Long Time, No Posts

A long time.

Long story.

Best untold.

Best be posting.

Review: Georgia Rules

By Emma Carroll

All of you folks planning to not see this movie because it stars Lindsey Lohan, don’t make that your reason. And all of you folks planning to see it because she stars in it – be ready for a surprise! This is not your typical Lindsey Lohan flick. Take it from the two guys who were sitting next to me and completely shocked that it wasn’t a “teeny-bopper” flick. “It was really intense!” said one. I agree. Although I knew Lohan had some acting chops after seeing her in Prairie Home Companion, Georgia Rule confirmed my suspicions.


Jane Fonda and Lindsey Lohan in Georgia Rule

This assumed “chick flick” stars Lohan as Rachel, a troubled teen who has been dragged from San Francisco to Idaho, “The land of the famous potato”, where resides her strict grandmother (Jane Fonda). Rachel’s mother (Felicity Huffman) no longer wants to deal with her daughter’s drug-induced mendacity, and so she places her in Georgia’s care. In Small-Podunk-Town, Idaho, Rachel befriends a couple of local townsmen with her charmingly seductive ways. Dermott Mulroney plays Simon, a local veterinarian/doctor who doesn’t have a license to practice on humans. While working for him, Rachel discovers that his wife and child have died in a car accident. While discussing this topic Rachel admits something to him, which he then proceeds to tell her grandmother who then tells her mother. I will not tell you readers what she admitted to him - this would betray a very shocking moment in the film. I, along with many others in the theater, was quite caught off guard by her confession. Once opened, the confession can of worms spreads and wreaks havoc on her already weak family ties.

One of the deeper themes to Georgia Rule is the difference between truths and lies. Rachel has always lied to her mother and stepfather. Simon tells her that she can no longer tell the difference between truth and lie and neither can the audience. Throughout the movie, the audience is pulled back and forth between belief and doubt in the sincerity of Rachel’s character. The viewer cannot be sure, until all is revealed, whether or not she is lying or telling the truth about her ordeal. Meanwhile, the characters within the film are torn between whether or not to believe her story as well.

Though the subject matter here is heavy, the writers impressively interspersed comedy with weighty content. In fact, the movie is quite funny despite the gravity of the topic. The quick exchange between laughs and serious moments threw my fellow audience members off at first. This is what made Rachel’s initial admission so shocking. You are laughing one minute and the next it is all seriousness. Still, the writers used comedy very strategically to lighten the tone, never awkwardly. There was always a chuckle within the tears, and many all out guffaws. Touching on the humor in every situation makes the characters even more enchanting than they already are.

Lohan was excellent in a hefty role. This is a new challenge for her, which she accomplishes well. This deeper side of Lohan has much to admire and I hope to see her in more like this. Of course, Huffman and Fonda shine, but especially Fonda as the tough rule hungry mother/grandmother.

Georgia Rule was more of a surprise than I can say. It was wonderful and I think it will be this summer’s sleeper Thelma and Louise. Even the guys that I was with enjoyed it, and that’s saying something for a “chick flick”! See it. I give it an A-.

Review: Spider-Man 3

By Emma Carroll

The first release of the summer blockbusters, the much anticipated (and much hyped) Spider-Man 3 fell a little shy of my expectations. This episode of the Spider-Man trilogy is releasing in iMax as well as in 35mm. I can imagine that seeing a Spider-Man film on an iMax screen would be amazing, but it has to have the action sequences to justify needing an iMax screen. If you’re just watching a romantic comedy, then spending the extra few bucks isn’t really worth it. I did not get to see Spidey on an iMax, and thought it was definitely exciting to see it on the big screen; I still felt that the romance and relationships far overshadowed the Spidey action sequences.

Tobey Maguire as Spider-Man
The darkest of the three Spider-Man flicks, the third deals much more with wrapping up the details of the Peter/MJ, Peter/Harry and Peter/Uncle Ben/Flint Marko relationships than sending the audience into topsy-turvy Spidey-esque fight sequences. Don’t get me wrong, there are some great sequences. My favorite was the early but brief mini battle between Peter and The New Goblin/Harry, during which both characters struggle to stay a-flight while speeding through the alleys of New York City.

After this point, the movie dove into the drama genre, breaking here and there with a bit of action. Now don’t get me wrong, the story was smooth and interesting. There was just far more character development than there was action. Character development is all fine and good in an action flick, it makes the story more interesting, but this episode of Spider-Man lost a bit of the balance that keeps you on the edge of your seat. The plot, in fact, was great. I really enjoyed the story; it was just expecting more on the front of grand battle sequences.

One part of the film that brought a different, surprising, and quite laughable aspect as a release from the romance and drama, were the antics resulting from the effects of the alien-ized suit. When Peter starts wearing the black suit about halfway through the film, he begins to do some things that Tobey McGuire might not be quite cut out to do. Although the frolics caused by the black suit are quite hilarious, they do begin to get a little ridiculous. I mean, I love short white men doing pelvic thrusts in the middle of the street as much as the next girl – but Tobey McGuire, I much prefer his brooding boyishness to cringe-worthy dancing.

In addition to that, I wasn’t sure at first if I was going to buy into this “alien from another planet takes over Spidey’s suit situation. It seemed a little off - as if it didn’t fit in with the other two chapters of the Spidey Saga. When I think back on the other two films, everything that happened to create villains, and Spider-Man, was somewhat otherworldly. Granted, they were mostly chemically related phenomena, and therefore “easily” explained by physics, not from other planets. This was the reason that I first found it hard to believe that the suite was taken over by an alien life form. I do not pretend to be a Spider-Man comic aficionado, but I didn’t see how aliens from another planet fit in with the comic origins of the story. However, this was how Venom was created - so it must be in there somewhere.

On that subject, Topher Grace was fabulous as Venom/Eddie Brock. As a new character coming into an old cast, he fit right in. His re-creation of the evil Venom was positively creepy. I have to give some props there to the special effects artists as well, for making him visually grating as well, like fingers on a chalkboard incarnate.

One more thing, I did feel a little patronized at the beginning of the flick, when the director decided to rehash the previous two films in visual during an overlong opening credits sequence. It became a bit cheesy and cheapened it a bit, as if the director didn’t think we could remember what had happened in the story up to this point.

When it comes down to it, Spider-Man 3 is a well-done, enjoyable movie. It is not a typical action film, and it's not what people will expect from the trilogy. Except for the fact that everything was nicely wrapped-up in the end, I felt like it was The Empire Strikes Back of the Spider-Man films: dark and evil infested. I certainly recommend the film to everyone, but just be forewarned, it’s not what the hype would have you expect!

Reivew: Hot Fuzz

By Ben Sweeney

Director Edgar Wright recently said that he and writing partner Simon Pegg revealed the title of their new film Hot Fuzz too early. The script had yet to be written but already the internet was clamoring for a buddy cop film from the creators of Shaun of the Dead (and the amazing BBC sitcom Spaced). He said he felt pressured to deliver this unrealized film and almost abandoned the idea. Thankfully he didn’t. Hot Fuzz delivers on all of the hype and promise built up around the fantastically silly title.

Nick Frost, Simon Pegg and cohorts in Hot Fuzz

At a recent advance screening Wright described the mood of Hot Fuzz as “Agatha Christie being ridden roughly from behind by Michael Bay.” The film does for police action films what Shaun of the Dead did for zombie flicks and romantic comedies; parodying the source material while simultaneously glorifying and reveling in a deep love for it. Hot Fuzz is equal parts comedy and action flick and neither characteristic falls short of the mark.

The film begins with a montage describing Sergeant Nicholas Angel (Simon Pegg) as a by the book, zero tolerance, London super cop. He is so good that he makes the rest of the force look bad in comparison, so his superiors (Bill Nighy, Martin Freeman, and Steve Coogan in the first of many cameos by some of England’s top comedic actors) transfer him to the sleepy country village of Sanford to get him out of the way. There he is partnered with Danny Butterman (Nick Frost, also of Shaun of the Dead and Spaced), the bumbling son of the local police chief (Jim Broadbent), and meets the rest of Sanford’s finest. The local police force is completely inactive and totally ambivalent to minor infractions like underage drinking and public urination. He immediately shakes things up and ends up arresting half the town on his first night only to be stymied by the chief’s insistence that a good talking to and maybe some ice cream can solve any problem.

Sanford’s police force is a jumble of great characters but the highlight of Angel’s new colleagues are the Andys (played by Paddy Considine and Rafe Spall), a pair of inspectors who live to antagonize Angel and Danny with juvenile taunts and practical jokes. The mustachioed pair steal every scene they’re in and provide some great comedic interactions with our heroes. Sanford is also populated with a large cast made up of some great genre icons like Billie Whitelaw (The Omen), Edward Woodward (The Wicker Man), Paul Freeman (Raiders of the Lost Ark), and the amazing Timothy Dalton. Dalton plays the overly sinister supermarket owner and is terrifically funny in all of his scenes.

From here the film follows typical buddy cop formula as Angel and Danny learn to work together and become friends while trying to decipher the mysterious deaths of some of the village’s prominent citizens. While the mystery and action pieces are more than effective, this journey from ill suited partners to good friends is the real heart of the movie. The characters are up there with all those iconic duos we all know and love: Riggs and Murtaugh, Tango & Cash, Die Hard and Carl Winslow. Danny is obsessed with the very action movies Hot Fuzz pays tribute to (especially Point Break and Bad Boys II and many of the movie’s homages come from these two films) and his idea of police work is firmly imbedded in their world. He shows Angel that sometimes the rules need to be broken.

If there is one thing Hot Fuzz has going for it before its release, it’s hype. Shaun of the Dead was an instant cult classic in every way and its rabid fan base has been clamoring for its follow-up. I always get nervous when expectations get this high. I can safely say, however, that Hot Fuzz not only meets the expectations, it surpasses them. I’m going out on a limb here (and I should probably wait till I’ve seen it again to make such audacious claims) but Wright, Pegg, and Frost just might have one-upped themselves. We’ll see.

Review: The Hoax

By Emma Carroll

I’ll admit, in some ways I am not the best person to be discussing The Hoax. I know very little about politics in general, let alone the politics of the early 1970’s during the Nixon administration. I know the gist of things involving Nixon’s impeachment and the Watergate scandal but details are another thing all together. I had never heard of Clifford Irving before and I was unaware that this movie is based on his book. And everything I know about Howard Hughes is from the movie Aviator. In fact, when I left the theater I had to call my father to ask him if all of this really happened. I went into this movie totally blind. However, if you look at it from the opposite perspective, this makes me the perfect person to discuss this film, as it’s own entity, just as it is.

The Hoax as I mentioned is based on the book by the same name by Clifford Irving. As it turns out, Irving was a great con man, though that is not clear in the film. His person is re-created by Richard Gere (Chicago), who does a wonderful job playing two characters: Irving and Irving’s vision of Howard Hughes. The Hoax is actually an autobiographical depiction of Irving’s attempt to con the publishing giant McGraw-Hill into believing that he had been contacted by reclusive multi-millionaire Howard Hughes to contract Irving to write his autobiography before he died – an endeavor that ultimately landed him in prison for 14 months. In essence, the idea of this is entirely unbelievable. Howard Hughes had not contacted anyone by anything other than memo, and no one outside of his own close trusted staff. But that in fact was what made Irving’s scheme plausible. Hughes would not be available to comment in person either for or against Irving’s story, so all Irving had to do was imitate him, in writing and in voice. He enlisted the help of his best friend and author, Richard Suskind (Alfred Molina) in his machinations, along with his wife Edith, played by Marcia Gay Harden.

As his ruse progressed he eventually found himself becoming Hughes. He played the part while recording pieces of the man’s life story onto audiotape, dressing like him and even drawing a mustache on his face while he spoke as if he were Hughes himself. Irving referred to Mr. Hughes as Howard like they were old pals, though not even Hughes’ most trusted associates used anything other than his surname. Irving even began to believe his own forgery so much that he started having hallucinations.

On another plot level, and what interested me most (and also confused me most!), was how everything involved in the development of Irving’s book tied into the politics of the time. The film takes place during the final months of the Nixon administration. As Irving is building his story, in the background the country is in turmoil. I will not go in to detail in case the reader does not know the historical facts. But the revelation at the end of the film is quite the shocker! It was this that had me leaving the theater asking, “are these events real?”

But I haven’t yet said how I felt about this movie. As someone who was ignorant to the facts, I was enthralled. Richard Gere brought a real life to the character, true or not. I do love conspiracies, and that is what this was. The story itself was of course fascinating, and the acting and direction made the truth of it seem both real and fanciful at the same time. After all, unbelievable reality of these events is the stuff movies are made of.

Review: Disturbia

By Penina Wiesman

Let's get one thing straight. To redo an Alfred Hitchcock masterpiece, you need to possess the guts and skill worthy of such a task. The former is easy to come by in Hollywood. The latter, not so much. As a remake of Hitchcock's much parodied Rear Window, Disturbia is equally amateurish on both counts.

Sarah Roemer and Shia LaBeouf in Disturbia
The basic storyline is the same. Man confined to his home entertains himself by peeping at his neighbors and their private lives, until one day, he sees one of them commit an atrocious crime. Everyone around him refuses to believe him, chalking his suspicions up to isolation-induced paranoia, which forces him to take matters into his own hands. Disturbia dunks this classic plot in the fountain of privileged-yet-troubled youth. Instead of Jimmy Stewart's broken leg due to journalistic bravado, Kale (whose similarly unfortunate real name, Shia LeBeouf, is also related to cuisine) is a suburban teenager under house arrest for a rather unheroic assault against one of his teachers. As an additional punishment (in case you were wondering what could be worse for a teenager than being stuck at home all summer long), his mother takes away his xbox and itunes, and literally cuts off his cable supply. All he has left now is a bedroom the size of my whole apartment and enough high-tech surveillance equipment to be in an unmarked van across the street. I think maybe there's a tear in my eye, but it's just from the stench of entitlement.

Further attempts to jazz up the movie for the young and the hormonal adds banal teenage conflict and unnecessary violence that are perfect for an adolescent audience, but painful for the rest of humanity. In typical teen-movie fashion, Kale notices the family moving in next door have a hot (of course) teen-aged daughter Ashley (Sarah Roemer), Disturbia's take on the Hitchcock Blonde. Kale and his doofus sidekick Ronnie (Aaron Yoo) watch Ashley like a couple of ten-year olds who just figured out how to access the blocked cable channels. Ashley herself spends her time doing yoga in a skimpy outfit with the blinds wide open, and swimming in the back yard in an even skimpier bikini. The trio's biggest problems (aside from the killer living one yard over) involve teen-age identity woes, house party drama, and feuds with the neighborhood preteens. There should be a rating for a film like this, pandering exclusively to the teen-angst set. Maybe something like DB-19 (Don't Bother if over the age of 19).

Aside from a few moments of anxiety, Disturbia is unimpressive in just about every way. Don't misunderstand me: the movie's plot is smooth (although that's mostly due to Hitchcock's material), and it has some well-timed tension, plus the requisite creepy soundtrack. Thankfully, this wasn't The Covenant. However, instead of the usual whirlwind of ideas warring in my head when leaving the theater, this time there was nothing. There wasn't even the residue of an entertaining scene or a noteworthy line. I had even forgotten the title. I had to look it up when I got home. It's as if director D. J. Caruso had used his movie to suck my synapses dry. Disturbia not only left me with no mental fodder, it also managed to remove all presence of itself in my brain.

David Morse in Disturbia
The beauty of Hitchcock was that he was able to keep us on the edge of our seats without graphic depictions of violence, sex, or nudity. Sure, he toed the line a bit, but he was still shackled by the puritan production code that restricted all theatrical releases in those days, which is what made his skill so sharp. But today's desensitized youth demand their entertainment to be mindless and handed to them on a silver platter. This is one of the few places where Disturbia succeeds.

The worst feeling in every twenty-something's life is when she realizes she's not on the pulse of youth culture anymore. Sitting in the darkened theater watching Disturbia, that feeling overtook me. I felt closer to Kale's mom Julie (Carrie-Ann Moss, sans the leather jumpsuit and sunglasses) than any of the other characters, silently cheering when she cut her son's cable wire (you gotta teach them youngsters discipline!). My favorite part (according to my notes) was when Ashley used the word “gnarly,” mostly because it was slang that I recognized from my own totally awesome youth. The bottom line was I was too old to be watching this movie. If you're young, full of hormones, and like you're movies so easy to digest you need Immodium, you will most likely enjoy Disturbia. However, if you left the high school social sphere more than five years ago, DB.

Exclusive Photo: Winona Ryder in The Ten

A little something for all of you to have a look at. Here's Winona Ryder as Kelly, along with her friend Gary, in the forthcoming comedy The Ten.



The Ten will premiere in the New England area on April 28th at the Boston Independent Film Festival. Click here for details.

Review: Knocked Up

By Emma Carroll

Although Knocked Up is hilariously funny, the entire movie I felt like something wasn’t quite right. I was laughing but the laughs didn’t feel like the jovial laugh that I got from There’s Something About Mary or Euro Trip. The thing is, the subject matter of Knocked Up is incredibly serious. This movie makes light of a situation that is not funny to be in. The writers accomplished this feat quite well, but deep down, while the audience is laughing, there’s a little twinge in your heart where the viewer realizes how awful it would be to land in Alison’s dilemma.

Katherine Heigl and Seth Rogan in Knocked Up
“Marriage is just an unfunny, never-ending version of Everybody Loves Raymond.” The writing for Knocked Up was truly fabulous. There were so many one-liners that should become classic quotes. It is the story of Alison Scott (Katherine Heigl of Grey’s Anatomy) who has a great job and a happy life. Until she meets stoner/pretend website designer Ben Stone (Seth Rogan of 40 Year Old Virgin) one night in a bar and, drunkenly, ends up sleeping with him – unprotected. She finds out how really mismatched they are the next morning; however, the result of this one-night-stand is growing inside of her.

When she finds out she is pregnant and decides to keep the baby, she calls Ben, who is determined to help her raise the child. From this point they try to build a relationship together. Meanwhile, Alison is living with her sister Debbie (Leslie Mann, 40 Year Old Virgin), and watching her marriage with husband Pete (Paul Rudd, Friends) deteriorate.

One thing that I must warn viewers about, there is some graphic footage that I don’t think anyone wants to see in a movie. I don’t want to give too much away but be prepared for “TMI” near the end of the movie, and not just once.

Every step of the way this movie is funny. Of course there was the obvious hilarity of Ben’s stoner friends, but I thought Paul Rudd’s subtler comedy was much more enticing. Most of the funniest lines were his. When it comes to comedy, Knocked Up trumped its predecessor 40 Year Old Virgin. I know there are probably some Virgin fans out there who are going to yell at me for saying that, but I definitely laughed way more during Knocked Up. However, despite the belly shaking laughs, I continued to feel mildly uncomfortable throughout the film. I realized post-viewing this discomfort was due the seriousness of the situation and the struggles between both couples. My laughs were light, loud and appropriate, but they were lacking in spirit. I could hear this in the laughs of others as well. Still, the writers avoided letting things get too dramatic and added the timely joke to lighten things up.

Knocked Up is a hard movie to grade. On the one hand it was spectacularly funny, but on the other, the subject matter tainted the comedy somewhat. It was a difficult endeavor for the writers to undertake, and yet, I feel that they were successful in making people laugh at a situation that is anything but funny. The question there becomes whether or not it is a tasteful result. I say it is. The actors and direction made the action very real, perhaps why there is that undercurrent of discomfort. The humor was fit in well with the every day trials of the characters. I did find it difficult to think that a girl like Katherine Heigl would ever go for a guy like Seth Rogan, even if she were drunk – but I suppose stranger things have happened. Nonetheless, the production team was successful in making this story lifelike, yet funny without being overly crass, despite the final sequence. However, I don’t recommend it for the older crowd. This is definitely a college age to mid-to-late 20’s type of movie. I give it a B average for all of its ups and downs.

Review: Pride

By Emma Carroll

When I saw Pride last night I had one of those amazing movie experiences one wishes they had more often. The theater was not packed, but the audience was enthusiastic. It was one of those theater encounters that let me know - the world’s joy in going to the movie theater will never go away. Last night, my fellow viewers were swept up into the movie. Cheers erupted from the audience when the team was successful, like real cheers and applause, not just the random halfhearted clap here and a “WOO!” there. It was the real thing, like we were all actually at the swim meets. This is what makes going to the movies so wonderful. And when a movie can bring this out in its audience, its success is clear.

Terrence Howard in Lionsgates' Pride
Pride is the story of the life of Jim Ellis. He comes to Philadelphia looking for a job in teaching but his skin color prevents the respect that he deserves and ends up insulted and at the unemployment agency. He is sent by the city to close up the Philadelphia Department of Recreation building and while he is working, discovers the pool. As he begins to train local youths to swim and then to be a team, he struggles against racism and the city as they continue to threaten to close the building down. The whole time building to the typical decision-making meet at Baltimore State. Although the plot is a bit contrived, resembling that of similar sports movies (Remember the Titans comes to mind), it doesn’t seem to matter here. This is the true to life story of Jim Ellis and the movie works while not straying far from his real life
.
In my opinion, Pride was definitely enjoyable and exhilarating. Some say swimming is not an exciting sport and therefore difficult to make exciting, but I disagree. I often find myself caught up in the Olympic swimming races. When you are eager for someone to win, anything can be nerve racking. The director of Pride, Sunu Gonera, made swimming an art. His camera angles, above and below the water, showed the beauty of these people “owning the water”. The intensity of the final sequence was made even more suspenseful by cutting back to the outside of the building where only faint sounds of the race could be heard.

I must say though, with all the thrill of the final quarter of the movie, it did start a little slow. But the excitement certainly builds as it moves. What keeps it going early on is the comedy. Bernie Mac plays the Head of Maintenance for the Philadelphia Department of Recreation (P.D.R.), and although he is a straight character in this movie, his lines definitely have a punch! I have not experienced Bernie Mac in many performances, and he plays this character well. I was very impressed by his breadth. I am intrigued by what else he can do! The kids on the swim team also provided some great comedic moments. They had some of the best lines in the show, and they delivered them like seasoned comedians.


Terrance Howard (Crash, Ray) plays Jim Ellis and he becomes the role. Howard is amazing and leads the cast with his brilliant performance.

Something that caught me a little off guard was some of the language. Many of the one liners seemed to be written in as if in today’s slang, which along with the colloquialisms made me wonder if they really spoke in the 70’s so similarly to people today.

As for the time period, one thing I can say for the costumes in this movie: I’m sure glad I didn’t live in the 70’s! But even with the tackiness of green paisley shirts the costumes were well done, perhaps a little over the top with the giant Afros and enormous earrings. Although, the main characters’ garb was a bit subtler.

I definitely have to give last night an A for the experience and a B for the movie. It was definitely one of those occasions that renew my faith. This is why I love movies.

Review: Blades of Glory

By Suzy Quinn

The only thing missing from Blades of Glory is a cameo from Tonya Harding. Other than that, I have no regrets for rendering myself devoted to this simple cinematic delight. At a mere hour and a half, it is more appetizer than entrée, but each of the 90 minutes is concentrated in parody and self-mockery. It’s indulgent with references to politics, celebrity, competition, and sexuality, but then again, so is capitalism. At the core of this movie, though, is sheer gluttonous hilarity, as packaged by the captivating duo of Will Ferrell and Jon Heder.

"Flash! He's a miracle!"

Blades tells the story of two top men’s single figure skaters, the defiant “Lone Wolf” Chazz Michael Michaels (Will Ferrell) and his rival, America’s favorite Good Boy Jimmy MacElroy (Jon Heder), who rely upon a skating federation loophole to revive their respective careers after the two erupt in a high-profile fight the same night they tie for the gold medal. They reluctantly join forces to enter the pair’s skating category, and their struggle to the top attracts as many doubters as admirers. The evil force of brother-sister team Stranz and Fairchild Van Waldenberg (real-life husband-wife team Will Arnett and Amy Poehler) set out to destroy their top opponents, and the action predictably culminates when they compete at the world championships.

As an occasional supporter of the Will Ferrell franchise, I was skeptical after my disappointment with the base humor of Talledega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby. It seemed even crasser than the other Ferrell flicks, but then again I am one of the only people (in the age bracket of 18-24) who has yet to see Old School. The trailers playing on TV imply a sort of homogeneity with the low-brow comedy genre, “just another one of those movies…”, but ultimately are wise not to reveal the most bankable lines and scenes. I can’t remember whether Anchorman’s promos alluded to its particular breed of comic brilliance, but trailers are supposed to be accessible by the general public. And everyone should want to see Blades of Glory.

If decapitation makes you nauseous, or if you experience genital-inflicted pain on vicarious levels, then Blades may be too much to handle. If you have not found the other films listed within the review amusing or entertaining, you probably will not enjoy it. Otherwise, Blades of Glory is a worthy addition to the line of films aimed at a Facebook-friendly, YouTube-using crowd who will undoubtedly exploit the film’s side-splitting sequences (note the scenes of team-training and fan worship). Will Ferrell’s performance is priceless; his shirtless antics are alive and well. A hairy chest has never been more satiable!

Another token Ferrell trait is the big emotional breakdown where Ferrell’s character becomes hysterically vulnerable, and Blades has a few of those times. Even the great size of Will is reason enough to approve of the casting choice as a figure skater. And yet, it is the casting of Jon Heder as Will’s bejeweled naïve adversary that ultimately grabs the audience. His innocence onscreen makes us want to care for him, much like I used to care for My Little Ponies. His comic timing rivals Ferrell’s; they are expertly matched, playing as though reunited brothers who were raised by a parent a piece, mother and father separated by their own political and social differences of opinion. The chemistry is unmistakable – indeed, men’s pair’s skating seems the only logical choice after we feel the thrill of their first triumphant routine together (it’s called “Fire and Ice”, get it?)

"Yes, I said mindbottleing. It's when my thoughts are like all caught up in a bottle and I can't get them out."

Ferrell and Heder embark on new territory, where neither player is greater than the other. They are equally outstanding, equally given screen-time and back-story, and equally hilarious. Without them, it would struggle to be considered a buddy flick, which is its ultimate asset. Even besides the comedy factor, Blades of Glory remains focused on the dynamic of friendship between these two seeming mismatches. It is a hopeful, life-affirming movie, but should probably be saved for viewers aged 13 and older.

The supporting cast dazzles with star-power from the worlds of television and figure skating. Poehler and Arnett provoke their share of laughs, too, taking incestuous humor and making it their own. Jenna Fischer (of The Office fame) plays their manager-sister who falls for Jimmy against the will of her siblings. Comedian Nick Swardson plays an obsessive fan whose tactics are nothing short of priceless. And there are a number of appearances by the best of skating past and present, Scott Hamilton being my personal favorite (though there are many to choose from). TV vets Craig T. Nelson, William Fichtner and William Daniels round out a solid secondary cast.

It is hard to watch this movie without comparing it to the past blockbusters of its leads, Anchorman and Napoleon Dynamite. This could end up being as successful as The 40 Year-Old Virgin or Dodgeball. There is little reason to believe it will have the cult following of Heder’s claim-to-fame, or Ferrell’s earlier film Zoolander. For what it is, though – a quick romp with contemporary slapstick genius – Blades of Glory does capture the dream.

New Transformers Posters

Paramount has released two new character posters for Michael Bay's Transformers. Simply enough, it's one for the Autobots and one for the Decepticons. "Protect" and "Defend" ...


Tranformers hits theaters on July 5th.

Review: Meet the Robinsons

By Emma Carroll

The funniest part about this movie for me was Tom Selleck. I’m not going to say more than that because it will ruin the joke. Granted, I love Tom Selleck (I always thought Monica should have married him and not Chandler) so it was that much more fun for me. Besides Tom Selleck, this movie had some good chuckles. Not very many all out laughs but it kept me smiling the whole way through. It reminded me a bit of a better version of Robots. It was not, unfortunately, as good as Toy Story. But that is because it was missing a lot of the adult humor that Toy Story provided. There were a few adult jokes, Tom Selleck for example, but this was much more a kids’ film. Nonetheless, I really liked it.


Meet the Robinsons is about a young inventor, Lewis, played by both Daniel Hansen (Stewart Little 2) and Jordan Fry (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory). Lewis also happens to be an orphan who has never seen his mother. He has trouble getting adopted because of his faulty inventions and crazy ideas. One day he becomes determined to build a machine, called a Memory Scanner, that can search your memory for things you have forgotten. He brings his machine to a science fair where he bumps into a boy who tells him to watch out for Bowler Hat Guy. While Lewis isn’t paying attention, Bowler Hat Guy breaks his invention. Distraught, Lewis runs home to simmer over his failure. The strange boy, Wilbur (Wesley Singerman), finds him and tells Lewis that he has come from the future, but he can’t give Lewis very much detail on why.

To prove his point he takes Lewis into the future, where his time machine breaks and they are stuck there until Lewis can fix it. While there Lewis slowly discovers more and more about Wilbur’s family, the Robinsons.

Meanwhile, Bowler Hat Guy tries to pass Lewis’ Memory Scanner off as his own but finds that he needs Lewis to succeed, so he follows the two boys into the future to kidnap Lewis and craziness ensues.

The time travel theme of this movie was great and the writers’ vision of the future was incredibly imaginative. It was supposed to be about 30 years from now though, so I couldn’t really believe that most of the crazy contraptions could really be developed in that near of a future or ever; but then again it’s an animated fantasy flick! The story was excellent and very entertaining.


I saw Meet the Robinsons in Disney’s new 3D animation. This was probably what I liked least about the movie. Those glasses hurt my eyes! And if I took them off the movie was all blurry which also hurt. I couldn’t decide which was worse. In the end I just watched it in 3D, which wasn’t as impressive as I would have expected. The coolest advantage of the 3D was when they were inside the bubble of the car roof. The distortion and color reflections on the glass made it look as if you were actually in the bubble with them. It was very intricate work. The animation was really well done too. I’m not an expert in computer animation by any means, but I couldn’t believe how real some of the objects looked, like the chrome on the time machine.

Discounting my sore eyes, I left the theater with a big grin on my face. I highly recommend Meet the Robinsons. It is not a movie that is necessarily for adults, but adults will certainly enjoy it, especially if they are a child at heart. It’s a great family movie; there is something for everyone. I give it an A-.

Review: Shooter

Mark Wahlberg Shoots it Up – Again…

By Emma Carroll

Mark Wahlberg seems to like the gun related movies. We have Four Brothers, The Departed and now we have Shooter directed by Antoine Fuqua (and as rumor may have it, next up: G.I. Joe!). So three positive things about this movie: 1. The conspiracy/espionage in the first half is an exciting cup of tea; 2. The cinematography is something out of a movie of a much grander scale; 3. Mark Wahlberg has a great body. Ok so that last one isn’t really a huge positive but I had to scramble cause sadly I couldn’t think of another. It’s also not something that’s going to matter if you’re a guy, but if you’re a guy you’ll probably love all of the guns and explosions. If you’re a girl, guns and explosions – enh, not so much. And that, as it so happens, is my review of this movie “enh”, with a little “so-so” hand wave.

I was actually disappointed, considering the first half of the movie took off with a great story, and a kind of Enemy of the State theme. Unfortunately, by the second half it turned into a “violence for violence’s sake” take on justice and the theme turned into “America is corrupt and Republicans are dirty, rotten, money hungry tyrants”. In short, very “anti-American.”

Mark stars as Bob Lee Swaggart, A US Marine sniper who is left to die with his spotter in enemy territory. His spotter is shot by fire from a helicopter, which Mr. Wahlberg then proceeds to take down. After this loss, he retires from the military and runs away to the mid western mountains to nurse his feelings of betrayal by the government and hide from the rest of mankind. His only friend is a dog, who so loyally brings him beer from inside the fridge after a long day’s work.

Three years later, who should show up but Colonel Isaac Johnson (Danny Glover), a man who has been searching for Swaggart to plan and stop an assassination on the President of the United States. That in itself sounds a little fishy: “Plan an assassination so we know how to stop it”, but nevertheless, Bob Lee joins up to help save the president. As it so happens, my fishiness instinct paid off. Turns out it was all a set up. Johnson’s intention was to assassinate the Archbishop of Ethiopia and easily frame the rogue military man, Swaggart. Double-crossed, wounded, and on the run, Swaggart heads to the home of his spotter’s widow, Sarah, played by Kate Mara. She binds his wounds and helps him onto the next step in his plan to get his life back.

Meanwhile young FBI agent Nick Memphis (Michael Pena – World Trade Center), who was the last person to speak to Swaggart before his disappearance, is thinking things are pretty fishy too. Swaggart gets in touch with him and they are able to track down Johnson. Here’s were the suspense turns to explosions and shooting. The entire second half of this movie is Swaggart hunting down everyone related to a much larger conspiracy, including a US Senator from Montana.

After a two vs. many battle, resulting in an explosion and the exposition of Johnson’s scheme the movie just went down hill. Despite some beautiful photography in the snow swept mountains there wasn’t much left in the movie besides hunt ‘em down and shoot ‘em up. The love subplot between Swaggart and Sarah isn’t even developed any further. Not even a gratuitous sex scene. I’m surprised that an action flick would forego a gratuitous sex scene! I thought it was standard. I guess that’s something to say for the movie. The producers thought they could sell it on guns and action alone, that it wouldn’t be quite right to sleep with his best man’s girl, and they didn’t need the sex appeal. Bully for them!

When it comes down to it, this movie had some potential. If only it hadn’t been two halves that didn’t quite fit together. But then again, Shooter was meant to be a guy’s film so they might have something different to say about it. I definitely recommend it for the male crowd. But guys, don’t bring your dates to this movie - you won’t get another!

Review: Starter for 10

By Emma Carroll

Let me tell you something about myself. I love movies. Love ‘em. I love going to a theater and having reality suspended for a couple of hours. Especially when it’s an edge of your seat flick that’s got you clambering for the next moment. Or when the theater’s packed with people laughing their heads off at even the silliest jokes. That’s what going to the movies is all about. It’s hard for me to sit in the darkness and not enjoy something. Although it does happen - there have been some really awful ones out there, terrible experiences. But what I am getting at is that it’s difficult for me not to enjoy a movie. I can always find something in a film that I like. So if you’re looking for someone to give you a review on a movie that will tell you whether or not it’s a fun way to let your self kick back and relax for a couple of hours surrounded by other moviegoers than I’m your girl! Now on to the real review….

Based on the novel A Question of Attraction by David Nicholls, Starter for 10 takes place in 1985 and follows the trials of a college freshman in true John Hughes style. In fact, it’s merely Brit version of a John Hughes film, post high school graduation; even Rebecca Hall (The Prestige) as Rebecca, resembles Molly Ringwald. That being said, this is by no means a bad thing. Sixteen Candles is a fabulous movie, and rather than make a mockery of John Hughes classics, director Tom Vaughn pays homage to the legendary. The one thing that could have been making a jab at today’s culture was the appearance of the opposing quiz team. They came on to the screen, and I could swear that they were mocking Harry Potter. Each of the members was in a long black cloak, they were all wearing matching uniforms with neckties and the team captain even had round spectacles on. It certainly got a lot of knowing laughs from the audience!



Starter for 10 stars James McAvoy (Narnia) as Brian, alongside other Brits in the story of a young man who, reflecting on people who are clever without really trying, decides he is “not one of those people!” But he wants to be clever so he throws himself into books, especially when his father passes away. His father always valued knowledge above all else and loved quiz shows. So Brian goes off to college and Bristol University and decides to join the University Challenge team, headed up by the hilarious Benedict Cumberbatch’s Patrick. Meanwhile, he becomes involved with two girls, one of whom he loves, the other loves him. His homebound friends worry about him becoming a wanker, while their futures aren’t looking very bright.

Two movies in two days, and both of them featuring Benedict Cumberbatch – in Amazing Grace as William Pitt and in Starter For 10 as Patrick. Odd, considering his presence in American films is close to nil and I’d never seen him in anything before Tuesday; but, I must confess, both of these films were imports from the UK. Truly more interesting however, is that he was the scene stealing character in at least one.

By far, the most impressive character was Cumberbatch. After seeing him in Amazing Grace, where he faded into the background (due more to the undeveloped character than his acting) I was surprised to see him in such a different and refreshing role, which really displayed his range. As Patrick he had some of the funniest moments in the film, outshining all of the other characters. However, as romantic comedies go, the main characters of Starter certainly carried more of the dramatic aspect of the film, while the peripheral characters were left to keep the audience giggling. This technique is very reminiscent of John Hughes’ pictures where Molly Ringwald played the straight character and the nerds bouncing around her brought out the laughs.

The story was very smooth and upbeat until around the middle things slowed down a bit. It hit that typical low point about an hour in, before it starts to pick up again for the climax. But the ending wiped all of that away. When they reach the quiz show things really picked up.

The soundtrack was quite charming, bringing you right back to 1985 with a more Britonized bunch of classic hits, including the Cure’s “Boys Don’t Cry” in the opening credits.

The costumes were right on, I really got the feeling that I was watching a movie that was actually made 20 years ago. It even had the fuzzy visual quality the movies from the 80’s tend to have.

All in all, this movie was great for a date, great for people who love British comedies and great if you just want to step into a time machine to 1985. I give it a B-

Review: Reno 911: Miami

by Penina Wiesman

Reno 911: Miami may be even funnier to a person under the influence of alcohol or some other narcotic. But then again, this movie is the ultimate brain vacation all on its own, so save those substances for a rainy day.

Based on the popular Comedy Central show, Reno 911: Miami transplants the show's lovable(?) cast from their home base (Reno, you moron) to Miami, where they continue their Like-Cops!-Only-Incompetent adventures. The film consists of a silly story that loosely supports (not unlike Lieutenant Jim Dangle's scary thong) a series of unrelated comic episodes. Arriving in Miami to participate in the American Police Convention, the team is charged with the safety of the city after terrorists attack the convention center with a bioagent, infecting everyone except them. It is wise not to pay much attention to the plot, as the movie really has nothing to do with it.


Reno's parade of escapades (and some sexcapades) are all ludicrous, moronic, and utterly absurd. At the same time, however, each chapter inflicts a brand of agonizing laughter that is somewhat unanticipated (if the trailer is any indication), yet welcome. There are too many belly laughs to list here, nor would I presume to take away from anyone else's experience by doing so. Instead, I think it is sufficient to say that between the dead animals, the gallery of masturbation, and more ass cracks than should ever be displayed on one screen, I enjoyed myself, even if I left the theater with a few less brain cells.

Although the acting is hardly something one thinks about when watching a movie of this, um, caliber, it must be mentioned that our heroes are extraordinarily adept at portraying, as the Sheriff of Aspen notes, “the dumbest group of people I ever met that weren't legally retarded.” The stupidity of these officers is so incredible that it is impossible for them to have ever existed outside of an intermediate care facility or mental institution. Miraculously, however, all the Reno 911 actors are able to bring these characters to life, making audiences nationwide believe they actually are dimwitted, insane, or both. Especially noteworthy is Kerry Kenny-Silver as Deputy Trudy Wiegel, a mentally disturbed officer, and Thomas Lennon as Lieutenant Jim Dangle, the group's less than ambiguously gay leader in hot pants. The movie is also peppered with cameos, including Danny DeVito (also executive producer), Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, and David Koechner, to name a few.

To expect anything more than Reno 911: Miami gives is just as absurd as the movie itself. In the realm of stupid comedy, Reno is no amateur. There are high levels of both stupidity and comedy at work here, sucking shrieks of laughter from the audience like a vacuum cleaner. In the end, however, the presence of a story that was a giant step away from anything that might actually be called a plot, disqualifies Reno from competing with even the silliest Will Ferrell or Rob Schneider movie. Die hard Reno 911 and idiotic comedy fans might contradict me, saying that the [lack of coherent] plot makes no difference. If so, then there is nothing separating this movie from an episode of Saturday Night Live except laughs, nudity, and an extra half hour.

Reno 911: Miami is probably the first movie I've seen whose trailer doesn't give away the entire movie. Of course, there's not much in this movie to give away, so I'd recommend waiting for the DVD. Either way, prepare to take a break from reality with some dim-witted fun. Just put your brain in the freezer first.

Will we still be moviegoers?

The title of this post is one of the questions asked in National Public Radio's On Point with Tom Ashbrook: Hollywood's Future, and I think it's the most intriguing question. There are now so many viewing options for movies - Netflix, Youtube, iTunes - we can see virtually any movie we want, when we want. Will this inevitably hurt attendance at movie theaters? Or do theaters offer that special something no electronic device can replace?

Often you'll hear and read reasons for not going to see a movie. If it isn't that the movie itself is undesirable, or considered mediocre and not worth $9, then there could be any number of examples people drawn upon that equate to an anticipated unpleasant moviegoing experience. Nevertheless, I think we will probably always be moviegoers because of our haphazard desire to trade the semi-solitude of one's home for the communal experience of seeing a movie in a theater. But the theater, of course, has its evident drawbacks.

Here are a few negative examples from my adventures in moviegoing: a teenager sitting behind me who sneezed into the back of my head during Die Hard with a Vengeance; a girl loudly chewing gum for the entirety of Take the Lead. A man chomping on his fingernails during The DaVinci Code. College students carrying on conversations during Smokin' Aces. A man taking two cell phone calls during Children of Men. Sure, inconsiderate acts are numerous when I attempt to remember them. But focusing on such things doesn't induce moviegoing happiness.

Despite these annoyances, why is it still better for you to see a movie at the theater? Because there, in a dark cinema with unknown people, you capture that feeling of a shared experience. "It's all about emotion," says New Yorker film critic David Denby. "The emotions swell in a group in a way they don't when you're at home." Denby presents the term: synesthesia, "Where one sensory experience sets off another," and the emotional effect of the social viewing experience is compounded.

Seeing a movie at home, or online, or on your iPod is a marvelous convenience - take it from someone who remembers the pre-video days of the '70s. You can see what you want, when you want. However, at the theater you surrender what those devices give you: control. You have to be at the theater at a certain time, you take your seat with the audience, and you let the artist (the filmmaker) take over. In doing this, your emotional experience of the movie is taken to another level, and the movie's messages can be far more impressionable.

Here's a "power of emotion" analogy. Imagine attending a baseball game where you're the only person in the grandstands. How fun would that be? On the other hand, what's it like when there's 40,000 screaming fans? It's overwhelming. That's the beauty of seeing a movie at the theater. You're putting yourself in a place where you surrender the artist and share in the emotion.

Poet Walt Whitman observed in his poem I Sing the Body Electric...

I'd preceiv'd that to be with those I like is enough,
To stop in company with the rest at evening is enough,
To be surrounded by beautiful, curious, breathing, laughing flesh is enough...

I do not ask any more delight, I swim in it as in a sea.

Keep this in mind: for every inconsiderate act you might recall from your movie-going experiences, there are numerous positives you've experienced which off-set them. Here are few positive examples from my adventures in moviegoing: the audience at the advance screening for Snakes on a Plane (one the rowdiest I've ever seen, even more than Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace); seeing The Host, Jules et Jim and Antoine and Collette at classic little Brattle Theater in Cambridge; winning a cool, "Browncoat" T-Shirt by answering a trivia question prior to a screening of Serenity; seeing the hilarious Dodgeball and Wedding Crashers with my friends; seeing Casino Royale with a group of James Bond aficionados; the premieres of War of the Worlds, Superman Returns, and Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, and so on. Absolutely fun.

Last Wednesday, I spoke with Edgar Wright, the director of Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz (which will be released in April). He expressed a similar concern about the state of moviegoing. His point is, and I'm paraphrasing, that a trip to the theater ought to be a positively memorable experience. In fact, going to a theater should be so much fun, it almost shouldn't matter how good the movie is.

Edgar pointed out that there are a few places, a few movie palaces, that no matter what's playing, it's still fun to see a movie there. These aren't boring 20-screen cinema villages with DLP digital projection and sound, these are the quaint old theaters where the owner's make the experience fun. There's The Alamo Draft House in San Antonio and The Arclight theater in Los Angeles. And over in England there's The Electric in Notting Hill and The Prince Charles in London. When you see movies in these theaters, you can feel the love.

So, you want to get in on those good feelings? Then close out of YouTube, put down your iPod, turn off your VCR and get on over to the small, second-run theater you've been meaning to visit, and be grateful that you still can. Find your seat in the audience, surrender to the artist and let the movie overwhelm you.

I do not ask any more delight, I swim in it as a sea.

Hollywood's Future: Will We Still Be Moviegoers?

My friend Denez, barista extraordinaire, recomended I put my ear to this podcast over at National Public Radio, "On Point with Tom Ashbrook: Hollywood's Future."

So I will.

Deep, personal thoughts forthcoming.

Blades of Glory Trailer

This looks just too funny...