John's Movie Musings

A few years ago, a story came out about a group of MIT students who raked in millions by beating the odds at Blackjack. They didn't cheat at all. Instead, they used a fascinating system to maximize the odds in their favor. 21 is Hollywood's take on that story - an obvious cause for concern.

If you don't know how the system works, the movie does a pretty good job of explaining it. Since I did, some scenes got a little tedious, but if you know nothing about it, they shouldn't be a problem. If anything, you'll come away thinking you and your Texas Hold 'Em buddies can pull this off in Vegas. Hollywood has a habit of leaving out important realities. Please keep that in mind. Otherwise, tell Vito I tried to warn you.

Unfortunately, 21 doesn't fill the cast with actual MIT students, so you get sexy, waify twenty-somethings who hold graphing calculators upside down and wonder where the Bejeweled button is. The main guy is the same dude from Across the Universe and I apologize for yet another rant about that crapfest, but 21 ends with a complete bastardization of a Rolling Stones tune. It's like the guy hates love and only stars in movies that feast on the soul of classic rock. You wanna talk about typecasting. Doogie Howser is in paradise compared with this guy.

Enough about that. Even though the movie drips all things bad about Hollywood, the film's worth seeing. Yes, the ending blows. Yes, things are too predictable. So put on your mental filters beforehand and pull out the true story. You'll enjoy it.

Grade: B-

Cloverfield has been sitting in my Netflix queue for an eternity and it finally showed up in 1080p goodness this weekend. Was it worth the wait? Not exactly.

As we all know by now, Hollywood has this love affair with reinventing old stories. JJ Abrams (who you know from LOST and Alias, also did Cloverfield) is reinventing Star Trek later this year (yes, with the Kirk and Spock crew). Cloverfield is just a reinvention of Godzilla. Some may disagree with that since it's set in New York and the monster is different, but it's basically the same story...just without the charm.

When the Blair Witch Project came out, people loved its style. Then, when they actually saw it, those same people threw up in the theaters from all the Shaky-Cam nonsense. I'm not sure why JJ Abrams decided to do a Godzilla movie with the Blair Witch Shaky-Cam. At home, it wasn't too bad to watch, but I can think of a few scenes that would have been painful in the theater. Note to Hollywood: I really wish that fad would fade.

So you can go two directions with a disaster movie. You can focus all the attention on the destruction and let some special effects artists earn a raise. Or, you can try to create a story in and around the distaster and hope it's good. Usually, we don't see that route taken by directors because the stories are crap. Always.

Cloverfield stumbles on both paths. A monster attacking New York is great for special effects. In fact, I've seen that city destroyed so many times in movies, I'd bet every inch of it has been digitized. Unfortunately, the monster doesn't get much screen time. This means the action has to center around the poorly crafted love story. The motivations behind dragging these idiots around Midtown are flimsy, at best.

The biggest problem is that nothing is explained and nothing is resolved. It's like you took a book and ripped out the first and last five chapters. You get the gist of the story, but with no supports on the ends, it collapses on itself.

Back when The Number 23 was released, the Internet Prophets of Doom began shouting, "This movie sucks!" - "Jim Carrey's career is OVER!!!" - "First!" - "I like Angelina Jolie!!!!11"

Checking out RottenTomatoes.com, the movie is sitting at 8%. And yes, it's that bad.

Let's start with flaw #1. As you can see from the poster, Jim Carrey goes crazy in this. Having a character go from normal to crazy in 90 minutes is a tough challenge. I'm assuming it's tough, because so few movies do it right. Remember that scene from Episode III?

Anakin: I just killed Jedi Master Samuel L Jackson. I'm ready to serve you.
Emperor: Excellent. Go kill some kids.
Anakin: Yes, of course.

The Number 23 has the same problem. Jim Carrey goes crazy because he reads an odd coincidence in a book, then decides he needs to kill someone. Those types scenes are unbelievable because no one acts like that. Which brings me to flaw #2, which is sort of related to Flaw #1.

Characters should not realize they are in a piece of fiction and do things no one would ever do in reality. You notice this when the writer lets his characters get away from the plot, so they must do something completely illogical, unnatural, or just plain stupid to advance the story. You could make a drinking game for the amount of times this happens here.

And lastly, the grandaddy of all flaws. Want to know what's so special about the number 23? Well too bad Mr. Needy. You don't need to know that kind of detail. But you say the movie is named after it and therefore must be important? No stupid, that's just a trigger to get Jim Carrey to kill someone. It could have been 42 or blue or even Pooh Bear. It's not important, so just deal, ok?

Yeah, this is as bad as everyone says it is.


Grade: F

What an odd history Afghanistan has had these past twenty years. In a very short amount of time, you've got the Soviets, the Taliban, and Bin Laden. No wonder everyone is telling stories about the place.

Charlie Wilson's War takes a look at the Afghanistan of the 1980s. Billy Joel tells us that's when we got "Russians in Afghanistan." While you were more concerned with Wheel of Fortune and Sally Ride, the highlight reel of the Cold War was being filmed in Kabul.

The movie takes a very light tone with the subject. This is great as a little sarcasm helps cover the fact that we had basically three guys fund a war against the Soviets. Let that sink in a bit before your thoughts wander back to Vanna White.

Looking at the poster, you know right away that the cast is superb. But still, Tom Hanks and Phillip Seymore Hoffman play their best characters ever. They have a chemistry that even rivals the Scrubs musical episode. Seriously, if you've never heard "Guy Love," make it a priority to do so. Stat.

If you missed this one in the theaters (like I think a lot of people did), it's definitely worth checking out.

Oh, and this is my 100th post. Sweet.


Grade: A

All this time and I have yet to talk about Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog. Just how awful is my oversight? Dr. Horrible is the greatest thing to you and the internet since Google.

The movie runs 45 mins (in three acts) and stars Neil Patrick Harris as a mad scientist, with a video blog, and his attempts to join the Evil League of Evil. Oh, and it's a musical.

"But John," you say. "Across the Universe made me hate all musicals - past, present, and future." I understand. Believe me, I do. But this is a "Sing-Along" musical which means these songs will bring joy and wonderment - not bile and vomit.

Despite its awesomeness, Dr. Horrible is an important step in entertainment. You see, back during the Writer's Strike, Joss Whedon got some friends together and made this piece of genius on the cheap. But instead of releasing it via normal channels (TV, Theater, DVD, etc), he released it on the internet, for free.

Right now, I watch about 90% of my TV online. I'm *this* close to canceling cable and probably will by year-end. Granted, I'm not normal...but I like to think I'm living in the future of entertainment medium. Dr. Horrible is, hopefully, the first step of many.

You need to watch this. Multiple times. Go now to Hulu.com.

Grade: A+

How does Uwe Boll do it? He's easily the worst director of our time (though Michael Bay comes close), yet he gets an incredible list of actors to star in his "movies." I mean look at that poster. You recognize everyone on it. And right now you're asking yourself why Jason Statham is starring in a crappy fantasy movie. I asked the same thing.

And it's just not those four. You will recognize nearly every actor in this. It's like there was a bet around Hollywood on whether or not Lord of the Rings would be a success. Everyone that lost had to star in a crappy fantasy flick from Uwe Boll. It's the only possibility I can think of.

So what exactly is this star-studded yarn? It's a crappy fantasy movie. Actually, it's not that bad. In fact, it's Uwe Boll's best movie to date (the fact that I've seen more than one should be an indication that I'm behind on my medication). Seriously. None of the major characters disappear in the middle of the story, and most of the plotlines have a resolution. It's almost like a real movie.

Of course, the camera edits are bad. The dialog is laughably stupid. And the acting is horrid - especially Ray Liotta. Someone needs to make a drinking game for every time Ray makes a "What the hell am I doing here" expression. Jason Statham does a decent job for what it is. But my favorite was Ron Pearlman who should have starred as Hellboy. Would have made for a better movie, methinks.

So next time you gather a bunch of friends around for a Friday Night Crapfest, watch this. Make sure the beer is flowing, though. It'll help. A lot.

Grade: C (Yeah, it really wasn't that bad)

Those of you who have been reading these reviews know that I enjoy character studies. I like looking into the wounds of the past and seeing how they affect the actions of the present. It allows opportunities to explore subjects that might be too difficult through any other medium.

Lars and the Real Girl is such a movie. It tries to tackle extreme loneliness and isolation resulting from past childhood wounds. By necessity, the movie takes a fairly light tone and usually pokes fun of itself. It's quirky but not in the "Hey I'm an Indie movie" kind of quirky. For the most part, it gets things right.

The basic plot is that Lars buys a lifesize doll and pretends she's his real girlfriend. Remember that movie from the 80s where the store mannequins come to life and some guy falls in love with one? It's like that, except the mannequin stays plastic. And Roxette didn't do the soundtrack.

Lars is played by Ryan Gosling. The range he shows in Lars proves how great of an actor he is. I've liked him in other stuff I've seen, but not once did I think I was watching "that guy from The Notebook." I'm looking forward to more stuff from him.

Overall, the movie does a pretty good job and making you feel for Lars and his fake girlfriend. I was fine with things up until the end when the movie decided to take itself way too seriously. Those of you who have seen this probably know what I'm talking about. While Lars may have had a problem distinguishing real from fake, I had no problem at all remembering that his girlfriend was a doll. When the director starts thinking that I've forgotten that fact, problems ensue. I won't spoil it for ya, but you might be tempted to scream, "Come on!! She's a doll!!" at your TV.

Just on the subject matter alone, this might be worth a rental. It's not perfect, but at least they don't completely screw it up.

Grade: B-

On the whole, I like Vin Diesel movies. Sure, they're not great, but he portrays this sort of masculinity that's not been seen since Chuck Norris. The kind that makes you stand in the theater and yell, "That's testosterone, bitches!!!" Try it when you go see his next one. Don't worry about feeling embarrassed. It's a Vin Diesel movie, the place will be empty.

And that highlights Vin's problem. He's great at picking movies with interesting worlds and backdrops, but the plotlines lack focus. Just take a look at the Riddick movies for an example.

So does Babylon A.D. break the trend? Sadly, no. In many ways, it's worse.

For the first two-thirds, the movie's not bad. It's a simple story of "get the girl to New York" but it's got a Cyberpunk feel to keep things interesting. Sure, it's ripped off of Blade Runner, but if you're gonna rip something off, might as well be the best, right?

But here's where the (plagairized) world building falls apart. Vin meets several characters along the journey that he seems to have a connection with. I expected all that to be revealed over the course of the movie, culminating to a satisfactory ending. Afterall, that's how stories work. Instead, we get a completely new plot in the last act. Seriously, there comes a point towards the last half hour where everything after it has no connection to what came before. It's bad. I'm talking Hancock bad. My friend and I sat through the credits trying to figure out what the writer/director were going for. I think we got it figured out, but man did they screw it up.

So yeah, skip this.


Grade: D