of Lies (fyi: all recommended movies), and none of his characters in the other movies even slightly resembled John Nash. Russell Crowe was a whole different person in A Beautiful Mind. I was surprised to see that he did not win an Oscar for the performance (esp when Jennifer Connelly won Oscar for Best Supporting Actress), but was less surprised when I saw that the 2002 Oscar for Best Actor went to Denzel Washington for his performance in Training Day (I would say Training Day falls into the MUST SEE category). It's too bad, because in my opinion Crowe's performance in this movie was even better than the one in Gladiator, for which he won an Best Actor.

A Beautiful Mind is definitely a great movie, and falls solidly into the RECOMMENDED category (if anything, watch it for Russell Crowe's performance). I just don't think it's one of the best movie I've ever seen.

Twilight girl in an action movie?

2010-04-23T14:32:00.003-04:00

According to the Fandango movie blog, Kristen Stewart will be replacing Angelina Jolie in a sequel to the action movie Wanted. Let's get a few things out of the way:

1. Kristen Stewart is a horrible actress.

2. Wanted was a terrible movie.

3. Wanted 2 will probably be an even worse movie.

Be that as it may, I am curious to see Kristen Stewart in some badass action role, bending bullet and popping heads. Maybe she'll finally break out of her role as the emo, whiny bitch that we've seen her in Adventureland and the Twilight saga.

Don't mess with little girls, there could be just that one girl who'll beat the $h1+ out of you...

2010-04-20T04:16:00.005-04:00

Kick Ass -- RECOMMENDED

"Why aren’t there any real life superheroes?" asks Dave Lizewski (played by Aaron Johnson), an average high school dork who even gets made fun of by his dorky loser friends, to which is friend replies “dude, if anyone tried that in real life they’d get their ass kicked!”

But, as we can expect, Dave tries it anyway, and the first 30 minutes of the movie or so (don’t quote me on this, I did not time it while watching the movie) is almost entirely about how Dave puts on a silly Halloween costume, calling himself "Kick Ass" and gets his ass kicked by bad guys. As Damon Macready, the soon-to-be Big Daddy, puts it, "he should himself ass kick instead!" Sure, it was pretty funny watching an idiot getting beat up, but the jokes were pretty average, and they came at all the expected places. It would’ve been a pretty average movie, if it weren’t for the dynamic duo who comes in to save the day.

Enter Hit Girl (played by Chloe Moretz) and Big Daddy (played by Nicolas Cage).

The highly disturbing father-daughter relationship between the two is one of the best things about the movie. The two are introduced with Damon showing his daughter, Mindy, the soon-to-be Hit Girl, what it feels to be hit a bullet, and he does so by shooting her with a handgun. It sounds really lame when I write it, but trust me, when you see it on the big screen, you’ll see that’s some disturbing $h1+ right there. It’s also really, really, really, really really really funny.

Mindy’s first superhero act as Hit Girl is equally as disturbing, as she violently slashes all the bad guys Kill Bill style, leaving a bloodbath after her act. "I think I’m in love with her dude!" comments one of Dave’s friends. Who can blame him? There is just something to seeing a little girl half your size beating the living crap out of you in the most brutal way possible. And you can’t really be a pedophile for loving that psychopathic 11 year old girl, because she won’t a single problem castrating you the moment you even think about laying a hand on her. Fine, maybe that makes you a masochistic pedophile.

My only complaint was that Hit Girl did not appear sooner in the movie, for it is Hit Girl, not Kick Ass, who makes the movie so enjoyable to watch and worth the $8 I spent on watching it. But fear not, the possibility of a sequel is being talked about. My only request: please make the movie be more about Hit Girl, and less about Mr. Ass, Kick. In fact, just call the sequel Hit Girl, and make her take on the leading role!

His devotion to the mission is real, but the fight scenes are not

2010-03-31T02:50:00.012-04:00

14 Blades -- MEHHH

So.. you've got Donnie Yen, Vicky Zhao, and Sammo Hung (albeit he only has less than 5 minutes of screen time total), in ONE MOVIE!!! Okay, some of you might be asking, “who the hell are they?” If you’re one of those people, then you might not want to see this movie. This Hong Kong movie exists purely because the studio knows that these 3 big name actors together in one movie will have a huge pull at the box office.

The premise of the movie is just as original as any other martial arts movie. It goes something this:

During the late Ming Dynasty, the Chinese imperial court was plagued by corruption as eunuchs usurped state power, taking advantage of the incompetence of the reigning emperor. The Jinyi Wei, the government's secret police, trained in clandestine combat since childhood, was first founded to take orders directly from the emperor, but are now under the control of the eunuch faction. Jia Jingzhong, the chief of the eunuch faction, orders Qinglong (Donnie Yen), the Jinyi Wei chief, to kill the Imperial Councilor Zhao Shenyan and obtain the councilor's safebox.

When Qinglong obtains the safebox, however, he finds that Jingzhong was using him to obtain the Emperor's Seal. Now betrayed and branded a traitor to the government, Qinglong must find evidence to prove his innocence before Jingzhong uses the Emperor's Seal to usurp the power and use it for evil.

So pretty much, the main character's gotta save the world. And unless this is the first time you've watched this kind of movie, you know that while he's at it, he's going to fall in love with some girl, and find that there is more to life than his own mission. I'm sorry if I ruined the plot for you, but one more information can't hurt: the girl he falls in love with is Qiao Hua, played by Vicky Zhao, who left all her fighting skills back in Hua Mulan, as she is a total wimp in this movie (she tries to act tough, but her bark is much louder than her bite).

Other than the cliche storyline and Vicky Zhao's wimpy character, I have 2 big problems with the movie. The first is that the movie takes itself way too seriously. It was too long (almost 2 hours) and had too much dialogue for a simple action flick, but falls vastly short of a sophisticated thriller due to its extremely cheesy dialogue (I swear I could’ve written it when I was in 3rd grade).

My second problem is with the fight scenes -- they were filled with CGI, which did make them visually pleasing, but I felt that the excessive use of CGI took away from the martial arts element of the movie. I blame the casting for this, because even though it was without question that Donnie Yen is a great master of martial arts, there is no one else in the movie who can fight as his level, so to compensate, CGI was used to make the fight scenes look cool.

The last showdown is between Donnie Yen and Kate Tsui, a Miss Hong Kong pageant winner with no experience in martial arts. Her character, Tuotuo, fights by stripping down her clothes so that her enemy slashes at her stripped clothing instead of her. Again, great visual effect, but horrible martial arts.

The movie does, however, offer some kind of entertainment. The sheer ridiculousness of the CGI enhanced fight scenes cracked me up multiple times (a reaction was I felt was actually intended by the director), and I truly enjoyed Donnie Yen’s acting in this movie. Yes, I said acting, not fighting. Donnie’s Yen usual cool demeanor was perfect for Qinglong’s character, a super badass, zero bullshit tolerant agent of the government who knows of no other path other than serving to complete his mission. As a whole, it is a decent movie to watch after you spent 10 hours in lab and just want to eat some Chinese food and enjoy some mindless movie and take your mind off of the deadline of your projects that’s coming up 2 weeks later.

How to Train Your Dragon... and go from Loser to Stud

2010-03-30T03:12:00.008-04:00

How To Train Your Dragon -- RECOMMENDED
by Kevin (guest writer)

As if we didn’t have enough 3D movies already this year with Avatar and Alice in Wonderland, along comes How To Train Your Dragon. For all those expecting an awesome movie filled with unexpected laughter this is your movie. The movie takes you into the world of Hiccup a Viking child who as the name implies always finds a way to screw things up. Yet one night during a dragon attack that all changes when he manages to catch one of the dragons in his trap.

Aside from the cheesy love story line and the misunderstanding between the two sides this movie does great in throwing curveballs in what you would expect from an animated movie. Besides having America Ferrera as Hiccup’s love interest Astrid and Gerard Butler as Hiccup’s rough and tough dad is there a better combo? Aside from the price for borrowing the 3D glasses this movie is worth its price in admission.

On a side note don’t attempt to buy the video game that is tied into this movie. It is often the case that the video game has nothing to do with the movie.

Trailer Blietzkrieg

2010-03-28T23:27:00.001-04:00

Sorry for being completely absent for the past couple of weeks, X and I have been working through our Modern Warfare 2 addiction, and yeah, it's pretty bad; we need help... Anyway here is a whole slew of trailers for you guys to watch:

Predators

This is a reboot of the original Predator classic. It takes place before the one with Arnold, and features an all star cast including Adrien Brody and Laurence Fishburne. I'm not very familiar with the work of director, Nimrod Antal, but from what I've heard, Robert Rodriguez is heavily involved with this project (I think he may be one of the producers). That's definitely a good sign because Rodriguez is acclaimed for his gritty visual style and taut story telling, not to mention he knows how to film kick ass action, which he put on fine display in works such as Sin City, Grindhouse and Once Upon a Time in Mexico. The premise of a bunch of people stuck on an island trying to survive against a dangerous alien species reminded me of the Jurassic Park and the Alien franchises (yes I know those were in space). Should be fun times at the theaters.

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World

It's Michael Cera, enough said. No, just kidding. This is actually a different kind of role for him, although he retains (in some parts) his awkward, I wanna crawl into a hole and die screen presence. Seems like it's along the lines of Kick-Ass, but toned way down. Supposedly it's based on a beloved comic book series that I've never heard of. We'll know more when the full version of the trailer comes out.

Sorcerer's Apprentice

I've been searching all over the world for you, Nicholas Cage's talent, where the fuck have you gone? This is the same guy who won an Oscar for Leaving Las Vegas? Why does he insist on selling out to Disney so he can overact in inane, derivative comic book adventure/conspiracy movies like National Treasure and Ghost Rider... Whatever, this movie looks stupid, you've been warned.

The Last Airbender

I hate this movie on principle. Not only is the lead character not played by an Asian actor, none of the supporting roles have Asian actors either (besides Dev Patel, who's playing the villain). WTF?! If anyone has heard of Noah Ringer, Jackson Rathbone, Nicola Peltz, Cliff Curtis please let me know in the comments. Maybe Hollywood really brought out the stars to fill this cast and I just don't know it. I haven't watched the cartoon it's based on but there seems to be a dedicated fan base, which I'd be interested to hear from. Oh yeah, M. Night Shyamalan, back too soon from his exile, is directing this, joy...

Despicable Me

I laughed maybe 1.5 times while watching this. Also the fact that they needed to release 4 trailers (4!) before I finally understood what this movie is kind of about is not a good sign. Sigh I'm tired of commenting on bad movies, let's move on...

Get Him to the Greek

Looks like the Hangover and Sarah Marshall had sex and gave birth to Jonah Hill. Some funny gags, but please for your safety don't watch more than once.

Animal Kingdom

Winner of 2010 Sundance Film Festival, so pretty impressive pedigree. Looks like a psychological thriller where one guy testifies against and brings down his powerful crime family (takes place in Melbourne, Australia). Free association mode came up with Goodfellas, Arrested Development, Godfather (Part I only) and Sopranos.

Must see trailers!

2010-03-11T14:24:00.004-05:00

Trailers for some of the year's most anticipated blockbuster films were released in the past week. Check them out, I'll lead with my favorite:

Iron Man 2

Is there any reason you wouldn't watch this movie? I think not! I actually liked the tone of the first trailer better, it was funnier and more irreverent. Robert Downey Jr. reprises his role as the fast talking bad boy billionaire/savior of mankind Tony Stark/Iron Man. The trailer does a good job of outlining the plot. Mickey Rourke will play the villain Whiplash, but he seems to be bankrolled by some slick haired, white suitted corporate rival of Tony Stark who wants to build his own army of robot warriors. If you recall, the Afghan warlord who kidnapped Tony in the first movie wanted to do the same thing, but Obadiah Stane eliminated him before he got the chance. Seems like someone had the same idea, and that someone naturally succeeds since that someone is White. Fear not, Iron Man also gets some help in the form of War Machine, who's manned by his buddy Rhodey, no word on what happened to Terrence Howard (actually it was about money, surprise, surprise). Also Scarlett Johansson appears in the movie as Black Widow (I haven't read the comic book so I don't know who that is). Even more exciting, she's got red hair! One more cool thing, the Iron Man suit transforms into a briefcase. Badass!

Repo Men

My initial impression is action movie with an interesting premise and great leads. This movie reminds me of Street Kings, not in terms of plot but in that Forest Whitaker gets to play a ruthless bad guy, aka Denzel in Training Day. That alone makes for some explosive film making. The story gives it a lot of potential, but the director might fall into the trap of taking himself and the work too seriously. As long as Jude Law stays grounded in his performance and the story moves along at a good action-movie pace, then it should be fine.

Tron Legacy

Unfortunately I had a very deprived childhood and didn't see many classic movies until recently. One of the ones I've missed is the original Tron movie. Fans of Chuck (and nerds in general) will surely know of the movie, or at least its title. The trailer seems to suggest it's about this kid searching for his father, who mysteriously disappeared some years ago inside a video game/program. The visuals looks very impressive, and Jeff Bridges stars in the movie, which is a great sign. The suits with the lighted strips running all along the body reminds me of Bane from Batman Beyond and some other famous villains (Minority Report maybe? I can't put my hands on it). Not much else to say really.

Robin Hood

A new collaboration between Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe. Those two obviously know what they're doing since the last time they teamed up Crowe won an Academy Award for Maximus in Gladiator. Scott is of course a legendary director, with works such as Blade Runner, Alien, Gladiator, American Gangster and Thelma and Louise to his credit. He's more Spielberg than Scorsese though, since he has a knack for delivering on action flicks that appeals to the masses as well as the critics. The story seems to focus less on Robin Hood as a kind hearted bandit that robs the rich and helps the poor, and rather more akin to Spartacus, leader of a rebellion/resistance that fights against an oppressive King John to protect their land and rights. Hmm I wonder if it's the same King John that signed the Magna Carta... Oh I almost forgot, the gorgeous Cate Blanchett is here too, starring as Maid Marian. Not really sure what her role is, but I see her in armor so maybe she's a Mulan-esque character? Or maybe she's just like Keira Knightley in King Arthur. You guys can find an HD version of the above trailer here.

New South Park Episode next week!

2010-03-10T18:22:00.004-05:00

Let me be the last to observe that we are currently living in a golden age of satire. While citizens in earlier eras had Walter Cronkite and the "CBS Evening News" to help them navigate contentious and confusing matters of public import, more and more of us seem to rely on Jon Stewart and Comedy Central.

Okay, those weren’t my words. They were words of A.O. Scott in his movie review of Team America: World Police. I’m not even sure I quite agree that we are living in a golden age of satire; I just felt like it was smartass thing to begin this post with. So let’s get down to business.

Season 14 of South Park starts next Wednesday!

I know what some of you are thinking. "God, how the hell can you watch this garbage? Its jokes are so dumb, so perverted, and so vulgar! The fact that this show has been around for 13 years is just astounding." Well, you’re not the only one who’s surprised that the show has lasted so long. In an interview with the NYTimes, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, the creators of South Park, said themselves that "it’s not like we’re going to be doing this when we’re 40." Trey Parker turned 40 in October.

As to the show being vulgar and perverted, no one argues otherwise. But underneath the layer of dumb jokes, the show actually says a lot about the society that we are living in. For example, in Season 13 Episode 12, The F Word, the 4 foul mouthed kids calls the obnoxious Biker Gangs fags, not to mean that the gang members are gay, but to mean that they’re really annoying mofo’s. Of course, that’s not politically correct, it’s disrespectful, etc etc etc…. but don’t tell me you’ve never passed by some really obnoxious people and thought “goddamn it, what a bunch of fags!” South Park just says on cable television what most of you have been thinking.

Now... I forgot where I was going with what I wrote. In fact, to be honest, I don’t think I even had an idea where I was going in the beginning. Oh wait, I remember now:

NEW SOUTH PARK EPISODE NEXT WEDNESDAY! Here's a preview:

TAKE THAT, JAMES CAMERON!

2010-03-08T00:19:00.005-05:00

Well well, what do you know. The best motion picture of the year did NOT go to James Cameron's Avatar. Instead (if you haven't heard already), the Best Motion Picture of the year went to The Hurt Locker. I don't know if I should be happy or sad. Maybe I should begin by making a T-chart.

--I should feel happy because...
Avatar is the big shot, the highest grossing movie of all time, and it's directed by the big shot James Cameron. Knocking off Avatar to let The Hurt Locker win means that the Academy still care more about the art than about the money. Plus Jay thinks Cameron has an ego problem, and after watching Cameron's speech about whether he'd be okay for his ex-wife (Bigelow) to take Best Directing award away from him, I agree with Jay. So letting The Hurt Locker win Best Picture does a good job in teaching Cameron a lesson in humility.

--I should feel sad because...
Once again the Academy has maintained its stand -- action movies do not win Best Picture. As an action movie lover (long live The Dark Knight!!!), this is my biggest beef against the Academy. But I can see how The Hurt Locker was good too, although I can't say I enjoyed Hurt Locker anywhere as much as I did Avatar.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While I'm at the topic, a couple more thoughts about the results of Oscar:

--Best Original Screenplay: Mark Boal for The Hurt Locker
Yes, Hurt Locker was good. But poor, poor Tarantino. He probably had a nice monologue ready for his acceptance speech, but now he won't get a chance to give it.

--Best Adapted Screenplay: Geoffrey Fletcher for Precious
I haven't seen Precious, so I can't judge. But I guess I really should, because District 9 was pretty damn good, especially with its dialogue.

--Best Animated Film: Up
Again, Pixar wins by default. Why do they even have this category if it's just gonna go to Pixar? Up was NOT that good. Talking dogs? One was good enough, do we really need 100 of them? And WTF is up with Carl meeting his childhood hero explorer? Carl is something like 80 years old, shouldn't the explorer be like 100? How does he walk? How can he still be able to hold a sword? I know I'm pretty out of shape, but godddamn, I didn't know I was weaker than an 100 year old man.

Oscar predictions!

2010-03-07T13:39:00.005-05:00

First off, let me start this post by saying FUCK CABLEVISION! For those of you who haven't heard, because Cablevision and ABC were not able to come to an agreement on retransmission fees, over 3 million households in the Tri-State area no longer have their local ABC 7 channel as of 12:01 AM this morning - meaning they won't be able to watch the Oscars tonight! Let me just say I don't give a shit who's right or who's wrong here; these are two multi billion dollar corporations trying to rip each other off and I have sympathy for neither. However, since I have to pay Cablevision over $20 a month just to get my seven basic channels that I can otherwise get free-over-the air with an antenna, the fact that they are taking away one of those channels on one of the most important TV nights of the year is completely and utterly despicable! I had originally planned to live blog the ceremony, but that's obviously no longer possible now. If like me, you're also suffering under Cablevision, you can get live updates on IMDB (also via their Twitter feed) or read a live blog on Deadline Hollywood.

Anyways, enough ranting and procrastinating, here are my closely-guarded picks for who should and who will win the most important awards of the night:

Best Picture
As much as I hate to say it, my favorite movie of 2009, District 9, has absolutely zero chance of winning this award. Neither do 6 other movies - The Blind Side, An Education, Precious, A Serious Man, Up in the Air and Up. I won't go into detail on why these movies have no shot, it ranges from no one saw them to the fact that they were just included to appease the masses. Most people think this is a David versus Goliath story, the $2.5 billion behemoth that is Avatar versus The Hurt Locker, that movie James Cameron's ex-wife made. While those two are certainly the front runners, don't discount the Weinstein brothers sinister and prodigious sway with the Oscar voters, making Inglorious Basterds, a viable Dark Horse candidate. In case anyone thinks I'm exaggerating, you can read up on how Shakespeare in Love stole the award from Saving Private Ryan in 1999. In the end however, I see Avatar taking down Best Picture, much like Titanic before it, since the biggest grossing movie of all time is hard to ignore, and also the movie deserves praise for bringing James Cameron's singular vision to life, as well as pushing the boundaries of film making.

Should win: Avatar
Will win: Avatar

Best Director
I'm picking Kathryn Bigelow to win Best Director. She is only the fourth woman to ever be nominated the award, and would be the first ever to win. She is a wonderful director, responsible for works such as Point Break and K-19, and a pioneer in the action genre that is typically dominated by men. The Hurt Locker was a great film, better than Avatar in my opinion, and should be honored as such. So this compromise of Best Picture to Avatar, Best Director to Bigelow seems like the perfect compromise. Even James Cameron is fine with the arrangement, he "don't really need another one" anyway.

Should win: Kathryn Bigelow
Will win: Kathryn Bigelow

Best Supporting Actor
Christoph Waltz aka the Jew Hunter will win this hands down. This is the least controversial/contentious category of the night. Let's just hope he has an interesting acceptance speech. Moving on.

Should win: Christoph Waltz

Will win: Christoph Waltz

Best Supporting Actress

Mo'Nique has been sweeping up all the awards with her monstrous and horrifying performance as Precious's mother so she enters as the favorite. Prior to this she has been mainly a comedian, so this is undoubtedly her breakthrough role. Let's hope she can keep it up. I love Maggie Gyllenhaal but I haven't seen Crazy Heart so I can't say if she should win. I did really love Vera Farmiga's performance in Up in the Air, even though she won't pose much of a challenge to Mo'Nique. I thought Farmiga was absolutely stunning as the gorgeous, smoldering partner in crime of George Clooney. You can read more about her performance in my review here. The good thing is Mo'Nique has been giving very gracious and funny acceptance speeches, so I'm looking forward to when her name gets called. Oh wait I forgot, Cablevision fucked me over, guess I won't be seeing her after all...

Should win: Mo'Nique
Will win: Mo'Nique

Best Actor:

Should win: Jeff Bridges

Will win: Jeff Bridges

Best Actress:

Should win: Meryl Streep

Will win: Sandra Bullock

Best Writing (Original Screenplay):
Should win: Inglorious Basterds
Will win: Inglorious Basterds

Best Writing (Adapted Screenplay):
Should win: Up in the Air
Will win: Up in the Air

Is it worse to live as a monster, or die as a good man?

2010-03-04T23:14:00.002-05:00

Shutter Island takes place in 1954. It tells the story of Ted Daniels (Leonardo DiCaprio) and Chuck Aule (Mark Ruffalo), two Federal Marshals sent toinvestigate how a patient, Rachel Solando, escaped from her locked room insideAshecliffe mental hospital for the criminally insane.

The trailerdoesn’t reveal much about the story. It leads one to think Shutter Island wouldbe “a trapped in a house with an axe murderer” type of horror movie, i.e. decidedlyun-Scorsese. Indeed Scorsese dedicates much of the first act to establishing anoppressive atmosphere of fear and paranoia, essential elements of the horrorgenre. The drab lighting, constant rain, and cacophonous mixture of thunder andgale more than once made me think of The Wolfman. Soon enough though, Scorseseoutgrows the edifice of horror and enters the terrain of classic detective-noirthat we know and love, while still skillfully maintaining and enriching themoody texture. We find the mysterious disappearance of Rachel Solando is merelya pretext for Teddy’s presence on Shutter Island. Both he and the wardens ofAshecliffe, led by the opaque Dr. Cawley (Ben Kingsley), have something tohide, and Teddy must race to uncover the truth before his secret consumes him.

The moviepossesses many excellent elements. Scorsese masterfully mixes together costumes,lighting and haunting shots of the landscape, both inside and outside ofAshecliffe, to stir up a visceral sense of ever-present danger. In addition,the deliberate pacing helps one empathize with Teddy and digest theincreasingly convoluted plot.

That beingsaid, I did find myself quite annoyed with several aspects of Shutter Island asI watched it:

The openingsequence in which the boat carrying Teddy and Chuck appears out of the fogappeared to be filmed with CGI. The contrast between the boat and actors in theforeground and the back-projected (green-screened) seascape was blatantlyobvious, bordering on farcical. I thought this was a very strange decisionsince it would be both easier and less expensive to simply shoot the scene onan actual boat at sea, and digitally edit in the weather and/or lightingafterwards. This being a Scorsese film, the technical sloppiness was shocking.

I really hada problem with how they used music. The Wagnerian (don’t quote my musicknowledge please) theme score begins as Teddy and Chuck land on Shutter Island, gradually intensifies as theyapproach Ashecliffe, and culminates in a screeching crescendo when they stepinside the asylum and the gates close behind them. I appreciate the music’spurpose in preparing viewers for the film’s ominous and suspenseful tone, aswell as foreshadowing the danger that awaits Teddy, but I thought it wasoverkill and mismatched with the rhythm of the movie. In fact the music left mehanging, waiting impatiently as Scorsese went on a winding and fairly longexposition. This concentration of music at the beginning also created animbalance with the rest of the film, since the remaining soundtrack, aside fromparts during flashback scenes, contained very little non-diegetic sound.

The numberand length of scenes inside Teddy’s mind were puzzling; they disrupted thefilm’s flow. They are useful of course, shedding light on the relationshipTeddy has with his past. His participation in WWII, the liberation of andmassacre at Dachau, his wife, the arsonist who ignited the apartment fire thattook her life, Rachel Solando, and her three children admonishing him for notsaving them in time. One gets the feeling that Teddy wasn’t such a happy maneven before he came to Shutter Island. The past seems to fuel him however,empowering him with purpose even as it torments him. I wish only it didn’t lastso long.

These thingsmade me like the movie less and less as it lumbered towards the climax. By thetime it happened however, I realized I shouldn’t have doubted Scorsese afterall. Although the ultimate secret itself was not unforeseeable, it caused me toreevaluate the experience as a whole.

ShutterIsland is a classic case of the journey being more satisfying than thedestination. Scorsese, aided by a brilliant performance by Leonardo DiCaprio,explores in depth an immensely layered and amorphous character, repeatedlychallenging viewers’ assumptions about reality and narrative perspective, all thewhile weaving together a coherent and gripping narrative that doesn’t get tornapart by his emotional extremes. The film is an excellent example of a detectivemystery. The action is shot almost entirely from an objective point of viewwith restricted narration, which conceals knowledge from the audience and Teddyalike, thereby strengthening the two’s emotional bond on his odyssey. It’s alsoripe with foreshadowing, which encourages repeated viewings in order to catchand savor the smallest details.

This is notto say Shutter Island is without flaws; on the contrary my objections are stillvalid. After some research however, I found them not to be careless mistakesbut rather conscious decisions of style. In a 2007 interview, Scorsese revealedthat he envisioned Shutter Island as a film in the style of Alfred Hitchcock:one auteur’s tribute to another. As such, the CGI sea scene and theoverwhelming opening score are among the elements that Scorsese utilizes inorder to instill and enhance a sense of hyper-unreality, as well as pay homage to Hitchcock.I’ll also refrain from criticizing the storyline (it being either too far-fetchedor too predictable), which seems to be drawing the ire of some critics. It wasadapted from a novel by Dennis Lehane (who also wrote Mystic River), and Ihaven’t read the book. So it seems only one thing remains, the length. Scorsesewas sometimes overindulgent in his tribute, for some scenes felt dragged outand dull. Personally I think shaving off fifteen minutes or so of runtime wouldhave improved the pace around the middle acts and perhaps even intensified theexperience, appeasing those who complained that they were able to see the finaltwist coming.

In summary,this review was my meandering way of saying I RECOMMEND Shutter Island.

If you find yourself liking Shutter Island, or just want to explore the genre, check out the below recommendations:

From a Batman to The Batman, the legend of the Dark Knight lives on…

2010-03-01T05:13:00.006-05:00

I was originally going to write another long review on The Batman, but because some people have been asking me things like “Why won’t Batman just kill the Joker?”

So I’ll wrap up The Batman very quickly, and then present my answer to those questions. Here’s the quick review. It’s pretty much summed up in 1 sentence: I loved The Batman. While it can’t really live up to the original Animated Series (what can?), Gordon starts playing a bigger role starting Season 3, and Batman changes into THE Batman that we all know and love – the lonely vigilante who’s dedicated his life to fighting crime. No matter how desperate the situation might seem, Batman always finds a way to save the day. The villain has telepathy? No worries; Batman knows how to clear his mind (something he learned from the Tibetan monks, according to The Joining: Part 1), so the villain can’t get any reading out of Batman.

One thing that I really commend the series is that it knew exactly when to end. Just as I felt by the end of season 5 that it was running out of creativity and dragging on, it gives a 2 part episode and wraps the series to its conclusion. That was something that lacked even in the Animated Series.

That’s it for The Batman. Now onto the questions.

Q: Why won’t Batman just kill the Joker?

A: Indeed, why doesn’t he? Joker has proven time to time that it will only be a matter of time before he escapes Arkam Asylum, only to return and kill even more people. So why not prevent it? What’s so wrong with killing one person to save more?

Before rushing into a conclusion, let me present you two scenarios. One, there’s a train that’s about to hit 5 people. There’s no way those 5 people can avoid being hi. However, you’re in the position to change the train track. BUT, there’s 1 person on the other track, who’s just as impossible to avoid being hit. Will you change the train track? Most people don’t have too much problem changing the track. At least most of us are willing to forgive the guy who took action and changed the track.

Another scenario: you’re a doctor who has 5 patients needing organ translate. They all need different organs, and you are unable to get any donor, so it seems that the patients are doomed. Then you spot your coworker, a really lazy doctor who just sits there getting paid doing nothing except cheating insurance companies, making all doctors look bad. Your lazy coworker also happens to be an exact match for your 5 patients; so strictly speaking, you can kill your coworker and save the 5 patients! Sure, it’s illegal to kill, but who’s gonna know? Plus you’d be getting rid of a horrible doctor, and saving the lives of 5 people. Would you go ahead and kill your coworker? Most people wouldn’t.

So what makes the first scenario different from the second scenario? The utilitarian philosophy (a philosophy that believes in maximizing the happiness of the society, that the ends always justify the means) would argue that there is no difference, that in both cases, you should take action and save 5 people. On the other end of the spectrum, however, there’s deontology (a philosophy that believes morality of an act based on features intrinsic to the act itself, so the ends never justify the means), which would argue that in both cases taking action would be wrong because you have killed people.

So how does Joker relate to that? In my opinion, the reason Batman refuses to kill the Joker is that he is afraid of the last piece of sanity that he has. Batman tries to take a middle ground between the two schools of thought. He is willing to do anything to get the job done, as long as it doesn’t involve killing people. If he violated that one rule, then where would he stop? If he killed the Joker, what about Two-Face? What about Poison Ivy? What about Mr. Freeze?

You can argue that there’s an optimal point, but being the imperfect species we are, no one person can know for sure what the optimal point is. Only God knows the answer, and having Batman kill the villain would be having him play God. That’s why Batman chooses the optimal point to be the refusal to kill, even though this means having to play cat-and-mouse with the Joker until the day Joker dies (and yes, Joker does die one day, but I won’t give away how that happens).

Amazing homemade films

2010-02-27T20:09:00.002-05:00

Who said Twitter was useless (yes I know) ?! It led me to find these couple of amazing super low budget movies that people made at home on their computers. Power to the people!

Bill Parker's "Star Wars Vs. Star Trek"

I saved the best for last so keep reading after the jump for more!

Fede Alvarez's "Ataque de Panico"

I can't believe this movie was made with only $300! There are so many awesome and complex special effects involved in this piece, including exploding buildings, detailing of the robots (including firing the missles and "transforming" at the end). I would have liked to see the robots trampling on cars or buildings, but I'm just being greedy. The 5,000,000 plus viewers on youtube apparently aren't the only ones impressed. Sam Raimi, director of the Spiderman trilogy, offered the film maker $30 million dollars to produce his own feature length project. Sounds like Alvarez is well on his way to becoming the next James Cameron... or at least Neil Blomkamp, who made (here comes my shameless plug) District 9 - the best movie of 2009!

WHAT?? ARE YOU TELLING ME SANTA CLAUS ISN'T REAL EITHER??

2010-02-27T04:41:00.002-05:00

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

A couple of new trailers UPDATED!

2010-02-25T22:49:00.005-05:00

I don't know about you guys but I love trailers! Here's a couple new ones for promising looking movies -

Nightmare on Elm Street

I haven't seen the original, but based on what I can deduce the story seems pretty solid - a group of people are having similar nightmares of Freddy Krueger killing them when they are asleep. Might sound stupid, but this is actually the most intriguing storyline for a horror film I've seen in a very long time. Regardless, this is undoubtedly the most compelling, interesting and well made trailer I've seen this year.

The Karate Kid

This looks pretty interesting. The fighting looks well choreographed, and it's nice to see Jackie Chan play a serious character that suits his age. Also Jaden Smith certainly has the pedigree and looks pretty charismatic. The story seems to be more of a spiritual/thematic remake than a faithful, by the letter retelling of the original, which I'm totally fine with. A few tongue in cheek remarks though... Can it still be called the Karate Kid if he's learning Kung Fu? Watching the trailer, I thought of Shaolin Soccer, but it seems to take itself too seriously, maybe it's just the super triumphant, Rocky-esque music (I think they reused the sound track from The Last Samurai). Finally, I just want to say I absolutely love that they cast a black Karate Kid (before you guys skewer me for hypocrisy, the original Karate Kid was not Asian). It might be unintentional, but it cuts to the bone of racial bigotry and xenophobia prevalent in the Chinese (Asian) psyche.

How to Train your Dragon

THIS MOVIE LOOKS AWESOME! Ok so it doesn't warrant all caps but it sure looks good. I'm pinning all my hopes on this movie and I really absolutely totally desperately want this movie to be amazing. Why you ask? Because I'm sick of Pixar winning every animation award by default! Yes I'm referring to Up! I liked it fine, but it wasn't that great; and now that it's been nominated for a Best Picture Oscar and a shoo-in to get Pixar yet another bald guy statue for Best Animated Feature, I absolutely despise it... So yes, please Dreamworks, make this work!

A lesson in love... part deux

2010-02-24T20:41:00.007-05:00

Valentine’s Day – MEHHH

reviewed by YanJie (guest writer), CONTAINS SOME SPOILERS

Valentine’s Day is a romantic comedy that follows the tradition of films such as Love Actually and He’s Just Not That Into You by splitting the narrative among several couples/relationships. All the different couples are usually linked in some way and their stories generally share a common theme. For this movie, the dominant theme is about how each character deals with Valentine’s Day. The movie follows the lives of several couples and a few single people as they traverse through the emotional highs and lows of their February 14th.

The mistake that a lot of people are going to make when seeing this movie is that they will be comparing it to Love Actually. Don’t do that because it will only result in your inevitable disappointment. The key to enjoying really bad movies is to go in with really low expectations -– that way, unless the movie is total crap, they are bound to have some redeeming qualities.

The redeeming qualities of this kaleidoscopic rom-com lie in the film’s range of different relationships. I really appreciated that most of these couples are already in a relationship when the movie starts so that I don’t have to sit through two hours of soul mates "discovering each other." Sorry for the extreme cynicism there; it’s just that there are few romantic movies that have completely made me believe in the whole "couple meets, falls in love, encounters an obstacle, makes up, and lives happily ever after" in the span of two hours. So I am somewhat grateful that Valentine’s Day dispenses with all of needless exposition and just plops you right in the middle of a couple at the height of their romance or at the threshold of falling apart. And it is precisely through this ability to forge ahead with the story without any regard for our ignorance of the couple’s history that we catch a true glimpse of real people and real relationship.

So perhaps unsurprisingly, my favorite scenes in the movie are usually the most simple ones –- an old couple exchanging presents on Valentine’s Day or a ditzy neighbor (Taylor Swift) gushing to her neighbor’s mistress (Jennifer Garner) about the awesome gift that her boyfriend got her –- the camera then pan to the gift, a white teddy bear two-third her height and twice her width. And I must admit that as someone who hates Twilight and most Hollywood concoctions for teenagers, I was surprised by how much I enjoyed the two Taylors who play high school sweethearts in this movie. They were wacky, mindless eye candy –- but it is their self-mocking awareness of who they are as cultural icons that made their scenes one of the few funny ones in the movie. My favorite one was when Swift gave Lautner his gift after she received the giant teddy bear,

Lautner: You got me my old T-shirt?
Swift: Yes! But I ironed your favorite number onto the back. *holds up T-shirt and we see a giant 13*
Lautner: 13 is your favorite number.
Swift: You don’t like it?!???!!!!! (looks like she’s on the verge of a diva breakdown).
Lautner: *swift look of panic* No! Of course I do.
Swift: *giant and slightly scary smile* Why don’t you try it on now!
Lautner: *looks around the school yard* I’m not comfortable with taking my shirt off in public.

Unfortunately, these scenes of self-mocking are incredibly rare and by the end, the few slices of humorous and real moments have been swapped aside for a non-stop parade of sickening romantic clichés. Most romance movies screw themselves over at the end when they try to wrap up everything into the perfect happily ever afters even when there is no logical consistency to the plot, character, or relationship development. And this flaw is only magnified exponentially in Valentine’s Day as it tries to give all of its 10+ couples the perfect fairy tale ending even though we probably spent less than 10 minutes on them each. Yet somehow, in the span of 24 hours their time and 24 minutes our time, one character manages to have sex with a hot surgeon, finds out that he’s married, humiliates and exposes him in front of his wife, and still discovers by the end of Valentine’s Day her true love, her best friend, has been in front of her eyes the whole time.

It must be Valentine magic.

Or just really, really bad screenwriting.

Perhaps it’s me but by the end, I was definitely getting nauseous from the phony sweetness of it all –- imagine the ending to the LoTR, Return of the King but with countless couples that you don’t care about instead. But at least you’ll be happy to know that each of them lived happily ever after regardless from the husband who just found out that his wife of 50 years cheated on him to the florist who proposed to his girlfriend and got dumped by her on the same day -– everyone lives happily ever.

So my final recommendation is a high MEHHH to people who can stomach a lot of unrealistic bullshit about the state of love. Although some wonderful work by the two Roberts (Julia & Emma), the two Taylors, and a few other actors does make the sugar hangover slightly more bearable. But for people who want to feel something even if they’re watching a romantic comedy, I would just recommend rewatching Love Actually which has that rare balance of sweetness and heartbreak, realism and romance. It combines good acting with even better screen writing and is a masterpiece collection on the joy and tribulation of love.

Heeeeeere's Johnny!

2010-02-23T22:34:00.007-05:00

Here's the a new official clip of Alice in Wonderland. This one is with Johnny Depp!

Looks interesting, all those lush colors. I just realized I will miss all of this year's exciting summer movie season, huge bummer. At least I will get a chance to see Alice before I leave, hope it doesn't disappoint. I read in an interview that Alice will be the seventh (!) collaboration between Johnny Depp (who plays the Mad Hatter) and director Tim Burton. Hollywood has seen its share of artist-muse (forgive my metaphor, I know actors are artists too) relationships over the years, the most famous being Scorsese and De Niro. Sounds very interesting, I should write something about this...

You can see a lot more clips here on IMDB.

Batman in the 21st century – more action, more gadgets, more villain, more racial diversity

2010-02-21T00:01:00.010-05:00

I must say, when I watched the first episode of The Batman, I did not have much hope for the series. What made Batman great, in my opinion, was the integration between the idealism of a superhero and the grittiness of a vigilante. He has no problem operating outside of the law because being a law abiding citizen (pun intended) would only hinder him from his work. He’s not superman, who flies faster than a speeding bullet at the first sign of trouble, and waves the camera after he saves the day. No, sir! Batman is the kind of superhero who makes his appearance in the middle of night, beats the bodyguards unconscious with his bare hands, and then throws you from a 20-story building just to get some information he needs.

If Superman is the good cop, then Batman is definitely the bad cop.

But you can’t deny that there is an idealist behind the caped crusader. For one, he never kills anyone, even if it means sacrificing his own life. That is not to say that if you jump into a pit of chemicals, he’ll be there to save you. In addition, Batman has been offered many chances to assimilate into an organization that will destroy civilization in the names rebuilding society from scratch. Yes, I’m talking about Ra’s Al Goul (actually pronounced "Reish Al Goul", not "Raz Al Goul"). But he refused each time, because he believed that there is hope for Gotham City. He will dedicate his life to fighting bad guys, but he will not kill them. That’s Batman’s one and only rule, and he has followed it very well.

Now onto The Batman. The bad news is, I just didn’t feel the depth to the series. Instead, it chose to focus on the action, at least the first 2 seasons. But here’s the good news: with the exception of a few episodes, I honestly enjoyed watching The Batman.

Part of the reason that The Batman could not stand up to the depth in The Animated Series was that the producers had something different in mind when creating this series. In the first 2 seasons, Bruce Wayne was only 26 years old, and it was only his 3rd year in cleaning up the city as the Dark Knight. Therefore, as one of the producers said during a commentary, “he [Batman] still relies more on his action than his detective work.” Okay, I can respect that.

And this series certainly knows its place; it know knows that it doesn’t stand up to the greatness of the original animated series, so to make up for that, the series pays a lot of homage to the classic Animated Series. The first episode drew its climatic scene from the first Batman movie directed by Tim Burton in 1989. In another episode, a taxi driver, when seeing how dangerous Gotham City has become due to the super villains, murmurs “I’m moving to Metropolis.” Clearly an homage not only to Superman, but also to the various movies in which Batman and Superman fought bad guys together, such as The Batman/Super movie -- World’s Finest.

The series also changes a lot of the story. For example, they introduce a Chinese cop, Yin¹, who is Batman’s friend in the Law Enforcement (Gordon doesn’t show up until the last episode of season 2). And Clayface is no longer Matt Hagen, the actor-turned-evil, but Ethan Benentt, an old friend of Batman who used to be Yin’s partner before he turned into Clayface (gee, a friend of Bruce Wayne’s who turns in a bad guy… Two-Face, anyone?). The best part is, they show you how this happens too. Yin doesn’t start working with Batman until the 2nd season, and Ethan doesn’t turn into Clayface until near the end of season 1.

The change that really adds something new to Batman is, in my opinion, the series’ attempt to give Oswald Cobblepot (a.k.a. Penguin) a past. The story is simple: before going destitute, the Cobblepots used to be a noble family in Europe. They used to be rich, and they had a butler who turned out to be Grandfather Pennyworth (Alfred’s grandfather), much like the Waynes. But unlike the latter, the Cobblepots were extremely arrogant and believed themselves to be higher on the societal hierarchy than anyone else. If Joker is the evil counterpart of Batman, Oswald Cobblepot is the counterpart of Bruce Wayne, because Bruce Wayne has everything that Oswald wants: money, popularity, the good looks, etc. And hey, this can even explain why Penguin is a mutant -- the result of too much inbreeding!

Okay, now post is dragging on forever, and I don’t want to say everything (then what will I say next week? :P), so I’m going to end by saying this: for Batman fans, this series is highly RECOMMENDED. For non-Batman fans, this can still go somewhere between a low RECOMMENDED to a high MEHHH, depending on how it good/bad it gets in the next 3 seasons.

1. Here I want to add that Yin is an extremely smart cop. GO CHINESE PEOPLE!!!

A sequel that never should've been made

2010-02-20T00:01:00.007-05:00

District 13: Ultimatum -- AVOID AT ALL COST

Sigh. Maybe it's my mistake. After watching the original District 13, I had pretty high hopes for this movie. I was expecting another no brainer, straight up action movie with a plot that's decent enough for my brain to shut down without raising any alarms due to inconsistencies. And most of all, I was expecting to finish the movie thinking "Wow, NICE!!!! It was so dumb, yet I loved every minute of it." But now I realize that I was living in a dream. A dream where sequels are as good as the original. As Jake Sully said in Avatar, we all gotta wake up sometimes. And the reality is, most sequels suck.

I already reviewed the original movie (you can read it here), so I won't repeat myself. But in a nutshell, what I said about the original District 13 was that although it's garbage as an art, the two leads (David Belle and Cyril Raffaelli) performed the stunts so well that it makes for an incredibly entertaining movie. But like all things, the wow-effect wears off. By the time I saw this movie, it was just the same old shit. The fact that the trailer gave away the best part of the action really doesn't help either.

If you haven't seen the original movie and want to waste some time watching an action movie, I highly recommend you watch the original one. If you have seen the original one... well, I still say watch the original one again because this one is just an inferior movie. If you watched the original one and are dying to see the sequel, just stream it on netflix or something. It is NOT worth $12.50 for see the sequel.

this is so cool...

2010-02-19T13:34:00.005-05:00

YanJie will probably kill me for posting something over her review in less than 24 hours, but I couldn't resist. But I'll make it short.

Check this out: http://us.akinator.com

You guess a character (real or fictional). It'll ask you a series of questions and will try guess the character you're thinking of. They got Batman in 1 try and Christopher Nolan in 2 tries.

*EDIT* Even after 60 questions, the website wasn't able to get Bruce Wayne. HA I WIN!!!

A lesson in love... part un

2010-02-18T15:05:00.009-05:00

Hey guys, I am YanJie, a friend of X and Jay’s and a guest-reviewer for When in Rome and Valentine’s Day. Not that I blame them since romantic comedies as a film genre usually fall along the line of super-sweet treats with tons of empty calories that tend to give you a sugar hangover afterwards. But as a girl who eats tons of sweets and started reading romance novels when she was in the 6th grade, I don’t really mind that much.

Even though it often doesn’t seem like it, there is a fine art to creating good romantic comedies and the secret lies in the relatability of the two main characters of the film. One of the major differences between rom-com and other genres of films is that romance HAS to be character driven whereas in action movies, fantasies or dramas, it’s the plot that propels the movie forward. After all, do you really remember any character development in Transformers or were you too distracted by Megan Fox’s boobs and the nonstop robot fighting to care?

That’s fine for Transformers since the main point of the movie is to defeat evil robots, and you only need really awesome robots, not believable characters, for that movie to work. But for a movie whose main purpose is to chronicle the relationship of two people to succeed, the audience has to either (1) like the two main characters or (2) believe that they like each other. If the romance film that you’re watching cannot accomplish either, then there is really no purpose for its existence. Ok, so let’s use that framework to judge the next two movies.

When in Rome – AVOID AT ALL COST

Let me just start by saying that Kristen Bell is one of my favorite actresses of all time. In fact, I probably have a way too obsessive girl crush on her (long live Veronica Mars!!!!!). But not even the presence of the luminous Bell can save this movie from being an absolute train wreck.

The movie starts with the introduction of Beth, a career-driven museum curator played by Kristen Bell. Beth must leave NY for a weekend to go to Rome for her sister’s wedding. There, she meets Nick (Josh Duhamel), the best man whom she becomes attracted to and banters/flirts with throughout the wedding. Later, after a lot of champagne and a classic case of romantic misunderstanding, she climbs into a fountain in a bout of bitterness, and picks up 5 wishing coins. Little does she know that her drunken act would cause the owners of those coins (a magician who sneaks into a Beth’s apartment and wraps himself up like a mummy to hang down from her ceiling, a model who believes a way to a woman’s heart is through his "sick" six-pack, an artist who won’t stop painting nude murals of Beth all over NYC buildings, and lastly a 5 foot tall sausage tycoon) to magically fall in love with her, and manically pursue her from Italy to New York.

As a result, Kristen Bell spends more than half of the movie running away from these crazy people. And every once in a while, a 5th guy would pop up and I would go "huh, who’s that? Oh! That’s Nick, the other lead of this movie that Beth is supposed to be falling in love with." As if having four psycho stalkers is not enough of a plot twist, the directors have to throw another one in there – "let’s make Beth think that the fifth coin belongs to Nick and he might only be in love with her because she picked up his coin."

So with half of the movie resembling scenes from an episode of Prison Break, and the other half with Beth pushing Nick away because she doesn’t think he’s really in love with her, you might wonder when does the couple ever have time to fall in love with each other. And the answer is they don’t. The producers want you to think they do, which is why they put in this one scene where they’re in the Guggenheim and Beth is suddenly opening up and telling Nick that the reason she is so afraid to let him into her heart is because every time she does, she always ends up getting hurt. Meanwhile, I flashed back to being in fifth grade and writing fanfiction for Sailor Moon and coming up with better dialogue than that.

In the end, I felt no connection to the two main characters since the producers spent the entire movie making Beth and Nick into tropes of romantic comedies instead of believable human beings. And I believed even less in their "love" for each other. This movie was a giant waste of my time. Do not watch it. If you need regular dosage of Kristen Bell, please go rewatch Veronica Mars.

Editor’s note: YanJie will examine Valentine’s Day in her next post.

Someone want to give me this as a present?

2010-02-18T13:05:00.002-05:00

I usually don't post these weird stuff, because I think it makes the blog look messy and distracts from the main stuff (after, all it's Sea of SCENES, not ads). But I think I need one of these while pulling all nighters.

Coming up next

2010-02-17T01:33:00.003-05:00

Hi guys, just wanted to give you a heads up of what to look forward to in the upcoming weeks:

- I have not forgotten my pledge to discuss films and lessons from film class. So far we have seen The Hurt Locker, Rear Window and Four Little Girls. I'm sure you guys have read/heard plenty about the first one so I'll only touch on it in conjunction with thoughts and predictions about the Oscars. Rear Window, an entertaining and insightful classic, deserves thoughtful analysis, and in fact I've working on an entry for the last week or so. Hopefully I can polish it off and post it in the next day or so.

Keep reading after the jump to find out more of what we have planned, plus an exciting announcement by X.

- Oscar predictions. Most of the important categories are all but decided, taking the suspense out of Oscar night. That is somewhat good news for me however, since it makes my job easier. I still need to watch the last two Best Picture nominees (An Education & A Serious Man) before making my pick for who deserves to win, so expect that next week. In the meantime, enjoy this absolutely fabulous interview with Christoph Waltz, aka the Jew Hunter.

- This one is a little bit shaky. As some of you might have heard, one of the most daring and prolific independent film studios, Miramax, closed its doors last month. The studio was founded in 1979 by Harvey and Bob Weinstein (now perilously close to losing their grips on the Weinstein company) and delivered box office hits con critical darlings such as Pulp Fiction, Shakespeare in Love, The English Patient, Chicago, etc. Truly a sad day for a trailblazing company and independent minded film makers... I had (and still do) hope to write a feature on Miramax, but this requires a lot of research and time, precious commodities these days. Anyway I thought at least you guys should know where I stand on this. PS just want to point out that Miramax was destroyed by Disney...

- Last but certainly not least, sea of scenes is happy to announce a weekly serial feature that X will write on Batman. He has dedicated himself to becoming an expert on Batman lore, and he is now ready to share his wisdom. But I'll let him do the talking...

**********************************************************************************
For those of you who have been regularly checking this blog (thank you!!!), you probably have noticed the lack of activity during the last week. Part of it is that school work has kicked in. But, at least on my side, I have to admit that the fault was my own -- I was too addicted to watching Batman to actually do anything else. That includes, socializing, sleeping, doing school work, and just about anything else. But I’ve watched all 85 episodes of Batman the Animated Series, all 24 episodes of The New Batman Adventures (also known as Batman the Animated Series: Volume 4), and all 52 episodes of Batman Beyond. Yes, it’s been a waste of time, and now I’m wasting more with The Batman (65 episodes total). Now I might as well take a page from our great former president George Bush on the War in Iraq -- when it looks like you put yourself in a shithole, just go and dig yourself deeper. That’s why I’m going to waste more time by writing a review about Batman. And I’m going to try something weird. Beginning this week (until some unspecified time), I’ll post a piece about Batman every Sunday at 12:01AM. So after I finish with all the posts, there will be a series of reviews on Batman, from The Animated Series to The Batman, to the 6 live action movies that have been made (Batman, Batman Returns, Batman Forever, Batman & Robin, Batman Begins, and my favorite movie of all time, The Dark Knight). So… I know this sounds like a TV commercial, but stay tuned! The first review will come on 12:01AM of Feb 21st, 2010, and it will be my 2-cents on the first season (maybe the 2nd, depends on how addicted I get into the series) of The Batman.
**********************************************************************************
Excited yet? Stay tuned. Thanks for your continued support!

An European love affair

2010-02-15T07:00:00.002-05:00

Hi guys, sorry I went MIA this week, but I've been thrown off my routine and struggling to be productive. Hopefully I'll stumble across my work ethic sometime next week. As X mentioned in his un-reviews (without mentioning to me), I went to see From Paris with Love and the Wolfman on Friday night. I was suffering from a sneezing spell at the beginning and missed the first ten minutes of From Paris with Love, and I wasn't feeling too well through most of the night, but I don't think it compromised my ability to enjoy (or unenjoy?) either of these films. Anyway, just to be safe and compensate for my possibly impaired judgment, I decided to be a little lenient and rated them:

From Paris with Love - MEHHH
The Wolfman - RECOMMENDED

This movie started out very strong, and looked poised to join the ranks of over-the-top, adrenaline pumping, action thrill rides with lots of snarky and inappropriate humor mixed in. Alas, like most beautiful things, From Paris with Love looked much better from a distance. It began somewhere near True Lies and fizzled out towards the end to wind up on the level of Wolverine.

There's not much plot in this movie, in fact it worked better when it didn't care much about a story. All you need to know can be determined from the poster you see above. Allow me to spell it out for you in bullet point form:

Who - two secret agents, one by-the-book pretty boy, the other a bald badass with a bazooka
What - they team up to stop some bad guys from doing some bad things
When - present
Where - Paris
Why - because they have extra unused ammo

John Travolta is undoubtedly the better half of this odd couple. From the moment his character steps on screen you can tell every scene he's in will at least have something funny to look at. He literally explodes onto the screen, blinding everyone with his sparkling bald head, ridiculous goatee and an incredible ability to construct long, flowing sentences using only four letter epithets. The sequence in which he instructs a French customs agent on the different grammatical functions of the word "motherfucker" is definitely the highlight of the movie. The character (Charlie Wax) is littered with prototypical rebel action hero tropes exaggerated to the max. Strapped with his trusted pistol, he storms into nests full of baddies with machine guns, escapes without a scratch (although he does need to reload and eventually runs out of ammo), snorts cocaine, has sex with prostitutes, and still manages to find time to crack cheesy one-liners and sneer at his goody two-shoes partner.

The film features some slick gun play. A couple of scenes of Travolta Ramboing through a Chinese restaurant and a garment shop are awesome to watch, reminiscent of John Woo flicks and the heydays of Hong Kong gangster cinema, and a chase scene with Travolta hanging out of the side with a bazooka will have you on the edge of your seat (if only for the amazing driving skills). However, this movie really became quite dull at some points. The love story, although quite central to the plot line, feels completely extraneous, and the Jonathan Rhys Meyers character (Reece) is just plain annoying. It seems as if the film makers decided that three-quarters into the movie that it needed some deeper message about the human condition, thus shifting to focus on Reece's (totally unconvincing) internal conflict about his actions. Instead of continuing its course as a gratuitous but fun action comedy a la the original Rush Hour, the film misguidedly develops a conscious and becomes self conscious. I guess it feels guilty about killing too many Chinese and Pakistani terrorists, compelling it to resort to cliched debates about ends and means, and how violence changes people. Ultimately the film's shortcoming lies in the way it tries to balance the importance and screen time of the two leads. It wants to make Reece Wax's partner when he should have just stayed a sidekick.

Let me begin by saying that the most disappointing aspect of The Wolfman is that this shot is the only time we catch a glimpse of Emily Blunt's cleavage. In fact you can't even see it in the actual movie because it's so dark. But anyway... I know only the most superficial details of the Werewolf/Wolfman legend - some guy turns into a werewolf when there's full moon. This is one of the reasons I decided to give this movie a RECOMMENDED rating. From what I have read, it is a pretty faithful adaptation of the legend, but those of you who know the mythology well can let me know if that's actually true.

The Wolfman absolutely excels at setting the mood of a horror/thriller film. The attention to detail in this film is astounding. Through a mix of ominous lighting, gorgeous and intricate production design of Talbot Hall (the main characters' home) as well as the entire town of Blackmoor, and solemn music, the movie instills in the audience a lasting and pervasive sense of danger and foreboding. The weather - it's always either overcast or raining, setting and timing - most of the movie takes place at night or indoors, costume - the brightest color is the shade of green on Emily Blunt's dress in the poster above, all help to convey the Gothic tone of The Wolfman. That being said, the oppressive atmosphere, along with its two hours plus running length can make it unpleasant to sit through the entire film.

This movie would certainly have benefited from being twenty to twenty-five minutes shorter. As it is right now, too much time and attention is paid to the feel and texture of the film, without really much going on. As I see it there are six major segments, starting from the death of his brother that drags Lawrence Talbot (played by Benicio Del Toro) back to a distant place and father (portrayed by Sir Anthony Hopkins) that he has long sought to leave behind, to his affliction with the curse that turns him into a werewolf and the ensuing conflict, and subsequent confrontation with his past, culminating in the final reconciliation of beast and man. All this can be told in the span of an hour and a half to an hour and forty-five minutes without losing any important character development or plot details, while quickening the film's pace and heightening its suspense.

In terms of what to cut, besides excessive shots of the changing moon, and repeated flashbacks of the same events (I know they show slightly different things, supposedly revealing various layers of Lawrence's childhood, but the technique was unnecessary and ineffective), unfortunately I would have to say the love story between Lawrence and Gwen (played by Emily Blunt) should also be included. The writers criminally underused a vastly talented Emily Blunt, and offers no convincing reasons as to why her character falls in love with Lawrence so soon after her brother's death. Gratitude, or even affection perhaps, but love doesn't seem to be justified under the circumstances. They try to make her more central to the plot later on by using Lawrence and Gwen's tenuous (and dubious) love for each other as an anchor for Lawrence's humanity, and a potential route to his salvation. This attempt however, seems to have been aborted midway and doesn't really have much impact on the ending. Therefore, with the flaws in the love story, as much as I would regret eliminating Emily Blunt, I would have to say her absence would improve the film overall.

Instead, the denouement should come about as the result of an epic three way showdown between Lawrence, his father and inspector Abberline (played by Hugo Weaving). In fact the entire movie should focus on these three men. Benicio Del Toro gives a strong but not extraordinary performance as Lawrence. He delivers his lines well, exuding the sense of someone with a scarred and unresolved past. However, since he is described as a celebrated Shakespearean actor, I would have expected Lawrence to exhibit more mystery and panache, which he is sadly missing. On the other hand, Anthony Hopkins and Hugo Weaving are spectacular in their portrayals of Sir John Talbot and Inspector Abberline. Hopkins delivers an eerie and haunting performance that becomes better appreciated as the story unfolds, while Weaving nails his performance as a London inspector skeptical of small town legends and superstitions becoming slowly enveloped by the curse of the Wolfman.

Finally how can I talk about The Wolfman without mentioning the Wolfman? The actual beast is terrifying and brutal when it rampages through the streets, mauling down everyone in its path, but even more so when it lurks in the dark forest, stalking its prey before bursting out of the shadows. For fans of gore, you will be very happy to know that the Wolfman is not a vegetarian. In appearance, the Wolfman looks like a horrible monster, an actual wolf + man, unlike the werewolves in Twilight which resembled oversized puppies. Even more impressive are the transformation sequences that show how Lawrence changes into the creature. In summary, The Wolfman is not a perfect movie by a long shot, but it is well worth a viewing, especially for those unfamiliar with werewolves lore.

Movie un-review

2010-02-12T12:30:00.010-05:00

I haven't actually watched any of these movies, so I can't judge -- this is just me sharing my thoughts. But Jay and I haven't posted anything for a long time, so I feel like I should write something. So here goes my pre-thoughts on 2 movies that came out today.

1. The Wolfman
When I saw the trailer in the movie theater, I expected this movie to be able to pull off a RECOMMENDED rating. But according to AO Scott's review from NYTimes, the movie "spins in agnostic limbo, neither fantastical enough to be thrilling nor realistic enough to be genuinely disturbing." So it looks like the movie is probably just a good MEHHH. If I had the time, I'll probably still pay matinee price to watch it in the theater, because it does look like it took a lot of work to make this movie so it deserves to be watched in the theaters. Who knows, with the low expectation I now have of this movie, I'll probably end up enjoying it more.

Note: Jay told me he will watch The Wolfman this weekend, so stay tuned for his review!

2. Valentine's Day
My first reaction to the movie was "omg, this is gonna be bad." But then I saw all those stars in it, and I thought, "hey maybe the movie can be okay after all, I'll give the benefit of the doubt, and see how the critics take this movie."

Well, surprise surprise. Manohla Dargis says the movie is "a disaster: cynically made, barely directed, terribly written" in her review. Combined with an IMDb rating of 5.8 (as of Feb 12th with 728 votes), it looks like this movie is going to be an AVOID AT ALL COST movie.

Note: One of our guest writer has told me that she will watch Valentine's Day this weekend, so hopefully she can write a review about it.

3. There might be 5 movies regarding the twilight saga.
Now I said I have thoughts about two MOVIES, which twilight ISN'T ONE -- it's a piece of shit made purely to cash in on the teenage fangirls. I guess I'm going to find a way to watch it when it comes out so I can have fun talking about how incredibly bad it is.

So that's my 2-cent for today. Remember, I haven't actually watched any of these movies, so DO NOT GET ON MY ASS telling me how wrong I am. So don't go "X, have you even SEEN these movies? You have no idea what you're talking about!" Because my answer will be "no I have not seen the movies, but have you read the first sentence where it clearly states that I haven't watched the movies and am just sharing my thoughts?"

John Travolta, blowing shit up, on cocaine!

2010-02-07T11:55:00.006-05:00

I usually refrain from posting critics' reviews or even reading them before seeing a movie. But I was dying to find out what the Spill crew thought of From Paris with Love . Needless to say I was not disappointed. This review is absolutely hilarious! The only thing I was surprised by was finding out Michael Bay did not direct this movie. Enjoy.

Guest Writer: Why I Like Avatar So Much

2010-02-04T23:59:00.014-05:00

EDIT: I just want to write a brief welcome note to Suzanne. I asked her to be a guest writer on this blog when I saw the following post that she wrote about Avatar, and I realized that she pretty much said everything I wanted to say... except she said it better.

Also, like she said in her self-introduction, she's a real film major at Vassar (unlike me, who's an engineer but pretending to be a film major by taking a film class), so everything that I pretend to know, she actually knows. I won't say more -- it'll distract you from the main attraction. I just hope that Suzanne can find some time to add more enriching thoughts to our blog.
--X

I'm Suzanne, a friend of X and Jay and a senior film major at Vassar College. The following is a defense of Avatar I wrote because frankly I became tired of having to explain myself every time someone criticized me for loving Avatar. They asked me to post it here as a guest article, so enjoy!

Lately, (and somehow ironically) it seems like the popular thing to do is hate on what is currently popular. I honestly think that's a big reason as to why Avatar is getting a lot of backlash, especially from so-called intellectuals who think that because they're going against the masses, they're somehow superior to people who choose to enjoy popular entertainment. This post is my official defense of Avatar, and I want to get a few things straight.

First of all, if you genuinely did not like the film, I am not trying to insult you in any way, and I am not going to say that Avatar is a flawless work of genius or defend it aimlessly in a bout of fan-rage, because nothing is perfect.

Secondly, my main future career interest is business. Business means selling things, whether they be people, events, products or movies. Selling things means appealing to the masses. It is a fine line between popular entertainment and the "higher" arts -- independent film, foreign film, avant-garde, arthouse, etc. I will agree that there tend to be quality films in the latter category, and shitty money-making vehicles in the former, but the films I enjoy and respect the most are those that are able to straddle that fine line that lies between -- and Avatar is one of those films.

I feel like I have been constantly defending this film left and right and to be honest, I am kind of getting tired of the same old criticisms over and over again. I'll be clear: I don't mind discussing this film, and I enjoy discussing it, but not if all I'm doing is answering the same question again and again. These might include:

-"Have you realized the plot is the same as Pocahontas?!"
-"LOL how am I supposed to take blue people seriously?!"
-"This film is too pro-environmentalist/anti-American/anti-military/racist/etc etc."
-UNOBTANIUM
-"Why didn't they explain ______ further/Why did they gloss over _______ when it's so important to the story/etc."

Like I said in my last post about Avatar, film is first and foremost a visual medium. Now, the problem is that every film is created with a different intent. There are movies that are made solely to cash in on an existing franchise. There are movies made to broadcast a certain message, or a cause. There are movies that serve as studies in character, or adaptations from books or plays. All of these have different purposes, and you cannot fault one movie for not being satisfactory in an aspect that doesn't apply to it. What all of these movies have in common, however, is that they should excel in visual storytelling. Whether it's a documentary, a Hollywood blockbuster, or an indie experimental film, it should consist of a series of shots/scenes that are cut in a logical order such that the viewer is able to understand the viewpoint of its creator. It's harder than you might think.

That being said, there is more to the story of Avatar than there seems at first. Haha we've all seen the clever little Pocahontas meme that is making its way around the tubes, and it's fun to have a laugh at but if you are seriously judging this film based on that, then why bother even seeing it? It's pretty clear to me that Cameron's intent with this film is to introduce us to the world of Pandora. In other words: it's an origin story. The amount of detail put into the film and the world is astounding. A lot of the fauna/images in it are based on things from Cameron's deep sea explorations. Unobtanium, besides being a completely legitimate and pre-existing term, is defined by external resources as being a room-temperature superconductor that much of Earth's technologies/society rely on (in the same way as gold or oil) -- hey, this even explains the floating mountains on Pandora! Lots more notes on the details/design aspects can be found here. In other words: there was way more thought put into this film than just "Pocahontas in space."

Just to address any plot holes, and everyone asking why didn't they explain unobtanium in the movie and why should I have to read all of these external links?: mass appeal. I hear a lot of what audiences lacked in story/character was originally in the 2007 script (which I haven't read yet, but plan to eventually). Unfortunately, the movie already being 2 hrs 40 min means that it would have been hard to fit more in, plus there is an actual movie time limit involved when it comes to showing in IMAX. In general, simplifying the plot means a greater audience appeal -- in this case, hardly a bad business decision.

I'd like to take a moment and compare this film with what I think it is closest to: Star Wars. Another film that introduces us to a fantastic and detailed world, even though it does so with a somewhat mediocre good versus evil plot and characters that are just a little bit lacking in psychological depth. Sound familiar? A lot of people agree in retrospect that Star Wars doesn't really take off until Empire Strikes Back. Now let me tell you something you may not know: Cameron has all but confirmed that Avatar is going to be a trilogy, and there's a definite sequel. Here's another comparison: everyone loved Dark Knight, said it was a million times better than Batman Begins, and that's because once you've made the effort to establish a compelling world you are then free to go deeper and explore that world, answer questions that the audience had previously not even thought to ask. But even if the sequel is better than the first, you can't go down that road without the origin story.

At this point I want to step away from plot, because it's really become a tired criticism, and if you can't accept that good movies exist without complex plots and/or characters, then there's nothing more I have to say except take a film class. The reason why, for me, Avatar takes a step beyond being a really good film and becomes a film that I think will change the future of filmmaking, is because of the technology used in it. I can't describe it better than this video, so just watch if you're interested:

The other aspect that needs to be considered when judging a film is the effect that it has on its audiences. The fact alone that Avatar is ~~well on its way to becoming~~ the highest worldwide grossing film EVER should be enough to convince you that this is more than just "popular entertainment." There is also the fact that this movie is being talked about, in many different ways. It has spurred a global reaction, varieties of people and groups talking about how it's pro-this and anti-this. It's always interesting to compare what a film sets out to be and what it becomes once it's given a wide release.

So, why again is it "cool" to hate on what's popular? Sure, maybe it's okay to feel superior when something you like hasn't yet made its way to the masses, but that alone is not enough to carry it. I sincerely believe that things that are popular or successful are such because of a reason - whether it's good marketing, cashing in on the current fads, or a genuine quality product. It's ridiculous to go against the masses just for the hell of it, because in one way or another, we are all part of the masses. And there was never a worse reason to not like something just because everyone else liked it.

Early thoughts on the Oscar nominees

2010-02-02T22:29:00.022-05:00

As you guys know by now, the nominations for the 2010 Academy Awards were announced this morning. Here is the first in a series of posts in which X and I will share our thoughts on the lucky nominees. We will bring them to you throughout the month until the Oscars on March 7th. X and I will also pick who we think should and will win in each category, and you guys will be able to vote (bet?) on who gets more right. Of course, you are always welcome to voice your own opinions.

For now here are my preliminary thoughts, focusing on the Best Picture nominees…

I'm ecstatic that the Academy recognized District 9! After having been overlooked by nearly every other major award, including the Golden Globes and SAG, it hit the jackpot with nominations in 4 major categories - Best Picture, Best Writing (Adapted Screenplay), Best Editing and Best Visual Effects. As I have said before, District 9 is best movie of 2009 (although that was before I saw The Hurt Locker) and definitely a MUST SEE regardless of whether or not one is a fan of science fiction movies.

I'm thrilled that the academy overcame its historic bias against action and science fiction movies, and grew to appreciate movies individually rather than penalize them for the genres they belong to. In fact, I think this year's nominations are quite groundbreaking. Hopefully they will be the start of an extremely positive trend toward becoming more inclusive. These nominations validate and vindicate the move to expand the number of Best Picture nominees to ten (in fact I think this was its very goal). This is the first year in which two science fiction movies have been nominated for Best Picture (the other is obviously Avatar). Indeed, I daresay out of the ten movies chosen, four - District 9, The Hurt Locker, Up and Avatar - would not have been nominated in any other year (though you can probably make a convincing case against Avatar).

This year's nominees feature an eclectic mix of traditional (in terms of style, not content) dramas (An Education, Precious, the Blind Side, Up in the Air), a mega budget blockbuster (Avatar), art house dark comedies and noir (Inglorious Basterds and A Serious Man), an independent action flick with a miniscule budget (The Hurt Locker) and an animated film (Up). I applaud the academy for its bold and innovative initiative, and definitely appreciate the intriguing subplots these nominations will set up for Oscar night (James Cameron and Kathryn Bigelow, the director of The Hurt Locker, used to be married).

That being said there are certainly a few head scratchers… For example, what were the voters thinking in nominating The Blind Side? When did 2009 turn into Sandra Bullock appreciation year? I confess I have not seen the movie. I have however, read the Michael Lewis book that it's based on. The book was already pretty sappy and condescending (I would even say a little racist), and from the reviews by several respected (respected by me that is) critics, as well as the few clips I have seen, the movie is even more melodramatic and overdone. The film looks even worse in light of the nomination of Precious, a similarly soapy tear jerker, albeit one with much stronger performances. Instead of The Blindside, I would have loved it if the Academy chose Funny People, which I feel is very underappreciated… oh well at least The Hangover didn't get picked.

Another nomination that I disagree with is Pixar's Up. There are several reasons. First, why is an animated film being nominated for Best Picture when there is already a separate category dedicated to them? Some may retort that a film should be recognized for its achievement no matter its type or genre. I agree wholeheartedly. However, I believe a movie should not be rewarded soley because of its genre either. There is no reason Up should be nominated for, and potentially win, both Best Animated Picture and Best Picture. If that logic applies, then the Academy needs to create entirely new categories to honor the best action movies, comedies, independent films, etc. In addition, Up isn't even the best animated film released in 2009. That, I think belongs to Sony's Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs (which wasn't even nominated for Best Animated Feature film, ugh). There is no doubt in my mind that Up is riding on the coat tails of the Pixar name. But more on that in the future.

I have yet to see The Blind Side, An Education and A Serious Man. I will make a concerted effort to see at least the last two before I make my picks. But even among the ones I have seen, I think it'll be incredibly difficult to choose the best one. A good case can be made for at least four of them, that is if you believe Avatar doesn't automatically win. X and I will announce our choices for Best Picture along with the other awards a little closer to Oscar night.

In the meantime let us know your thoughts!

Oscar Nominees are in!

2010-02-02T13:24:00.010-05:00

Best Picture
“Avatar”
“The Blind Side”
“District 9″
“An Education”
“The Hurt Locker”
“Inglourious Basterds”
“Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire”
“A Serious Man”
“Up”
“Up in the Air”
Best Direction
“Avatar” — James Cameron
“The Hurt Locker” — Kathryn Bigelow
“Inglourious Basterds” — Quentin Tarantino
“Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire” — Lee Daniels
“Up in the Air” — Jason Reitman

Actor in a Leading Role
Jeff Bridges in “Crazy Heart”
George Clooney in “Up in the Air”
Colin Firth in “A Single Man”
Morgan Freeman in “Invictus”
Jeremy Renner in “The Hurt Locker”

Actress in a Leading Role
Sandra Bullock in “The Blind Side”
Helen Mirren in “The Last Station”
Carey Mulligan in “An Education”
Gabourey Sidibe in “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire”
Meryl Streep in “Julie & Julia”

Actor in a Supporting Role
Matt Damon in “Invictus”
Woody Harrelson in “The Messenger”
Christopher Plummer in “The Last Station”
Stanley Tucci in “The Lovely Bones”
Christoph Waltz in “Inglourious Basterds”

Actress in a Supporting Role
Penélope Cruz in “Nine”
Vera Farmiga in “Up in the Air”
Maggie Gyllenhaal in “Crazy Heart”
Anna Kendrick in “Up in the Air”
Mo’Nique in “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire”

Writing (Adapted Screenplay)
“District 9” — Written by Neill Blomkamp and Terri Tatchell
“An Education” — Screenplay by Nick Hornby
“In the Loop” — Screenplay by Jesse Armstrong, Simon Blackwell, Armando Iannucci, Tony Roche
“Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire” — Screenplay by Geoffrey Fletcher
“Up in the Air” — Screenplay by Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner

Writing (Original Screenplay)
“The Hurt Locker” — Written by Mark Boal
“Inglourious Basterds” — Written by Quentin Tarantino
“The Messenger” — Written by Alessandro Camon & Oren Moverman
“A Serious Man” — Written by Joel Coen & Ethan Coen
“Up” — Screenplay by Bob Peterson, Pete Docter, Story by Pete Docter, Bob Peterson, Tom McCarthy

Animated Feature Film
“Coraline”
“Fantastic Mr. Fox”
“The Princess and the Frog”
“The Secret of Kells”
“Up”

Art Direction
“Avatar” — Art Direction: Rick Carter and Robert Stromberg; Set Decoration: Kim Sinclair
“The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus” — Art Direction: Dave Warren and Anastasia Masaro; Set Decoration: Caroline Smith
“Nine” — Art Direction: John Myhre; Set Decoration: Gordon Sim
“Sherlock Holmes” — Art Direction: Sarah Greenwood; Set Decoration: Katie Spencer
“The Young Victoria” — Art Direction: Patrice Vermette; Set Decoration: Maggie Gray

Cinematography
“Avatar” — Mauro Fiore
“Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince” — Bruno Delbonnel
“The Hurt Locker” — Barry Ackroyd
“Inglourious Basterds” — Robert Richardson
“The White Ribbon” — Christian Berger

Costume Design
“Bright Star” — Janet Patterson
“Coco before Chanel” — Catherine Leterrier
“The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus” — Monique Prudhomme
“Nine” — Colleen Atwood
“The Young Victoria” — Sandy Powell

Documentary (Feature)
“Burma VJ”
“The Cove”
“Food, Inc.”
“The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers”
“Which Way Home”

Documentary (Short Subject)
“China’s Unnatural Disaster: The Tears of Sichuan Province”
“The Last Campaign of Governor Booth Gardner”
“The Last Truck: Closing of a GM Plant”
“Music by Prudence”
“Rabbit à la Berlin”

Film Editing
“Avatar” — Stephen Rivkin, John Refoua and James Cameron
“District 9” — Julian Clarke
“The Hurt Locker” — Bob Murawski and Chris Innis
“Inglourious Basterds” — Sally Menke
“Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire” — Joe Klotz

Foreign Language Film
“Ajami” — Israel
“El Secreto de Sus Ojos” — Argentina
“The Milk of Sorrow” — Peru
“Un Prophète” — France
“The White Ribbon” — Germany

Makeup
“Il Divo” — Aldo Signoretti and Vittorio Sodano
“Star Trek” — Barney Burman, Mindy Hall and Joel Harlow
“The Young Victoria” — Jon Henry Gordon and Jenny Shircore

Music (Original Score)
“Avatar” — James Horner
“Fantastic Mr. Fox” — Alexandre Desplat
“The Hurt Locker” — Marco Beltrami and Buck Sanders
“Sherlock Holmes” — Hans Zimmer
“Up” — Michael Giacchino

Music (Original Song)
“Almost There” from “The Princess and the Frog” Music and Lyric by Randy Newman
“Down in New Orleans” from “The Princess and the Frog” Music and Lyric by Randy Newman
“Loin de Paname” from “Paris 36” Music by Reinhardt Wagner Lyric by Frank Thomas
“Take It All” from “Nine” Music and Lyric by Maury Yeston
“The Weary Kind (Theme from Crazy Heart)” from “Crazy Heart” Music and Lyric by Ryan Bingham and T Bone Burnett

Short Film (Animated)
“French Roast” Fabrice O. Joubert
“Granny O’Grimm’s Sleeping Beauty” Nicky Phelan and Darragh O’Connell
“The Lady and the Reaper (La Dama y la Muerte)” Javier Recio Gracia
“Logorama” Nicolas Schmerkin
“A Matter of Loaf and Death” Nick Park

Short Film (Live Action)
“The Door” — Juanita Wilson and James Flynn
“Instead of Abracadabra” — Patrik Eklund and Mathias Fjellström
“Kavi” — Gregg Helvey
“Miracle Fish” — Luke Doolan and Drew Bailey
“The New Tenants” — Joachim Back and Tivi Magnusson

Sound Editing
“Avatar” — Christopher Boyes and Gwendolyn Yates Whittle
“The Hurt Locker” — Paul N.J. Ottosson
“Inglourious Basterds” — Wylie Stateman
“Star Trek” — Mark Stoeckinger and Alan Rankin
“Up” — Michael Silvers and Tom Myers

Sound Mixing
“Avatar” — Christopher Boyes, Gary Summers, Andy Nelson and Tony Johnson
“The Hurt Locker” — Paul N.J. Ottosson and Ray Beckett
“Inglourious Basterds” — Michael Minkler, Tony Lamberti and Mark Ulano
“Star Trek” — Anna Behlmer, Andy Nelson and Peter J. Devlin
“Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” — Greg P. Russell, Gary Summers and Geoffrey Patterson

Visual Effects
“Avatar” — Joe Letteri, Stephen Rosenbaum, Richard Baneham and Andrew R. Jones
“District 9” — Dan Kaufman, Peter Muyzers, Robert Habros and Matt Aitken
“Star Trek” — Roger Guyett, Russell Earl, Paul Kavanagh and Burt Dalton

Sherlock Holmes re-review

2010-02-01T19:02:00.003-05:00

For those of who have listened to our audio review on Sherlock Holmes (thank you for listening btw!), you may recall that I promised to get a second viewing of the movie before I give my final judgment. Well... while procrastinating my communcation circuits homework yesterday, I finally gave the film a second go, this time with subtitles. And my final verdict is... *insert drum roll* the movie is RECOMMENDED.

While my point for not liking the movie, which was that I didn't feel the movie had enough element of mystery, still stands, what I got from the second viewing of the film was that the mystery elements were there, albeit subtle (I'd like it to be stronger). Because the film tries to involve action and tries to moves in a quick pace, I had a lot of trouble keeping up with the movie in my first viewing, after watching it again, I got the feelng that Director Guy Ritchie chose to make the movie so hard to understand on purpose. Therefore, in order fo fully understand the movie, we must pay attention every little detail -- from every character introduced to the little things that Sherlock Holmes do.

In other words, we must watch the movie Sherlock Holmes style.

I must take back what I said about performances in my earlier review. Robert Downy Jr. made a great Sherlock Holmes. He was serious when he solving mysteries, but goofy when he had no cases to solve. This matches the image of Sherlock Holmes in The Adventure of Sherlock Holmes, in which Authur Conan Doyle wrote that Sherlock Holmes did went crazy and did cocaine when he had no cases to solve. Rachel McAdams also portrayed the Irene Adler as clever thief/seductress who can have quite a nasty bite if men didn't treat her with proper respect. It is as Ricky Martin (or William Hung, if you will) sings, "she looks like a flower but she stings like a bee."

So if you felt like you didn't understand something or didn't enjoy the movie as much, I highly recommend giving the movie a second viewing, preferably with subtitles. And remember to pay attention to all the little details. Who knows, maybe if you watch it enough times, you can get an apartment in 221b Baker Street.

Don't piss Mel Gibson off, he can still kick your ass

2010-01-30T16:07:00.018-05:00

Edge of Darkness -- RECOMMENDED

I'm not a big Mel Gibson fan. Jay has told me Gibson did the Lethal Weapon series, but I haven't seen any of them, so I can't speak for that. But from what I saw this movie, I can surely say this: goddamn it, Mel Gibson is a badass mother-effer!

This movie is no Taken, and contrary to what a good friend of mine said, Edge of Darkness is not directed by same director who directed Taken. The latter was directed by Pierre Morel, whereas the former was directed by Martin Campbell, who is famous for directing Golden Eye, The Mask of Zoro, and Casino Royale (this one is one of my favorite movies).

Whereas Taken is a fast paced action movie with a decent plotline, Edge of Darkness proceeds with a slower pace, focusing more on how Mel Gibson's character, Thomas Craven, finds out who killed his daughter, and putting the corrupt people in justice once he found out who was behind all of it. In other words, this movie is more of detective thriller than an action movie. Although Thomas Craven was initially motivated by revenge, his final goal was justice.

Because Edge of Darkness focuses more on character than action, it allows Mel Gibson to bring out his acting skills. Martin Campbell also did a fabulous job as the director -- his use of silence in this film had me sitting at the edge of my seat. Instead of having bombs go off and automatic guns firing randomly all over the place as per Michael Bay style, no character in Edge of Darkness uses any weapon more advanced than a handgun (okay, I think one charaacter used a shotgun once, but stil no automaic weapons). And no one pulls the trigger on his handgun like there's no tomorrow. When guns are fired, they are done in the background of silence, providing a great contrast that jolts audiences out of their seats.

Another thing I really liked about the movie was that even though we as the audience know that justice will be served in the end, that Thomas Craven will kick everyone's ass in all the fight scenes, I was still able to put myself in the character's shoes. When he gets hurt, the audience goes "noooo" and when he kills the villain, we go "YEAH... SERVES THAT DOUCHEBAG RIGHT!" Martin Campbell definitely brings the movie to you, instead of forcing you to guess what the character was feeling.

I think I've written enough now, so I'm going to end here. If there's one thing that you should take away from reading this, it's that Edge of Darkness is NOT your typical action movie -- it's a detective thriller, and you'll need to do some thinking as you watch. In that aspect, I think the movie is more similar to The Constant Gardener than Taken.

***New Section***
Genre: Mystery/Thriller

We also recommend:

Is it just me or is Zoe Saldana on fire?

2010-01-29T21:57:00.003-05:00

Only have time for a short post for this, but I promise it'll be good... Here is a trailer of a movie I've never heard of before today. Quick analysis follows.

<a href="http://video.msn.com/?mkt=en-us&from=sp&fg=MsnEntertainment_MoviesTrailersGP2_a&vid=1b9d070f-aff2-47f6-8a86-9b2b44ec4fc6" target="_new" title="'The Losers' Exclusive Look">Video: 'The Losers' Exclusive Look</a>

This movie reminds me of so many others (some of them upcoming). In no particular order they are:

X-Men Origins: Wolverine
The Expendables
Avengers
Watchmen
Leverage (ok so it's a TV show, sue me)
Bourne trilogy
Kill Bill
The A Team
Tropic Thunder

You get the idea... This isn't to say I'm not looking forward to the movie.

The cast looks pretty good. Zoe Saldana you know about (Halle who?). I'm excited about Jeffrey Dean Morgan, who played The Comedian in Watchmen and some sick guy on Grey's Anatomy. Also Idris Alba (who by the way has the coolest profile picture on IMDB)! Yet another British actor who can pull off the American accent flawlessly. In fact he was Stringer Bell, an inner city gang leader in The Wire (absolutely recommended in the strongest terms), which required him to have masterful command of gangsta speak.

All in all, looks like a fun time at the theater.

We missed you Mike

2010-01-28T21:12:00.002-05:00

Finally, Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps has released a teaser trailer. The description on IMDB makes the film sound self conscious, opportunistic, and condescending... in a word, underwhelming. Thankfully though, from what I can see in the trailer, Michael Douglas seems to have taken a break from snogging with his (smoking hot) wife, and rediscovered some of his acting chops.

For those who haven't seen the original Wall Street, here's a clip that should entice you to watch it.

What became of the good old western movies?

2010-01-28T02:10:00.012-05:00

In my film class (Introduction to Genre and Auteur Study), we discussed western movies during our discussion section today, and one of questions that the TA brought up was, “What happened to the western movies these days?” That’s a legitimate question. After all, western movies used to be so popular in the golden age of film making -- I’m talking like back in the black-and-white movies days, when sound was first introduced to motion picture, but today, we only see maybe one western a year.
One student’s answer was that although we don’t see classic western movies with cowboys these days, the genre has not died. Rather, it has evolved to a new form -- superhero movies. She mentioned Superman as an example. One of the defining characteristics of a classic western movie is the lone hero who travels from town to town, distinguishing himself from the public mass everywhere he goes. Although Superman does not wear tight jeans (tights yes, but not tight jeans) and a cowboy hat, those of us who know anything about Superman all know of his loneliness. I believe the last Superman movie, Superman Returns, portrayed his loneliness quite well -- although Superman is loved by almost everyone, he is, and will always be, an outsider, because no one can relate to the supernatural powers of the Man of Steel. Like the lone hero of the classic western movie, Superman has no time for love -- when he returned from Krypton, he found Lois engaged to another man, and was not even aware that he has conceived a son with the love of his life.

In my opinion, the evolution of western movies from the cowboy to the superhero is no accident, but rather due to the evolution of our society. As law enforcement improved over the ages, it became harder and harder for us to associate with the cowboy type of hero. Unless he’s got some superpowers, it’s almost impossible for him to take on the law by himself. Now before you start writing comments saying I’m an idiot because there are superheroes without superpowers (like my all time favorite superhero, Batman), let me clarify what I mean. Actually, let me clarify what I don’t mean first. I don’t mean superpower purely in the traditional sense, like Superman or Spiderman or any of the mutants from X-Men. What I mean by having “superpower” is something that makes the superhero stand out from the general public, something that gives the hero a huge edge over everyone else. In other words, I claim that Batman does have superpower, and his superpower is (1) he is one of the most brilliant people on earth, (2) he has, as far as we are concerned, an infinite supply of resource in which he can make advanced gadgets such as the Bat Tumbler that we see in Batman Begins (and a bit in The Dark Knight before it’s destroyed), and (3) he can learn martial arts faster than Bruce Lee. So in the traditional sense, Batman has no superpowers, but let’s face it, even though anyone can be Batman in theory, no one can be Batman in reality.

So what happened to the good old westerns with John Wayne? I think they exist in the mainstream nowadays mainly as superhero movies, because the cowboy is simply not enough to carry on the task of single handedly enforcing the law with his pistol. That’s why movie makers have opted to giving the hero superpowers and cool flashy costumes.

Move over James Cameron

2010-01-26T22:28:00.009-05:00

James Cameron, meet... James Cameron.

VS

Avatar has officially become the highest grossing movie of all time, replacing James Cameron's earlier mega blockbuster (block destroyer?) Titanic. As of today, the figures in world wide gross are:

Avatar - $1,858,562,198
Titanic - $1,843,201,268
One can point to a host of factors that would "delegitimize" the Avatar surpassing Titanic. Detractors can point to inflation, higher 3-D ticket prices for Avatar, Titanic was 4 hours long and had nudity, blah blah blah... None of these things change the fact that Avatar has made more money than any other and James Cameron has made the top two grossing films in history.

What I find interesting is the difference in their ability to attract and captivate audiences. The public's response to Titanic was overwhelmingly positive. It was "the love story that stole the world's heart". That's not to say it did not have vehement critics. In fact I personally thought the movie was boring and way too overhyped. People who disliked or hated the film however, did so mostly because of what they perceived to be deficiencies in the film's cinematic elements, such as bad acting, cheesy dialogue, cliched and unconvincing storyline, etc. Or they were simply irked by its enormous popularity and (like me) wanted to be self-righteously contrarian.

Avatar on the other hand, had much more (not so subtle) political undertones. It has generated a ton of controversy, and undoubtedly benefitted from audiences who felt strongly about its messages, as well as those just curious to see what all the fuss was about. It's more than art or entertainment. Instead it has become a lightning rod for all the social commentary going on today. Environmental, and animal rights activists have found a successful vehicle to latch their agenda onto. PETA recently awarded it its prestigious (maybe?) Proggy Award for Outstanding Feature Film. China pushed it out of its theaters last week, ostensibly to make room for the domestic production of Confucius, but also according to some human rights activists, because the story was steering a little too close to the state's practice of land expropriation. On the other hand, many people have also decried its reductionist treatment of complicated social problems. You can see them here, here, here, and here (this one you should read because I wrote it). Anyway I have already written about Avatar, so I won't repeat myself.

One final note, Titanic will be re-releasted in 2011 to be shown in 3-D, so for those who are indignant at Avatar's irreverence, you'll get another shot to show your support and perhaps help Titanic retake the crown. But then again Cameron has already confirmed a sequel for Avatar... Looks like he'll need a bigger house to put all that cash in.

The ultimate terminator?

2010-01-25T23:33:00.003-05:00

For those of you who have always wondered about the singularity point when computers become self-aware, here's another interesting thought for you: what if before that, we can just implant computer parts into the human body?

Just think, what if you have a mechanical heart, that can beat so quickly and pump air so fast that you can outran the fastest Olympic runner? I know I've always thought about that.

Here's a movie that takes this concept: Repo Men. You can check out some of the cool posters and a nice synopsis at spill.com page. Just so that those of you out there don't have to click on the link, here's the synopsis:

In the futuristic action-thriller Repo Men, humans have extended and improved our lives through highly sophisticated and expensive mechanical organs created by a company called The Union. The dark side of these medical breakthroughs is that if you don’t pay your bill, The Union sends its highly skilled repo men to take back its property…with no concern for your comfort or survival.

Jude Law plays Remy, one of the best organ repo men in the business. But when he suffers a cardiac failure on the job, he awakens to find himself fitted with the company’s top-of-the-line heart-replacement…as well as a hefty debt. When he can’t make the payments, The Union sends its toughest enforcer, Remy’s former partner Jake (Forest Whitaker), to track him down while Beth (Alice Braga), another debtor, teaches him how to vanish from the system.

So... Jude Law and Forest Whitacre. What do you think? As always, we welcome your comments!

Nice Card Trick

2010-01-23T14:21:00.003-05:00

Want to impress your friends by showing a nice card trick? Try this one!

The Final 3 - Amazing Math Card Trick
by mismag822

Bed Warmer eh?

2010-01-23T01:58:00.003-05:00

"International hotel chain Holiday Inn is offering a trial human bed-warming service at three hotels in Britain this month"
--article from Reuters

Yes, I know what it sounds like. But it's supposedly legit. Although... why not get just get a heat futon?

Even better, just make one: put a giant resistor inside the comforter and put a micro-controller to control the amount of current through the resistor, and use Power = (Current)^2 * Resistance to control the power dissipated (and thus the heat). I may be wrong, but it seems easier to make than my senior project...

So, any engineers wanna step up to the task?

*edit*

I forgot to give credit to smash for sharing this article with me.

My film class

2010-01-21T23:28:00.004-05:00

Attended my first film class lecture last night. I have to say it was pretty awesome. Watching movies sure beats listening to a boring professor drone, I mean lecture, for hours on end. Anyway, I bring this up not because I like to blabber on about my life, but because X and I will be using our film classes as source material for the blog throughout the semester. We are taking different classes, which will be interesting in that we will be able to talk about different films and from points of view, but hopefully not so vastly different that we won't be able to preserve some dialogue and discussion between us (and the readers). I'll let X write about his course himself. Here is some info about my class and the list of films I'll be watching:

Language of Film (aka intro to cinema studies)
In order of my viewing them... I included the year of release to illustrate the span of works we'll be covering

The Hurt Locker (2008)
Rear Window (1954)
Four Little Girls (1997)
Sunrise (1927)
Barry Lyndon (1975)
A Man Escaped (1956)
The Godfather (1972)
Singin' in the Rain (1952)
Princess Mononoke (1997)
Bicycle Thieves (1949)
400 Blows (1959)
Chungking Express (1996)
The Gleaners and I (2002)

I'm really excited about the itinerary, since I haven't seen most of these films. In fact I haven't heard of more than half of them, so it'll definitely be interesting, though perhaps not necessarily pleasant (I hate black and white movies, not rationally). I probably won't write reviews for most of them. I will however, plagiarize myself. The professor makes us think about the films by asking us to write (brief) responses to prompts at the end of class. I'll reiterate those responses, and try to expound on them in order to come up with something interesting to say here. You guys will let me know what you think...

Here's a quote the professor included in the syllabus, which always makes me smile while reading:

The test of a work of art is, in the end, our affection for it, not our ability to explain why it is good. --- Stanley Kubrick

I find this to be of great relief because I'll be able to use it whenever I can't articulate why I like a movie... it's just because. Hopefully I won't use it to cop out too many times this term.

Engineering Paradise

2010-01-21T13:46:00.003-05:00

In keeping up with the nerdy comedy that I posted up a few days ago, I will post another comedy for nerds. Again, you're either gonna think "wow this is awesome" or "X, stop being such a loser."

FYI: I didn't actually find this -- I got it from a Columbia professor. So if you loved it, the credit does not go to me for finding it.

Bitching about Avatar? Why don't you learn something about films first!

2010-01-21T01:41:00.006-05:00

"Over the last month, it has been criticized by social and political conservatives who bristle at its depictions of religion and the use of military force; feminists who feel that the male avatar bodies are stronger and more muscular than their female counterparts; antismoking advocates who object to a character who lights up cigarettes"
--from a NYTimes article

My response is simple: you haters, what the f*ck have you been smoking?

I'm not trying to impose my thoughts on anyone. I'm not saying that just because I loved the movie Avatar, everyone else should either. But I am saying this to the following critics:

1. social and political conservatives:
For those of you who use this argument -- have you even seen the movie? The movie depicts the use of military force in a bad way. In other words, the movie advocates peace and harmony. Is that against the conservative belief?

2. feminists who feel that the male avatar bodies have more muscle :
Oh you have GOT to be kidding me. Those who make this argument must have never taken a biology class in their lives. It's called testosterone: males have more of it, and it means bigger muscle. I'm not saying women are in inferior to men in any way. Those who make this argument should stop associating themselves with feminists -- it makes people like Susan B Anthony look bad.

3. antismoking advocates:
This is just an example of people who blame others for their own faults. I'm going to use myself as an example. Until the age of 9, I spent my life in China and Japan, two countries where smoking was accepted in public. I am proud to say that I have never touched a cigarette (or tried any drugs). I didn't smoke, but not because of movies, or TV shows, or whatever. I didn't smoke because my parents always told me smoking is bad, and they also set a good example by not smoking. In addition, I believe there was only one character who smoked -- Dr. Grace Augustine. And she wasn't the main hero, or the heroine.

And just to get another thing clear, smoking has actually been used as a way to show a character's personality. The way a character smokes tells us a lot about him. For example, in the 1932 Scarface (directed by the legendary director Howard Hawks), Tony Camonte first lights up a cigarette using a police officer's badge. Immediately, we can see that Tony's disrespect for the law and his child-like arrogance. In Avatar, by introducing Dr. Augustine with the line "Where my cigarette?" implies (a) she's tough lady and (b) she's under tremendous stress.

So please, if you're going to critique something, especially say negative things, know what you're saying first. That way you won't sound like an idiot and subtract from the total intelligence of all human begins. Perhaps the world can be a better place if everyone did that.

A little different flavor

2010-01-21T01:01:00.000-05:00

Here's a funny article from the Onion about one of my favorite football players - Wes Welker. I wish Wes Welker began his career about 10 years earlier than he did, because he would have been my role model and I might have made it to the NFL (wishful thinking?).

You can probably guess why and get a good picture of the kind of player Welker is from the article. He recently suffered a devastating knee injury that ended his season, but I have no doubt he'll be back terrorizing defenses again next year - Everyone At Hospital Already Hates Wes Welker

Denzel Washington - Religious samurai in a post-apocalyptic world

2010-01-19T22:46:00.005-05:00

The consensus on the Book of Eli (a friend went to see it with us) seems to be a MEHHH rating. There isn’t really much to say about this movie (X does a short review of it below), but it does present an opportunity to discuss the rating. Movies with MEHHH ratings are largely mediocre. They may have above average elements such as the acting, action sequences or interesting plot twists, but they lack anything that stands out and leaves a lasting impression. It may also have serious flaws like gaping plot holes and dialogue you'd find on the back of cereal boxes, but they also aren’t bad enough to make you angry and want to start ranting. All in all they’re distinguished for only their inability to elicit any strong emotional and intellectual response. You can see it to pass the time, but if you don’t you’re not missing much (except maybe the ability to make obscure movie references at dinner parties in five years and have people nod approvingly at your supposedly amazing movie repertoire, aka your shot at becoming the next Quentin Tarantino).

I just want to share a few thoughts before getting to X’s review. A large number of people were upset with the overly religious theme and tone of the movie. I think they’re adopting a much too literal interpretation. Eli is about as preachy in this movie as Samuel L. Jackson is in Pulp Fiction. I think it’s more about faith and the ways people hold onto hope when the world is crumbling around them, one of which (probably the most popular) is religion.

Also, and this is completely unrelated to the movie itself… I have to say, today was one of the worst movie-going experiences I have ever had. Many self-righteous pricks in the theater felt the need to tell others (including once to me personally) to “shut the hell up” during the movie. Putting aside for a minute the debate about the acceptable amount and volume of speaking during a movie, allow me to mock the stupidity of the tactics these people use. Why some people feel that shouting and cursing at others, instead of asking them politely to be quiet, would be more effective at bringing about silence is absolutely beyond me. Anyway, here is a brief review:

Book of Eli – MEHHH

From the trailer, it seems like Book of Eli is a pretty straightforward action movie. You see an idiot touch Eli (played by a badass Denzel Washington), Eli tells the idiot “you put that hand on me again and you won’t get it back.” Then the idiot touches him again… and, surprise surprise, the idiot didn’t get his hand back. Well, despite what you saw, we’ve seen the movie, and we’re here to tell you that this is NOT that kind of movie. In fact, maybe it’ll be better if it were.

In my opinion, the movie suffers from the fact that it tries to take religion in an apocalyptic world too seriously. In one scene, Eli would be a coldblooded warrior who will kill his enemies without any mercy, and then in another, he’d be a highly religious man who memorized the bible. It makes me wonder, if he’s so into religion, doesn’t God say “Thou shalt not kill?” Shouldn’t he have some mercy, even to his enemies? But then again, I don’t go to church, so what do I know about religion?

In terms of actors’ performances, Denzel Washington was good as always, but the actor who really stood out in this movie was Gary Oldman (he played the villain, Carnegie). The only movie that I’ve seen with Gary Oldman was his role as Commissioner Gordon in “The Dark Knight”, and I didn’t see a trace of Gordon in Carnegie – whereas Gordon was honest and righteous, Carnegie was downright evil.

I really don’t have anything else to say about the movie. It was just… MEHHH…. It wasn’t a great movie, but it wasn’t bad either. There are many other good movies in the theaters these days, and unless you’ve seen them all, I’d recommend that you watch something else (Daybreakers was really good) and save this as a last resort.

***New Section***
Genre: Action/Adventure, Post-apocalyptic, Western

You may also want to check out:

Mighty mouse

2010-01-18T22:31:00.001-05:00

Awesome commercial... cookies for the first one to comment with the name of the movie where the second song is from.

Lots of things are on tap for the site. So much to do, so little time. I can't believe how soon school is starting again. Man we need to get some unpaid interns...

We have a new name!

2010-01-16T20:28:00.000-05:00

After throwing around a few suggestions, we settled on Sea of Scenes as our new name. We hope to keep bringing you great content. Please continue to support us!

Rough night for someone

2010-01-16T20:05:00.000-05:00

This story is about a robbery gone wrong. It started out pretty funny, but I wasn't sure who I was cheering for by the end...

It's funny because it's true

2010-01-15T23:55:00.016-05:00

Anyone else notice that Michael Cera keeps playing the same role over and over again? If not here's a simple breakdown of what he does in his movies...

Sorry Michael Cera fans, it's time he gets some acting lessons and express different emotions.

Updating the ratings

2010-01-15T22:12:00.002-05:00

Many readers have suggested ways to improve our rating system. One of the most frequent objections is that people aren't able to easily understand what each of the ratings mean. Even after posting the explanation for each rating, legitimate concerns persisted about people needing to read a long essay in order to understand our movie reviews, and the effect that has on attracting new readers. SO in order to give readers a more intuitive understanding, we have changed the names of our ratings (with minimal changes in what kind of movies belong in each category):

CONTENDER --> MUST SEE
BLOCKBUSTER --> RECOMMENDED
WASTE OF TIME --> MEHHH
SELLOUT --> AVOID AT ALL COST

How do you guys feel about the new ratings? Please share your thoughts.

Up in the Air Review, at long last

2010-01-15T03:29:00.003-05:00

Finally I can remove Up in the Air Review from my to-do list (not to mention the picture from the sidebar). I struggled mightily with this review, and I'm still unsure about the rating. That being said, I enjoyed it very much. It's a personal movie. The mere fact of how long it took me to write the review attests to its ability to be thought provoking, and warrants the rating.

Here is the review...

Up in the Air - MUST SEE

Many people will undoubtedly be perplexed, maybe even offended by the timing and tone of Up in the Air. After all, as the nation undergoes one of the longest and deepest economic recessions in history, as millions of Americans lose their jobs and sometimes their hopes, how can Jason Reitman (the director) expect us to identify with Ryan Bingham (the protagonist), who fires people for a living? Maybe it’s because of George Clooney’s effortless performance as Ryan. His easy smile, salt and pepper hair, and avuncular style makes you want to believe him when he assures you that getting fired is actually a great thing. Ok maybe not, but it’s certainly hard to avert your gaze when Ryan is on screen, and he’s got a lot of screen time.

This movie is about Ryan. Ryan is a man of contradictions. On the one hand his job is to fire people for companies who are too efficient to treat their employees with dignity, and deal with the emotional fallout. He is a tool for cowards. His existence is a testament to society’s alienation and dehumanization of social relations, as he relies on these forces and their power to exact human misery in order to prosper. On the other hand, Ryan appears to have a conscience, a moral baseline below which he is unwilling to descend. When Natalie Keener (played by Anna Kendrick of Twilight fame), a young, cost conscious Cornell grad, attempts to revolutionize the business by introducing online layoffs, Ryan quickly becomes perturbed by the ethical consequences. In his mind, serving as the middleman for firing people is acceptable, but doing so half away across the country through a webcam somehow violates common decency. This line in the sand seem arbitrary, even self-serving, for if Keener succeeds, anyone can simply “sit in front of a computer and begin downsizing immediately”, making Ryan obsolete (and jobless).

Yet you get the feeling that his objections, albeit selfish, are not insincere. Ryan seems to genuinely believe in the value of his service, if not the messages he dispenses. You may rightly cringe at the corniness and condescension of catchphrases he throws out to the soon to be unemployed (his favorite is “anyone who ever built an empire or changed the world sat where you are right now, and it’s because they sat there they were able to do it”), but you also have to acknowledge that he at least cares enough to pretend, to hold their hands, and to offer them hope.

The fact that he cares about these passing strangers sitting across from him in sterile conference rooms is incongruent in the same way Ryan lives his life of solitude. While moonlighting as a motivational speaker, Ryan uses a backpack as a symbol for one’s connections to the outside world. Everyone carries a backpack he says, and in it contains the relationships and possessions one holds most dear and spends a lifetime building and accumulating. Ryan’s backpack is empty. He has no wife or children, doesn’t want either, and actively avoids his sisters, the only family members that are still alive. He refuses to decorate his rented apartment or fill his closets, and doesn’t own anything that cannot fit into his rolling suitcase or be purchased in an airport. But still Ryan carries around this empty backpack. He loathes commitment, but demonstrates unflinching loyalty to his choice airline, hotel and car rental company. He fears change and has no dreams of his own, but exhorts others to view being laid off as a career transition and an opportunity to follow their dreams. He carries in his backpack, no matter how temporarily, the most real and intimate connections he has, ones he forms with the people he fires. In order to evade being tied down by responsibilities and compromises that come with long-term relationships, Ryan chooses to interact mostly with airline ticket attendants and hotel concierges. In this world of superficial personality and simulated hospitality, firing people is the only way he gets to see people, however briefly, at their most vulnerable and authentic. He is an intimacy junkie, with a strong urge to be needed but not need others. Thus explains Ryan’s romantic conception of his job. It enables Ryan to have his cake and eat it too – he can get his fix of intimacy from random strangers whom he can discard like used syringes instead of having to invest himself to nurture and sustain it. For him, the prospect of losing his job is as devastating as it is for an addict to lose his dealer.

Natalie and Alex Goran (starring a smoldering Vera Farmiga) serve as apt extensions of Ryan. They are different portrayals of him in his “ideal” form. Natalie personifies the robotic efficiency of Ryan’s routinized existence to its ruthless extreme. She is smart and driven, but also haughty and vain. Seeing life as a series of if then statements, she conjures up elaborate checklists for her perfect guy in the same way she creates flowcharts for remotely firing people. But beneath that façade of dismissive self-confidence lies a nagging insecurity and sense of incompleteness of life without the “right guy”. Just like Ryan, she is terrified of being lonely. Unlike Ryan, she is young and has the luxury to indulge in absolutes.

Alex is what Ryan wants to be. If Natalie is like the picture of rotted lungs you show to smokers to convince them to quit, then Alex is candy-flavored cigarettes Big Tobacco uses to entice kids. In their relationship, she offers Ryan comfort, understanding and satisfies his need to be needed, without making him feel attached. Her skill at juggling his needs and fears lures him into a false sense of security that prompts him to reveal his vulnerabilities. He feels so secure in fact he fails to recognize aspects of himself in Alex, and deludes himself into thinking he can change their relationship without changing each other.

Everyone carries a backpack, in it contains the things one holds most dear and spends a lifetime accumulating. Ryan may have an empty one, but stitched into its bottom are principles and guidelines he lives his life in accordance with. Even as we see him fill and empty his backpack repeatedly throughout the movie, it was perhaps a little unsettling to see him burn it at the end.

Topical humor

2010-01-15T02:15:00.001-05:00

I love how Jimmy Kimmel is cashing in on the whole NBC-Leno-Conan fiasco.

Just for the record, I fully support Conan. Sadly he will be leaving the Tonight Show after a little over three months on the job. Great job yet again by NBC, America's last place network.

Nerdy Comedy

2010-01-13T17:45:00.003-05:00

If you're a nerd like me, you'll love this. If you're not, you're gonna think "omg, X, what a loser..."

Changing Our Name

2010-01-13T04:27:00.001-05:00

Dear Readers,

We are thinking of changing our name to something else. Could you please give us some suggestions? If no suggestions are made, we're thinking of xjdy.blogspot.com

All suggestions are welcome!

Best,
X and Jay

Some more tweaks

2010-01-12T17:41:00.002-05:00

In response to popular demand, we are making it easier to navigate the site. Here are some improvements we made:

1. Changed "Useful links" to "The Vault" (cooler name huh? adds a tinge of narcissism)
The Vault is meant to give readers easy access to our reviews. This section will continue to begin with an explanation of the ratings. It will then contain links to reviews of all the movies we have done categorized by ratings we assigned. For example, clicking on "CONTENDERS" will lead you to a page of movies we have rated as CONTENDER, as well as the reviews.

2. Widened the sidebar and moved the slide show of recent reviews there to improve the consistency of format.

3. Began posting edited audio reviews. So far we have done one for Sherlock Holmes and one for Daybreakers. Please check those out if you have time and offer any suggestions you have.

Also for anyone who's sick of looking at the Up in the Air picture in the Upcoming Reviews section, I am working on the review, should be up tomorrow.

As always thoughts, comments and criticisms are welcome. Thanks for your continued support.

Best news I have heard in a long time

2010-01-12T17:41:00.000-05:00

Twilight fangirls, scream louder because I can't hear you. The rest of us will undoubtedly smirking deliciously at this headline -

"Twilight Producers Say ‘Breaking Dawn’ May Be Unfilmable"

Don't burn any cars though, I'm sure Hollywood will find a way to prevail in the end...

Quick Review of "It's Complicated" -- X

2010-01-12T05:55:00.005-05:00

It's Complicated -- BLOCKBUSTER

Call me a girl, a fag, or whatever, but I found myself enjoying every moment of It's Complicated. Yes, it's a movie targeted at middled aged women going through a life crisis, but it was also surprisingly entertaining.

The premise of the movie goes something in the lines of this: Jane (played by Meryl Streep) has been divorced with her ex-husband and love-of-her-life Jake (played by Alec Baldwin) for 10 years because Jake cheated on Jane with a younger woman, Agness (played by Lake Bell). Jake is now married to Agness, but it's more... well... complicated, because Jake isn't exactly having the marriage of his life, and Agness is a bit crazy -- when Jake left Jane for her, she (Agenss) cheated on him (Jake) with another man, conceived a son, left that new lover, and then went back to marry Jake. Then one night at a hotel bar, Jake and Jane got drunk and hooked up, and now the self-reliant Jane is having an affair with a married man. Not complicated enough for you? There's more: Jane meets Adam (played by Steve Martin), and they start to date.

The main force of the movie, as you may expect, is in Meryl Streep's incredible performance as Jane. I have only seen her in one other movie, Devil Wears Prada, in which she played Miranda, a competent but heartless executive, and her performance was in that was good, but (you may disagree with me on this as she did receive an Oscar nomination for this role) I felt that Meryl Streep was not able to shine in Devil Wears Prada because of her character in that movie was so heartless. In It's Complicated, however, she has no such limitations, and thus she was able to fully shine. And shine so very brightly she did.

I really liked the way everything concluded in the end (which I won't give away). There were enough twists towards the end that a few other alternative endings could have made sense, but the movie concluded with the ending that felt the most right (as in, it had the most appropriate ending out of all the possible ones).

I would recommend this movie only if you can appreciate a movie for its original storyline and good acting, or of course, if you're just a fan of Meryl Streep. It does take some thinking though, so I'm not sure this is the movie you want to watch if you just finished taking a 3 hour exam and just want to shut your brain off.

My spidey sense is tingling...

2010-01-11T21:32:00.000-05:00

and it's telling me that there won't be a Spiderman 4! Instead the series is getting a reboot in 2012. From the description, it sounds like they will be adding some teenage emo-angst to Edward, err, Peter Parker.

Insult to injury

2010-01-11T21:22:00.000-05:00

Gives new meaning to the phrase FUCK, the police...

"Chuck" Season 3 came on today....

2010-01-11T03:40:00.006-05:00

So the long-awaited season 3 of Chuck finally arrived. And I must say, I'm sadly disappointed. After the end of the second season, I expected a major change, but it seems that the writers have decided to show us the same old Chuck. Yes, he's the Chuck who we know and love... but it just felt like a huge cop out to me.

More importantly, it felt like a sellout. Feel free to disagree with me on this, because I really hope that I'm wrong about this: it seems to me that the guys making Chuck knew the show was coming to an end with season 2. So, in a desperate attempt to keep their show going, they decided to make a huge cliffhanger ending, so that fans would go crazy and shit on ABC for not extending the show. But now that they got their wish, they've bid on more than they can chew. The ending of season 2 begs for a different Chuck Bartowski... but he's still the same old nerd/loser who gets lucky (man, why don't I ever had that kind luck? Where's my super hot spy gf who's gonna rescue me out of my boring life???).

And this thing between Chuck and Sarah is just getting old. C'mon you two, just kiss and make up already. And so is the half naked scene of Yvonne Strahovski. Yes, we know she's really hot, we get it, you've been telling us that since episode 1.

I'll still watch it, but I really hope the writers change it up a bit. This same old Chuck is getting a bit routine. Please, don't make Chuck fall down the road of Heroes! Pretty please?

Daybreakers Audio Review

2010-01-10T23:20:00.004-05:00

This is our audio review of Daybreakers. We hope you enjoy it.

As always, feel free to give us comments and feedbacks. We always welcome readers to disagree with us.

BLOCKBUSTER - X
CONTENDBER - Jay

Daybreakers directed by Spierig Brothers, starring Ethan Hawke, Willem Dafoe, and others.

*EDIT*

Somehow the end of the audio review was cut off. You didn't really miss much -- we were just talked about actors' performances. If anyone really wants the original audio review, just write it as a comment I'll e-mail you the full version.

Laugh... nervously?

2010-01-10T20:30:00.001-05:00

Not sure whether this qualifies as a funny post for today, I didn't really laugh while watching this...

Quick Review of "District 13" -- X

2010-01-10T20:13:00.003-05:00

District 13 -- WASTE OF TIME

No, this is not a sequel to District 9 -- it has absolutely nothing to with Neil Blomkamp's movie. Not even close. Whereas District 9 is a smart movie that explores the dark side of human natures, District 13 is a dumb, no-brainer, straight-up no-bullshit action movie.

A damn good one at that.

The two leads of the movie, David Belle and Cyril Raffaelli, are not actors -- they're professional stuntmen. They're the guys who you see jumping from buildings to buildings like chimpanzees. So all the stunts you see, all the scenes of David Belle leaping from one building to another, are actually filmed by David Belle jumping across the buildings. No string. No wires.

This is the real effing deal. (I'm sorry Michael Bay, but this is much more exciting than your CGI robots beating the hell out of each other)

As an art, it's garbage. The lines are cheesy, the acting is horrible, and the plot -- if you can call it one -- is like a thin slice of lettuce on a triple whopper with cheese. In short, this is the kind of movies that all professional critics would diss out.

But hey, after seeing the trailer, if you expect anything more than an action movie with zero plot, you're the stupid one. The movie makes no effort to be realistic (with the exception of the stunts). So when you just took your last final, and just wanna get drunk and celebrate, this is a great movie for you. Or if you're dreading that 10-page paper you have to write and just wanna procrastinate, this is a great movie for you.

Sorry for the late laughs

2010-01-10T20:13:00.000-05:00

Saw this trailer for Kick Ass prior to the Daybreakers showing on Friday and wanted to share it with everyone.

Although it is reminiscent of Superbad (featuring the return of McLovin), it is actually the product of action/fantasy director Matthew Vaughn (he does have a very short filmography as a director though). I know I'm excited.

Looks like someone agrees with me

2010-01-10T13:24:00.002-05:00

David Brooks offers an op-ed review of Avatar, from his typically incisive political/social perspective. Looks like he would agree with my assessment and withholding the CONTENDER rating from it. Thanks Flora.

One thing, he mentions that the complex is a product of our era (presumably contemporary, i.e. 1980s and later), but it actually has a much longer history, stemming the need to justify colonialism and imperialism. The most famous example is Rudyard Kipling's White Man's Burden

Jesus (Hey-Sooos), the Italian plumber

2010-01-08T16:40:00.002-05:00

This one should definitely gain some smiles. Just think, yet another use for Post-its.

Please check out the film maker's youtube channel for some more funny videos.

Quick Review of Invictus -- X

2010-01-08T02:02:00.007-05:00

I originally wanted to do a full complete review, but I got lazy. Sorry readers. Anyway here goes.
Invictus -- BLOCKBUSTER (almost CONTENDER)

Let me just say what this movie is NOT. It is not a movie that
a) you want to watch after taking your finals and want to relax
b) you want to just shut your brain off and watch mindlessly.

Also, if you have a problem with a movie that is overly preachy, then you'll definitely have a problem with Invictus. This movie is all about sending us a message, it has so many inspirational lines that it can get an "inspirational quotes from Invictus" post by itself.

But if you like to see movies with inspirational quotes that sends a message across, then this is a must see. When I was watching it, I expected to be bored for the first 30 minutes, but that didn't happen -- Invictus went by with a good pace, I felt myself absorbed by it the moment I started watching. Having only watched two Clint Eastwood movies (so far) including this one, I can't say if this is one of his best works or not, but in my humble opinion, it is far better than Gran Torino, the other Clint Eastwood movie I've watched. Although Clint Eastwood was great in his role as Walt Kowalski (played by Clint Eastwood) in Gran Torino, I couldn't help but feel bored because many of us don't have much to relate to in Gran Torino.

Invictus, however, has the upper hand in this case, since like the movie, we have elected a president of color who promises us change, and even after a year of taking office, we still have doubts on whether our president could complete his job. Also, like Nelson Mandela (played by Morgan Freeman), President Obama also places tremendous emphasis on hope -- our president can deliver inspirational speeches like no other president we've had in a quite some time. Clint Eastwood was definitely smart to direct a movie that makes its release at this time.

One short coming, in my opinion, was the focus of rugby in this movie. I understand that Clint Eastwood is trying to use Francois Pienaar's (played by Matt Daemon) leadership as captain as a metaphor for leadership of a president, but... seriously, captain of a rugby team vs. leader of a nation that is divided??? Seems a huge stretch to me. The ending (I won't give it away) was also a bit of a disappointment to me, because it seems too unrealistic. How much can you really change in a month?
We are all humans, and thus all have our limitations.

But then again maybe I'm being cynical. Maybe I need to become inspired by some of the inspirational quotes in the movie, because "we must all exceed our own expectations." (yes, that is a quote from the movie).

One a day

2010-01-07T22:31:00.000-05:00

I like to laugh, who doesn't right? Starting today, I will post a funny link everyday to help everyone laugh or smile... it can be our tradition.

Here's today's. Love the elbow pads, motherfucka!

An update on the race

2010-01-07T15:18:00.000-05:00

Grossing nearly 40 million dollars in the last four days, Avatar has moved past Pirates 3 and Return of the King as the second highest grossing movie of all time. Here's how the race to the top looks -

Titanic - $1,842,879,955
Avatar - $1,131,752,464

Here's a cool feature from Boxofficemojo called Cameron Clash, which compares the top grossing James Cameron movies. One thing I found interesting is that all of his top money making flicks had considerable foreign audiences. His top 4 movies - Titanic, Avatar, True Lies and Terminator 2 - all made over 60% of their worldwide gross from foreign countries.

In the end, whether Avatar supplants Titanic or not, directing 2 billion dollar movies will certainly help James Cameron challenge Steven Spielberg as the king of Hollywood, giving him greater artistic freedom and control, and that's certainly a good thing for movie fans around the world.

Quick Review of Zombieland -- X

2010-01-07T02:47:00.006-05:00

I just watched Zombieland today, and I want to do a quick review of it. Let me start with the rating

Zombieland -- WASTE OF TIME (and a damn good one at that... in a good way)

Now let me just say, I loved the movie. So why's it a waste of time? Before you writing that on the comment, please check our rating system. In short, a waste of time doesn't mean that the movie is total waste of your time (that's more like a SELLOUT), it means it's great if you got time to spare and you just wanna watch a movie for having a good time.

This movie does that job very well. I'm normally pretty terrified of zombies and movies about apocalypse, but I watched the movie alone in my suite with the lights off, and I couldn't get scared, but Ruben Fleisher (director) makes it so comical that I can't help but laugh my ass off throughout the movie. And it makes references to the teen culture, the script is very similar to Juno and Jennifer's Body. In fact, this is what Jennifer's Body should've been (teen culture references with comedy and some gore), but failed to achieve.

In short, I definitely recommend watching this movie. It's nothing profound, and it makes not a single effort to be realistic, but it does give you 1 hr 38 mins of solid entertainment. It's great for relaxing your mind because you just got pwned by a final or when you're on a date with your bf/gf.

One thing I gotta add though, the girl is way too hot for a loser like Columbus.

Sherlock Holmes Audio Review -- edited

2010-01-07T00:31:00.011-05:00

Jay did some editing on our Sherlock Holmes audio review, so I'm posting up the edited one. Please be nice, as this is his first editing, and although it may not look like it, Jay spent a long time working on it.

For those of you wondering why we bothered to post an edited version:

1. The original one was 16 mins. Even I get tired of listening to myself for that long. This edited version is 9 mins.

2. We put up some slideshows in it so it gives you something look at, instead of the one picture that we had before.

Oh and here are our ratings for those of you who want a quick rating check:

X - low BLOCKBUSTER

Jay - high WASTE OF TIME

Slight tweak

2010-01-06T23:45:00.000-05:00

Based on feedback from a couple of readers, some people are confused about how our rating system works and what each rating means. To clear up the confusion, I posted a link to the post I wrote explaining the ratings under the new section "Useful links" on the right side bar. Hopefully this will help everyone understand what the ratings mean, and give people easy access to them when they forget.

What other things would you guys like to see that would improve the experience?

Get a room...

2010-01-06T18:32:00.002-05:00

Just when I thought there was nothing going on, I realized celebrities are always good for a chuckle. Here's Mariah Carey accepting an award for Breakthrough Performance at the Palm Springs International Film Festival. I must say Mariah Carey was pretty respectable in her (nearly unrecognizable) role as a social worker in Precious, and I'm happy for her achievements, but I have a feeling she had a little too much fun on set...

Slow day

2010-01-06T18:00:00.006-05:00

Not really much happening this week as we ease into the new year, so here's a picture of Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter in the upcoming Alice in Wonderland. I haven't read the classic novel so not sure how important a character the Mad Hatter is, but here's to hoping Johnny Depp gets some major screen time in this wild makeup.

Here are some more pictures of Johnny Depp's fearless forays into androgyny -

Some laughs at the expense of action movies

2010-01-05T15:07:00.000-05:00

Here's a funny and relevant video. Props to Andy Samberg for making fun of some overused action movie tropes. Oh there's also a sighting of JJ Abrams rocking out on the keyboard.

Sherlock Holmes Audio Review

2010-01-04T21:29:00.007-05:00

Dear Readers,

As we've promised, we finally made an audio review of Sherlock Holmes. Disclaimer: this is our first audio review, so please do not shout or curse too loudly when you're watching it (remember, we can't hear you cursing at us).

Please feel free to give us CONSTRUCTIVE criticisms. Saying "you suck" doesn't really help us in making it any better. We are still trying to find ways to improves ourselves, so please, if you have an idea, let us know.

Thank you for listening to us!

Best,

X and Jay

Five favorites of 2009

2010-01-04T12:53:00.002-05:00

Rotten Tomatoes brings us 5 movies that were most frequently named by prominent actors, writers and directors as their all time favorites. It's a very prestigious list, with some of the most epic and respected titles in history. Just one observation, none of the 5 movies were made after 1980, with the most recent one in 1979... hmmm what's that say about the film industry and people in general?

Starting the new year right

2010-01-04T10:59:00.000-05:00

Avatar once again helped fuel a record weekend at the box office. The movie is exhibiting the same resilience as another James Cameron mega-hit, drawing over $68 million, falling barely 10% from last week. It also became the second fastest movie to break $300 million in domestic receipts (although it is helped by the more expensive 3-D tickets). Incredibly it has already outgrossed the Dark Knight in merely 3 weeks!

Hmmm, this triggers another interesting race... will Avatar eventually surpass Titanic and become the highest grossing movie of all time? Here's what it looks like so far (figures provided by boxofficemojo.com):

Avatar - $1,018,811,000
Titanic - $1,842,879,955

What do you guys think?

Spicing things up a bit

2010-01-03T23:25:00.001-05:00

Since no one really likes reading I thought the blog could use some more pictures.

At the top of the page is a list of movies X and I have recently reviewed. You can either click on the little text box icon on the lower left hand corner or the pictures themselves to see our ratings.

Also added pictures for upcoming reviews X and I will be doing. Clicking on the pictures will lead you to a trailer on IMDB... next one up is Sherlock Holmes.

Reader appreciation

2010-01-03T16:41:00.000-05:00

Another shout out to Wenxin for being not only our first reader/commenter but also the first one offer feedback on how we can improve. We hope you guys like the blog, and when you don't please tell us how we can get better!

Thanks again for all your support and we'll be making the changes soon.

A little something to keep the Tiger mania going in 2010

2010-01-03T16:32:00.000-05:00

Here is an article Bill Simmons (who wrote the Invictus review I posted earlier) wrote in 2006 about what Tiger could do to spice up his image... looking back it's pretty prophetic, especially number 5.

A Love So Deep... they just can't show it on screen because of their bad acting

2010-01-02T00:49:00.006-05:00

This is a review about the Chinese movie Hua Mulan, directed by Jingle Ma and Wei Dong, starring Zhao Wei and a bunch of other Chinese actors that I don't recognize (this has a lot to do with my ignorance, I don't know too much about Chinese actors, sorry).

Anyway, I just want to start right off the bat by saying this movie is a pure, fucking, utter, SELLOUT!!!! This is the kind of movie that makes me want to puke while I'm watching, because I'm so disgusted that people would have the guts to make this kind of trash. In ancient Japan, whoever produced this should just commit seppuku (a ritual suicide by committed by samurai who have dishonored themselves). Let me try to explain the reasoning.

The story of Hua Mulan is a popular one in China. It tells of a young woman who pretended to be man in order to join the army in her father's place (her father was ill) out of filial piety, in a society where females were looked down upon and would be instantly beheaded if found within the ranks of men in the army. Such a story deserves a well directed movie to go along with it, especially since the Chinese government gave Disney so much crap about the making of Mulan in 1998. But, westernized as the 1998 Mulan may be, it was a decent movie (BLOCKBUSTER rating, in my opinion) -- it was more or less faithful to the original story, and characters were decently developed.

The 2009 Hua Mulan, on the other hand, decides to focus mainly on the forbidden love between the heroine and a prince, a love which spurred from a the prince saving the heroine from a death sentence. And then we're supposed to simply assume that these two are soulmates, that they share a love so deep that no amount of war, violence, or martial law can break apart. Kind of remind me of Twilight -- a love between a vampire and an overly self-conscious girl... a love so deep that not even a werewolf with a 6-pack can't break apart, except the girl can't take her eyes off the werewolf's 6-pack. I'm sorry to disappoint all the Zhao Wei fans out there, but I must say, she was horrible in this movie! When she was telling her lover-boy how she dreams of him every night, she had no emotion on her face! Okay, I was never in love, and have never dreamed of someone everyday, but I'd think that if you loved a person so much, your face wouldn't be blank and emotionless when you're talking to him/her! But then again, what do I know about love?

In conclusion, this movie is disgrace to all Chinese movies. We're always mad at Hollywood for butchering up Chinese classics, but who are we to judge them, when we still make trash movies like this one? Jay said that Red Cliff was bad in one of his previous posts. I have this to say: compared to Hua Mulan [2009], Red Cliff was God.

Don't even bother downloading this movie online. It's a complete waste of time. Watch the 1998 Mulan instead.

Happy New Year!

2010-01-01T12:40:00.001-05:00

Happy 2010 everyone!

And what a great time for Spill to reveal their best/worst lists.

Avatar review... finally

2009-12-31T22:00:00.003-05:00

So I apparently lied before when I said we'll do a podcast for the Avatar review. Since X already wrote his review, I saw no need to make him discuss it again. We'll start the podcast with the Sherlock Holmes review instead. The timing for that will depend on how seriously injured X still is from his wisdom teeth extraction. Anyway, see below for my long awaited, much anticipated review of Avatar...

Avatar - BLOCKBUSTER

Since so many people have already raved about it, and X has also discussed it extensively I won't focus on the visual aspects of the movie. Simply put, it was stunning. It was most effectively used during Jake's training period to become part of the Omaticaya tribe. As Jake explored this new and exotic world, from encountering fantastic plants and creatures, to running along the branches of Home Tree, and especially soaring through the sky filled with magical floating mountains riding on his ikran, I felt I was with him every step of the way. James Cameron's attention to detail matched his boundless imagination. The digital effects and 3-D combined to totally immerse the viewer in the environment of Pandora, and helped me fall in love with it alongside Jake. This definitely enhanced the emotional response, and helped me understand Jake's decision to defend his new home.

In an extended interview with Charlie Rose (I don't have a direct link sorry, but you can find it by going to http://www.charlierose.com/ and searching for James Cameron), James Cameron expressed several goals he had for the movie. I have no doubt he achieved all of the technical ones:

100% human emotions on the Na'vi [check]
Realism, both in terms of human technology and organic life on Pandora [check]
Full, multi-dimensional cultures and peoples with backstory [check]

The most important thing he mentioned was distancing the theatrical experience from what people can get at home. Avatar has been called a "revolutionary" movie, one that will change the way movies are made and watched. I agree with these assessments. Due to the proliferation of DVDs and especially Bluray (you can now get a Bluray player for less than $100), watching movies at home has become a legitimate rival to going to theaters. People no longer have to leave their living rooms to experience 3.1 surround sound and crystal clear HD picture quality. One thing people cannot yet do at home however, is watch 3-D movies, at least not affordably. Therefore by pushing the boundaries of technology (a special stereoscopic camera was invented and used to shoot Avatar), James Cameron proved the viability of 3-D movies and preserved and widened, at least temporarily, the advantage of theatrical cinema over home entertainment. That's why I think there will be more and more 3-D movies coming out in future, until it becomes a majority of the movies released in theaters. The pressure to create visual spectacles in order to save the movie industry will dictate this trend (this is also why so many monstrous baseball and football stadiums are being built).

James Cameron is indeed a visionary director. His talents however, lie in how he tells the story rather than the story itself. I have several issues with the story of Avatar which keep me from giving it a Contender rating. First the plot isn't exactly original. It's basically an outerspace version of Poncahontus, or the Last Samurai (both of which I enjoyed). It was strong and detailed enough to grab the viewer's attention, and the pacing was excellent, but it was pretty easy to tell what was going to happen next.

The second and in my mind more serious shortcoming was that James Cameron overly ambitious attempt to communicate moral and political messages. In using Pandora as an allegory, he tried to criticize a wide range of stupid and despeciable acts humans have committed/continue to commit, ranging from colonialism, environmental desecration and Bush 2.0 and the Neocons' polarizing anti-terror policies, to capitalism and corporate greed. I feel like Cameron tried to be too topical, which is funny considering this movie took him over a decade to make (hmm what does that say about how shitty people are?). The way he explained and explored those vastly complicated issues was heavy handed and over simplified, and ending the movie with the final lesson of love conquers all felt a little too glib.

Instead, I would have preferred to see Cameron delve deeper into Jake's inner psyche. Jake's status as not only an outsider, but one biologically separated from the Na'vi, was a great place to deepen the story and offer a more nuanced interpretation of his themes and morals. It could have been a perfect way to discuss how people struggle and cope with multiple identities and allegiances. Cameron missed a great opportunity for storytelling by simply employing a plot device to allow Jake to totally abandon his human self and become a Na'vi. He could have asked the hard questions: Is there really good or evil? What drives people to make the choices they do? How does a person reconcile contradictions in his identity? By hiding behind absolutes, Cameron didn't allow Avatar to fulfill its full potential and rise above its simplistic story line.

Oh well, that's why we have sequels right?

Ripple effects

2009-12-31T21:35:00.001-05:00

People who can't afford to or just don't feel like paying $19 for Avatar in IMAX will undoubtedly be happy about this development...

Sorry -- no eating my hat

2009-12-31T19:07:00.004-05:00

From boxofficemojo.com on 12/31/2009:

Avatar: 745,078,899

New Moon: $665,403,961

And Avatar still topped the box office yesterday with $18,466,123... so I'm guessing Avatar will make more money, while New Moon has asymptotically reached it max revenue.

Looks like justice does exist in this world.

Great minds think alike

2009-12-31T18:33:00.001-05:00

As you may have noticed while reading through Golden Globe nominations, Sandra Bullock was nominated twice for her roles in two pretty successful movies this year, The Proposal (saw it, meh) and the Blind Side (didn't see it, read the book it's based on). Based on what I saw from her in the first one, and some trailers/spots of the second I thought those award nods were not well deserved. But that's ok, Sandra Bullock is a pretty fair actress and those are chick flicks so whatever...

I do however want to pour some cold water on another movie, one that received a lot of hype and critical consideration because of the actors and director involved - Invictus. Since one of my dear friends has always told me not to pass off other people's opinion as my own, I will not judge the movie without having seen it. Instead I will refer you to the review of this non-critic. Let me just say that the reasons he listed are the precise ones that made me not want to watch this movie...

A little bit about Bill Simmons, one of the most knowledgeable, insightful and funniest sports columnist/culture critics I know and respect.

Yet another critic flames out

2009-12-31T12:55:00.004-05:00

I was initally only going to add this link to my previous post, but I decided this was important...

Add Rotten Tomatoes to the list of critics (in this case a whole hoard of them) that have lost credibility with me (which is to say nearly all of them). The editors of RT announced their choices for best movies of 2010. Of the nine who listed their top 2 picks not one mentioned District 9. Although this is an annoying oversight, I realize there were some great movies this year, and would have been fine with agreeing to disagree... that is until I read through the list and found these flicks included instead:

1. Red Cliff
Uhhh what? First of all I saw this movie in its original 2 part, 5 hour release in Chinese and it was pretty bad. X and I talked about this and I don't think I'm overstating it when I say John Woo totally butchered the story, and turned this into a typical, corny, big-budget action movie (think Michael Bay) with a superfluous and implausible romance/tryst tacked on to help launch the acting career of a Taiwanese model who is almost too old for the fashion world. Already don't think this should be on a best movies list? But wait there's more! The guy didn't even see the real movie! He saw the version that was edited to two hours for US theatrical release- read dumbed down for an American audience that doesn't know anything about Chinese history or the masterpiece novel that the movie was based on.

This is part of a bigger problem with Americans and their (our) attitude towards China and Chinese culture. Without any real understanding or desire to dig any deeper, we just eat up whatever Hollywood and mainstream media feed us without bothering to ask why or how this corresponds to reality. Of course this has much deeper social implications, but this is not the forum for that. What I'm most mad about is how this lack of understanding, and more importantly genuine curiosity and rigor, has popularized and made profitable so many movies that qualify as SELLOUTS.

Indeed, even the people who are supposed to know better (like critics and people who hand out awards) fall prey to the same mentality and reward crap movies like Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, House of Flying Daggers (do not even get me started) and even Hero (this one is more tolerable, but still reflects the epidemic).

Even more infuriating is how these movies' commercial success has turned artists who used to be respected masters into corporate hacks or victims of type-cast , and more importantly obscured real stars and achievements in Chinese cinema. While working in Hong Kong in the 80s and 90s, John Woo made countless great action movies (Hard Boiled, A Better Tomorrow, Bullet in the Head, etc) that pioneered the gritty, gangster noir genre in HK before coming to Hollywood. Yet today, most people know him as the director of Mission Impossible II... Same thing with Jet Li, Sammo Hung, Chow Young Fat, Donnie Yen, and even to some extent Jackie Chan. If you really love movies, I implore you to please go to IMDB after you watch a movie with a Chinese actor or director, and check out some of his previous work (the ones with non-English titles). Not all of them will be good and most will require you to read subtitles, but I have no doubt you will gain a better appreciation of the talent and potential of these artists.

2. Star Trek
A little less indignant about this one. I would have given Star Trek a high BLOCKBUSTER, but to tell you the truth it and JJ Abrams is overrated. It's a fantastic reinvention of a historic but tired franchise, and featured some great characters (I especially enjoyed Uhura played by Zoe Saldana, and Spock played by Zachary Quinto), but at the end of the day it's just a fun action movie with a convoluted plot that was excused because it's a science fiction/fantasy story. All in all, more Transformers (the good one) than Dark Knight.

3. The Hangover
The MOST OVERRATED movie of the year. Yes I saw it. Yes it was outrageous. Yes I laughed at many of the gags (my favorite was the cop car with Mike Tyson's tiger). But is it one of the best movies of the year? Absolutely not. It's not even this year's funniest or best comedy, that in my opinion belongs to Judd Apatow's Funny People, which I liked better than his earlier and more over the top fan favorites. This is how the RT editor justified his selection:

"Yeah, we've seen raunchy comedies about men behaving badly before -- quite a number of them this decade, actually, and a few from director Todd Phillips -- but few of them have been as consistently funny as The Hangover, and none of them have raked in the kind of record-setting cash generated by this sun-baked tale of three groomsmen who lose their groom after a wild night in Vegas." (bold added by me)

He seems to imply that one of the criteria for judging a movie should be its box office numbers, or at least its revenue generating prowess compared to other films in the same genre... maybe he would like to nominate New Moon for being the highest grossing vampire movie ever. In the end I think the success of The Hangover can be attributed just one thing - The Great Recession. People were sick and tired of bad news and worrying about their jobs all year, and this was the perfect escapist movie. It did what everyone wanted to do: say a big FUCK YOU to all responsibility, go crazy, get wasted, black out and lose yourself for a few days and have everything wind up ok in a happy ending... you know like frat boys in college.

What do you think? What were your favorite movies this year? Happy to hear your thoughts...

Critics picks

2009-12-31T11:00:00.001-05:00

If you guys care about the opinions of any real critics (but really we hope you just listen to us), many of them have released their picks for best (and worst) movies of 2009.

Here are the ones from NYT (I didn't link Dargis because she left my pick off the list and I'm mad at her, but there's a link for it on the AO Scott page) and Rottentomatoes. Interested in what Spill has to say.

Something for the New Moon fangirls...

2009-12-31T09:52:00.002-05:00

Your favorite sexually confused vampire just chipped his tooth... while flossing... as if sparkly skin wasn't girly enough.

1 down, 4 to go

2009-12-30T22:10:00.000-05:00

Saw Sherlock Holmes and Precious today. Sherlock was a total disappointment, I was actually bored at multiple points during the movie. Precious on the other hand was intense and engaging, the Golden Globe nod is well deserved...

I love Google Reader...

2009-12-30T00:03:00.001-05:00

for always having something that makes me laugh. I want to grow up to be like this guy.