Ghost Town

So what is this one about?
Welp, my delightfully under-used friend Netlfix tells us,

British funnyman Ricky Gervais ("The Office," "Extras") stars in his first feature film lead as Bertram Pincus, a hapless gent who's pronounced dead, only to be brought back to life with an unexpected gift: a newfound ability to see ghosts. When Bertram crosses paths with the recently departed Frank Herlihy (Greg Kinnear), he gets pulled into Frank's desperate bid to break up his widowed wife's (Téa Leoni) pending marriage to another man.

ok.

And how much did I pay to watch?
Nothing.

One thing you might not know about me is I have recently (well, maybe not too recently, since the Olympics) started going 10 miles a day on Saturday and Sundays on the treadmill in my basement. For the most part this works well because I have recorded shows from the previous week that I can watch. At most, three episodes of Law and Order (and it's friends) and one episode of Gossip Girl. This seems to fit the time well.

Unfortunately, the weekend I watched this I had nothing left to watch, so I used my HBO on demand and settled on this one. And since I don't pay for cable it really was nothing.

And what did I think?
Well, I am a big Ricky Gervais fan. I like his insane laugh. And his British accent. And his fat little face. He doesn't seem to have a lot of range to me, because I've never seen a role where he wasn't just playing Ricky Gervais. Luckily, though, I like him. So, it works well.

As Bertram he was really playing himself. Grumpy old Ricky. There is something about him, though, that is so sincere, so his character arc was nice. He had a very nice chemistry with each other character in the movie, and you really wanted things to work out well for him.

Interestingly enough, since it is a stupid idiotic romantic comedy, things had to fail then could be built back up. Romantic comedies are so flipping dumb. In life, when you like a boy (or a boy likes a girl) and you do something stupid to fuck it up, you often don't get a second chance. Romantic comedies give stupid people too much ammunition for them to think that everything will work out for them too. Romantic comedies are the devil. (except Love Actually, and does Clueless count?) I sound way more bitter than I am.

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
It was funny enough, but mostly, anything with Ricky Gervais will likely be enjoyable for me.

I give it a 6.

The Pregnancy Pact

So what is this one about?
Ah ha! Lifetime (yes, that Lifetime. Television for Women) tells us about their movie,

Inspired by a true story, the film explores the costs of teen pregnancy with a story of a fictional "pregnancy pact" set against the backdrop of actual news reports about teen pregnancy from June 2008. Sidney Bloom (Thora Birch), an online magazine journalist, returns to her hometown to investigate the sudden spike in teenage pregnancies at her old high school. Almost immediately, she comes up against Lorraine Dougan (Nancy Travis), the head of the local conservative values group and mother of Sara, a newly pregnant 15-year-old. Meanwhile, the school nurse (Camryn Manheim) tries to convince the school to provide contraception to students to address the pregnancy epidemic but is met with great opposition from the school and community. As the number of pregnant girls climbs to 18, a media firestorm erupts when Time Magazine reports that the rise in the number of pregnancies at the school is the result of a "pregnancy pact." As the mystery unfolds about whether or not "the pact" is real, Sidney soon realizes that all of the attention is disguising the much larger issues that are at the core of the story.

Shazaam that is long.

And how much did I pay to watch?
Zero dollars. I watched it on Lifetime. On my tv. At home. Awesome.

And what did I think?
Oh lord. One thing you might not know about me is that I love me some Lifetime movies. I mean, how the shit can you not?! Think about the fabulous Kirsten Dunst as star Fifteen and Pregnant. Or, Too Young to be a Dad with Paul Dano. Or Student Seduction with Elizabeth Berkeley. Or Co-Ed Call Girl with Tori Spelling. Do I really need to go on?! No. I do not. Lifetime movies are awesome. Awesomely bad. Awesomely awesome.

And man, they really hit the nail on the head for me. I love the whole teenage pregnancy focus on tv these days. Why? I don't know. It actually might be a little sick. Because while, when I watch 16 and Pregnant, often times these girls are stupid and unimpressive and I think they are dumb and sort of got what they deserve, I feel so incredibly bad for them. Because they are so unprepared and just sad.

So, this movie was awesome in that it was showing the typical tv teenage reaction to getting pregnant--you know, going to parties and drinking, saying ridiculous things like "I have to spend time with my friends, I can't spend time with the baby all the time!" (actually, yes, you can. When you decided to have a baby that is essentially what you decided. It isn't your fault. You're just a stupid 16 year old), and being clueless as to the fact that the boy who got you pregnant is pretty much not going to stick around. But, through wise old, old, old Thora Birch it also showed that teenage pregnancy isn't all the fun and games you think. Do people really think it will be all fun and games? Be serious.

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
It is a hard movie to rate because all lifetime movies are pretty much awful. So, is it good because it is awful, or is it just awful?

It certainly is not the best Lifetime movie I have seen, but lets be serious, if it is on some Sunday afternoon, I'm not gonna pretend like I am not going to watch it. And it isn't like I spend a few hours watching Lifetime movies today. Be serious.

So, I'll give it a 6. Better than average, but not by much!

Invictus

So what is this one about?
Welp, the 'flix tells us

In this sports drama based on real-life events, director Clint Eastwood tells the story of what happened after the end of apartheid when newly elected president Nelson Mandela used the 1995 World Cup rugby matches to unite his people in South Africa. Based on John Carlin's book, the film stars Morgan Freeman as Mandela and Matt Damon as Francois Pienaar, the captain of the scrappy South African team that makes a run for the championship.

Additionally, the 'flix subtitles this film as "The Human Factor." Odd.

And how much did I pay to watch?
$14.25 (YIKES) in the director's hall. And that was after we had a delicious dinner and I spent like another $30. I'm spendin' it like I've got it friends!

And what did I think?
OK. So here is the thing--and if you've been here for awhile none of this will come as a surprise to you--I love two things about this movie very much: 1) Clint Eastwood (even though he didn't grace us with his on-screen presence) and 2) South African accents. Especially the South African accents.

The story itself was somewhat trite. Not really that surprising. However, I can't call it trite because it is an actual true story. But, it is pretty much exactly what you would expect. You have a country that has been suffering under apartheid-- well, you've only been suffering if you are black; with a new black president--who the white South Africans don't like--who is about to change the entire country, a shitty Rugby team that no one likes, and the 1995 World Cup of Rugby.

Hmm, in the Hollywood movie scripting of the universe lets think about how this will go...
1) the country will unite under the president--but only after some infighting among the blacks and whites
2) the team will get better and qualify for the World Cup
3) the country will unite in favor of the rugby team
4) the team will win the world cup

And I am not even giving anything away, because I am just telling you what the Hollywood formula would be.

There was a really, really good line from Nelson Mandela in the movie though, something about forgiveness (which is super important to me) but I wasn't able to remember it or find it. I didn't write it down right away. BIG mistake.

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
I am disappointed in you Clint Eastwood--you and your old hotness--and how not innovative this movie was in either story or direction. I mean, it was ok and all, but it wasn't that new or innovative or creative or anything. Personally, it wasn't even that emotionally affecting, which is what I think he was going for. But those twit-boxes at the academy will love it. Instead of Mr. Eastwood winning for Gran Torino (which he should have) he might actually win for this. The academy is SOOOO predictable. *lesigh*

It does get a 6 though. Why? Because you know it gets an extra point for the South African accents ;)

Der Baader Meinhof Komplex (The Baader Meinhof Complex)

So what is this one about?
Netflix tells us,

Uli Edel directs this Best Foreign Language Film Oscar nominee charting the birth of West Germany's Red Army Faction, a radical left-wing terrorist group formed in the late 1960s amid a climate of revolution and a fallen generation. Staging a series of bombings, kidnappings and assassinations, the RAF waged a war against fascism with a direct assault against the powers of American imperialism and the fledgling German democracy.

Oh, I see.

And how much did I pay to watch?
Well, I watched at Cinema Arts (nearly two months ago...jesus) at night so it probably was something like $8.

What a deal!

And what did I think?
Well, I thought it was quite quite long. 150 minutes. In fact, that was my major problem with it. I think the film makers likely tried to adapt the book too closely (which i bet you never thought you'd hear me say) which meant it covered too many years. I wouldn't be surprised if it covered nearly 20 years, though the information I can find on wikipedia indicates it covers only 10. Well, then I think it was too in depth. The stories told in the film would have been better told in a mini series format. And trust me, I know mini-series.

Now, what I did like about the movie were the actors. Including both Bruno Ganz and Alexandra Maria Lara--who were both in Downfall. The acting was just spot on with the actors consistently demonstrating their characters and the changes they went through.

I went to see this film because there was a Law and Order Criminal Intent episode about a similarly motivated group in New York City. The motivations of both the RAF and the group in the CI episode were so irritating. I have so little patience for these "revolutionary" groups who resort to violence before trying anything in a civilized way. So, of course, watching a movie about a group like this was sort of trying on my patience.

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
It was good enough. I was surprised to see that it was Germany's entry for the Oscars last year, not so much surprised that it didn't win.

It'd have liked it a lot more as a mini-series, I wouldn't recommend it so much as a movie--unless you wanna sit for three hours.

yikes!

I give it a 6.

Outbreak

So what is this one about?

Netflix tells us “As take-charge Army virologist Sam Daniels (Dustin Hoffman) strives to thwart a global biological meltdown in the form of a killer virus that has infested a California community, he must also battle those who say the only way to stop the disease is to firebomb the town. Silver-screen luminaries Rene Russo, Morgan Freeman, Donald Sutherland and Kevin Spacey join Hoffman in this edge-of-your-seat, doomsday thriller.”

Basically, this movie is about a fake Ebola virus. SWEET!!!!!

And how much did I pay to watch?

Some amount on Netflix. Lord, I have been SO slow in movie watching lately. (And not just watching, but UPDATING. I am ashamed)

And what did I think?

Well, if you know me IRL then you will know that lately (past month and a half –two months) I have been very interested in science books/ ebola. I read Panic in Level 4: Cannibals, Killer Viruses, and Other Journeys to the Edge of Science by Richard Preston. This book was FASCINATING! As someone who doesn’t really like science, I tore through this book…read it in less than a week! Then I read Preston’s The Hot Zone in less than a week too! And, as Wikipedia tells us, “The Hot Zone served as the loose basis of the Hollywood movie Outbreak (1995) about military machinations surrounding a fictional "Motaba virus." Huzzah! So, I figured I should watch this.

So, motaba is a hemorrhagic fever where the infected person bleeds out of all their orifaces and their guts turn to liquid. Sweet. But, it didn’t look a gross as I would have imagined it would. But, when I watched a documentary about Ebola, I was also surprised about how ungory the infected were. (Man, whenever I say “infected” I always think about zombies, sick.). But other than the lack of goriness, everything else in this movie was a hyperbolic form of its real world self! And I LOVED IT!

I found myself giggling at times that should have been suspenseful because the movie was just so extreme at times! For example, ebola tends to kill people within 7 to 10 days of infection, but this silly motaba virus killed people within like 24 hours…or maybe it was 2-4, I cannot remember, but it was super hyperbolic. And the Donald Sutherland character, he was the general, and he wasn’t just a mean general who was trying to mess up Dustin Hoffman, no, he was trying to [SPOILER ALERT] kill the whole town!!!! And the music was super, like, suspenseful and was supposed to be very dramatic. The whole thing was really just very silly.

And let me get this straight, I am supposed to believe that Dustin Hoffman (troll) and Renee Russo (not a troll, fairly good looking actually) were in love and married at one point. Um… what?? I cannot think of anyone not only less attractive, but less sexy, and appealing than Dustin Hoffman. (well, I probably could, and since I am typing this at work it isn’t like I don’t have so much time on my hands that I could just stare off into space for 15 minutes trying to think of someone else…but I digress). Maybe you should comment and leave me suggestions for who is less appealing than Dustin Hoffman.

Anyway, it was amusing.

So what is the rating? (out of 10)

So, was this as interesting as The Hot Zone? No way!!! Was it sort of fun anyway? Sure! It did take me quite a few sit downs to get through it (which might have had something to do with me being tired, because once I got into it, it was fun!) So, I’ll give it a 6. It gets that extra point because the disease ridden monkey was cute.

OH, and because Kevin Spacey was in it! (is he gay? I feel like I read somewhere that he is… weird)

Marley & Me

So what is this one about?
Netflix tells us

Based on the best-selling memoir, this feature adaptation centers on Jennifer and John Grogan (Jennifer Aniston and Owen Wilson), who, as newlyweds about to start a family, learn many of life's important lessons from Marley, their lovable yet trouble-seeking canine. This heartwarming story examines the highs and lows of marriage, maturity and confronting ones' own mortality, as seen through the lens of family life with a dog.

And how much did I pay to watch?
I got it from netflix, and I think I've gotten enough movies this month to not have them be worth $16/disc. So, lets calculate...or, well, lets not. I've only gotten 3 discs in one month. YIKES!

And what did I think?
When I worked inauguration week I started out intros by having the students say their name, where they are from, and the best movie they'd seen recently--of course mine was Gran Torino. A lot of students said Seven Pounds and a lot said Marley & Me. Oh yeah, and they also said The Dark Knight. A student told me that she cried so much during Marley & Me. Well, we should all know by now...That was sort of an asshole thing to do, wasn't it? Well, I guess you should pretty much know that is what happens. Apparently it is what happens with most animal movies. Maybe because I knew that the dog dies I wasn't as suprised when he died. I will tell you, the part that got me a little choked up was when the oldest kid of Jennifer and John was so sad because he knew the dog was going to die.

Thankfully I have never had the experience of losing a longtime pet (you hear that Emmy? Don't die....) and I am sure it is very sad. Maybe because I haven't I didn't have as much empathy. Also, I didn't really care about the character of Jennifer, I felt much more for John. (Isn't this the first movie Owen Wilson made after his suicide attempt...god, that would have been so sad if he had died!)

I guess some parts of the movie were funny, and some were definately poignant, but overall it was just average.

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
I give it a 6. It gets that one more point because I love Owen Wilson. And Jennifer Aniston's body was amazing. Shit, I didn't beleive for a second that she was a mother of three who was almost 40. Not for one second.

Mission: Impossible III

So what is this one about?
Netflix tells us

Helmed by J.J. Abrams, the third entry in the explosive espionage series finds semiretired superspy Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) forced back into action to save his protégé, Lindsey Ferris (Keri Russell). To checkmate her investigation, badass arms dealer Owen Davian (Philip Seymour Hoffman) abducts Lindsey, sending Ethan and his crack field team to Berlin on a rescue mission. Meanwhile, Ethan's agency superiors may be double-dealing their operatives.

And how much did I pay to watch?
Nothing! I watched this at Mel's and the dvd belonged to her roommate. Huzzah!

And what did I think?
Um, what did I think? I mean, this movie wasn't all that good. Actually, it was about what I expected. But I will tell you one goddamned thing...Johnathan Rhys Meyers is so flipping hot, and his natural accent is so fabulously cute I didn't know what to do with myself when he was on the screen. I watch a lot of Rhys Meyer on The Tudors (even though it isn't such a good show, I pretty much love him...) and I have become quite a big fan of him. He is cute as a Brit, but man, with his natural accent...I don't even know what to do with myself!!

I also absolutely love Phillip Semyour Hoffman (PSH) so, anything with him is a-ok with me.

Also, this was supposed to take place in Virginia (sic semper tyrannis, bitches!) and the female love interest was named Julia. Ta-freaking-dah, right?!

Also Keri Russell was in it, and she is pretty great too.

Lets face it, sometimes my movie reviews are not insightful... *eye candy*

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
So, if you want a typical action movie tailored to Julia's specifications with hot boys, great actors (not Tom Cruise...PSH), super locations and pretty/talented ladies, I suppose you could do worse than MI3. I give it a 6.

Frost/Nixon

So what is this one about?
"I'm saying, when the President does it, it's not illegal!" (and then I shake my face around while I'm saying it, like a horse...) it is a pretty accurate impression.

But, what it is actually about will be told to us by the 'flix.

Ron Howard directs this adaptation of Peter Morgan's popular Broadway play centered on a series of revelatory TV interviews former President Richard Nixon granted British talk show host David Frost in 1977. Nominated for five Oscars, including Best Picture, the film stars Frank Langella, reprising his Tony Award-winning stage role, along with a stellar cast that includes Michael Sheen, Sam Rockwell, Toby Jones, Kevin Bacon and Oliver Platt.

And if you want more information about the play, or the film, OR the interviews!, the 'pedia (nice one, right?) has good information.

And how much did I pay to watch?
My mom paid for our trip to the movies, and she paid $14 total. So it cost $7. But, I didn't pay. As I've said, as per usual... besides, when we go to that theatre she normally expects that my friend will let us in for free.

And what did I think?
I think what was so different and awesome and refreshing about this movie as compared to Oliver Stone's W was that Ron Howard (or maybe the playwright, since this is another film based on a play) didn't try and smash his value judgments into the storyline.

Instead, an actual character was used to demonstrate the different opinions that people may have had about Mr. Nixon. One of the characters--an academic who judgementally wrote negative things about Nixon-- an American, was so pissed at David Frost, a Brit, because he felt that Frost was trying to build sympathy for Nixon. Now, what actually happened in the movie/play/real life was that Frost absolutely skewered Nixon in his interview. And then the public/audience felt bad for Nixon. Even though Frost got Nixon to admit that he was a jerk, and a liar, and a bad guy it was in admitting this that the public felt bad for him. Awesome. Howard/ Morgan (the playwright, Peter Morgan) didn't need to inject their value judgement, because they probably thought the audience would be smart enough to figure it out. Whereas Oliver Stone thought that he somehow needed to force some sort of judgment about George Bush down his audience's throat (now, as I said when I reviewed it, I could figure out if he was serious, or mocking the whole administration...bad job suckah!)

Now, otherwise the movie was rather slow. Just like during Doubt, I may have drifted off for a few minutes during this one (Keep in mind though, that I do wake up at 3:35am...so, it might just be that I am tired). I think what is tough about watching a movie that you know is a play (at least for me, since I did theatre in highschool) is that I think about what the play would be like. And I have come up with the idea that this play would be bor.ing.

As a movie it was passable, but, it isn't going to win the Oscar for Best Picture either. *mumbles*stupidslumdogmillionaire*mumble*

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
Not too bad. A little better than average because it didn't force a value judgment on the audience. So, I'll give it a 6.

Rory O'Shea Was Here

So what is this one about?
This is another movie I chose simply through my netflix browsing. This time I stumbled upon it while drooling over James McAvoy (I mean, be serious!) So, they tell me what this one is about,

Although he has muscular dystrophy, Rory O'Shea (James McAvoy) refuses to surrender to the desperation of his life and instead embraces the potential in every day. When he moves into the Carrigmore Home for the Disabled and befriends the deeply bored Michael (Steven Robertson), a young man with cerebral palsy, Rory infuses his pal's life with renewed hope even as he struggles with his own demons.

And how much did I pay to watch?
Apparently, a lot. I think I've only watched like five movies in a month. Yikes!!!!!!!

And what did I think?
Life enhancing? What an odd thing to say about a movie... I don't know that for someone like me (I mean someone with such a black soul), this is a life enhancing movie, however, it was entertaining enough. The guy who played Michael was amazing. I mean, I thought that he actually had cerebral palsy! Kudos to that incredible acting.

Rory was sort of annoying, but really hot and funny. And the girl who played Shioban (or whatever silly Irish name she had) is actually who played adult Briony in Atonement, which James McAvoy was also in!

I mean, it was similar to other Irish movies I have seen that are similar in message. So, all in all, it wasn't that incredible. I think I should watch more Irish movies, to actually see if they all are pretty similar. It is either about overcoming adversity (Billy Elliot, Rory O'Shea, Millions) or religions. Those silly Irish and their nice accents.

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
It might have been very average, but like I said, James McAvoy is hot hot hot hot hot.

So I would just give this a 5, but for his hotness, I will give it a 6.

Doubt

So what is this one about?
Netflix tells us,

In a Catholic elementary school in the Bronx, Sister Aloysius (Meryl Streep) begins to have doubts about one of the priests, Father Flynn (Philip Seymour Hoffman), who seems to have become overly involved in the life of a young African American pupil. But Flynn isn't the only one she has doubts about. Is she overreacting to the situation or is there a truth that needs to be discovered? John Patrick Shanley's drama was nominated for five Golden Globes.

I think they do a better job of describing this movie than even the movie described itself in the previews!

And how much did I pay to watch?
Even though my mom and I had to truck it into DC to see this bad boy at the good ol' E Street Cinema, she paid. But, I do seem to remember that I was surprised by the fact that the movie was cheaper than I thought. I think it only cost like $7. WOAH! But, like I said, I didn't pay.

And what did I think?
Heavens. Well, first things first, I love Phillip Seymour Hoffman. (Lets just call him PSH)I think he is just faaaaaantastic! But, I Doubt that even Phillip Seymour Hoffman could keep me awake during this one. I also doubt he will win an Oscar...god, more talk of flipping awards? But, that doesn't mean I love him anyless.

I didn't really love Doubt, really at all. In fact, I fell asleep. I'm pretty sure I didn't miss much, and you've got to give me a break...I wake up at 3:30am! I suppose the other actors were good. I mean, he was good, don't get me wrong. I do find Amy Adams endearing even though she seems to play the same role a lot! She was 'the hot girl' in the Office though, so she holds a special place in my heart. Meryl Streep was great as the evil nun. Man, her accent just made her evvvvvvvvvil.

But, I thought the movie was too much like a play. I mean, you can make a play into a movie and it works, but to me, it just seemed like this one didn't. It had that typical "ambiguously moral" ending like plays have that force the audience to think about how they *feel* about the show. And, while I do appreciate the audience critically thinking about what they have seen, I felt that the end of Doubt was not ambigious enough at all to merit any sort of actual thought. It seemed very obvious how the audience was supposed to feel.

They were supposed to hate Meryl Streep because she ruined PSH (ooops, sorry, I just gave it away, except it wasn't much of a spoiler at all...) and she wasn't even sure. What I hated about it was that her "punishment" was feeling bad and doubting herself when she thought she wouldn't. So what does this tell us about society? What are we supposed to take from the film? (and by "we" I mean "I") It tells me that bad people don't always/ever get what they deserve and if you ruin someone's life there is no consequence except maybe you feel "bad", and to me, that was a very depressing realization.

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
Doubt wasn't horrible, the acting was really good, but other than that I didn't like it that much. I give Doubt a 6.

Black Christmas (1974)

So what is this one about?
I didn't even know this movie existed until I read about it on the Toronto livejournal group, here. (Yes friends, there are still people who who use livejournal, hahahaha) Then after learning it took place in Toronto I added it to my netflix queue. The description is,

Terror reigns inside a sorority house a few days before Christmas break as a series of menacing phone calls -- and the discovery of a dead girl's body -- transform yuletide cheer into fear. Margot Kidder, Olivia Hussey and Andrea Martin ("SCTV") co-star as just a few of the petrified sisters at the mercy of an unseen stalker in this 1970s horror gem from director Robert Clark, who told a much happier holiday tale with his 1983 classic, A Christmas Story.

tah freaking dah.

And how much did I pay to watch?
Well, I got it on netflix, and this month I am averaging $2.83/movie. Yikes.

And what did I think?
Oh, Canaduh. I couldn't understand a damn word the killer was saying. I mean, come on! I guess that made it a little scarier when he called on the phone, because I was straining to hear, but all I heard were gurgles, screams, a scary voice, and completely unintelligible words. The film makers did a great job at those phonecalls. For sure.

But, despite not really understanding what was being said on the phone (AND the terribly annoying accent of the main character...apparently she is Argentinian) I am going to tell you, the end of the movie was pretty suspenseful, it made me real uncomfortable...a little scared even. Can you imagine?! A scary horror movie. It also demonstrated the ridiculousity of the Canadian police force in the 1970s. har.

What I don't understand about Canadian movies is this: why do they never admit they were made in Canada? Anyone who knows Toronto can tell that Land of the Dead was filmed in Toronto! Same goes for Hairspray! And Black Christmas, jesus, can you possibly have more actors with Canadian accents and timbers? (I say timber because good lord, in Toronto I heard people who had the exact same voice as others, I am convinced Canadians talk in the same way) So, if it is filmed in Canada, and maybe even at the University of Toronto (holler, alumni!), AND it doesn't mean anything to the story where the movie takes place, with the exception of it taking place in a town with a University, then WHY, WHY, WHY were there American flags in the police station? Why couldn't there have been Canadian flags?! OR, why did there have to be flags in the first place?! They never said what city it took place in, so why couldn't the filmmakers make it as ambiguous as possible? Do Canadian film makers really think that Americans can't relate to a film if it doens't take place in America? I mean, we all liked The Pianist, and Schlindler's List, and Saving Private Ryan, and Dr. Zhivago, and Lost in Translation, and Life is Beautiful (AND THAT ONE WASN'T EVEN IN ENGLISH!!!!!) I don't beleive that Americans are so stupid that they can't relate to a movie that takes place in Canada.

Overall it was pretty good. The new point of view that never showed the killer but allowed the audience to see through his (I assume it was a he) eyes. Apparently, from the extra features, that was very revolutionary at the time. And I suppose it did make me interested to see the remake, since it didn't take place in good ol' T-dot.

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
It was sufficient. A little scary, a little stupid, and a little Toronto as a backdrop makes a sufficient movie watching experience for me.

Black Christmas (1974) gets a 6.

PBS's "Jonestown: The Life and Death of the People's Temple"

So what is this one about?
After watching the MSNBC documentary about Jim Jones and Jonestown I decided I needed to move this movie that was already in my queue to the top. The description of the PBS American Experience documentary (according to them) is,

In Jonestown: The Life and Death of Peoples Temple, award-winning filmmakers Stanley Nelson, Marcia Smith, and Noland Walker reveal the true, tragic story behind enigmatic preacher Jim Jones and his promise of a world of economic and racial equality that ultimately led to the largest mass murder-suicide in history. This new documentary tells the story of the people who joined Peoples Temple, following Jones from Indiana to California and ultimately to their deaths in Guyana in November 1978. Jonestown was an official selection of numerous 2006 film festivals, including Tribeca, Silverdocs, Los Angeles, and San Francisco.

And how much did I pay to watch?
Again, I am very lazy. Some fraction of $16.99 ;)

And what did I think?
Well, I didn't like this one as much as the MSNBC one. I thought the PBS one seemed like it was trying very hard to make things seem very nefarious. Now, granted, there was a mass suicide, so it seems unnecessary to make it seem worse, ya know? This documentary focused on the "gritty" and "dirty" details of Jim Jones and the People's Temple, things like forced sex and stuff like that. I just didn't find that to be as engaging.

Now, one thing that was utterly fascinating about watching this PBS documentary and the MSNBC one was how Lord of the Flies it all was. There were all these instances where members of the temple would simply turn on other members. Was there even a reason? Did Jim Jones tell them to? Sometimes. But sometimes he didn't. And it was an amazing demonstration of how humans revert to their natural and cruel state when it is in their interest. As someone who studies the former Soviet Union, oh, I understand this. It is truly incredible to see it happen over and over again in different circumstances.

I think it is probably worth watching a Jonestown documentary just to see that.

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
Like I already said, this one wasn't as good as the MSNBC one. The same people were used--the survivors, I mean. And since I had already heard their stories they weren't as emotionally affecting. They were still very interesting, but they weren't as affecting. Now, however, the end of this documentary was great. Very poignant and sad.

However, I still give this a 6.

Mirrors

So what is this one about?
Once again Netflix helps me with the description. They say,

This creepy supernatural thriller from director Alexandre Aja stars Kiefer Sutherland as troubled security guard Ben Carson, who discovers malevolent spirits living within the mirrors of a fire-ravaged department store. When their murderous nature comes to light, Ben turns to his estranged wife (Paula Patton) to help him save their family -- and himself. The supporting cast includes Amy Smart and Jason Flemyng.

So, there you go.

And how much did I pay to watch?
It cost $10.25. I made a mental note to remember how much it cost, since I seem to forget how much every movie I see in the theatre costs. Whoops.

And what did I think?
Well, I guess I am a sucker for horror movies. Most previews that look even somewhat scary I will see. Now, I may not see them in the theatre, but I will see them sometime (like Prom Night, the Strangers, Wind Chill, etc). I saw this one in the theatre because I was sick of being at home bored out of my mind all the time. (Which I suppose happens when you don't have a job or any prospects...)

So anyway, this was better and worse than I thought it would be. Worse because it was kind of confusing, but better because it seemed well thought out and thorough, like it wasn't just some shit that a 21 year old slapped together.

I was never really scared, and I can't remember that there was much build up of suspense--in fact, now that I think about it I think the preview may have been scarier than the actual movie--but some of the scenes with the killings were awesome! So I've got to give those credit.

I've also got to give lots of credit to the filmmakers for the end of the movie. I liked the ending. Kudos on not making it a perfectly happy ending. In fact, it wasn't really that happy at all, and as we all know, I love it when that happens.

Lastly, the acting was pretty good, and the actors were good. Amy Smart and, of course, Kiefer Sutherland were in it. Also, Jen's grandmother from Dawson's Creek was in it. AWESOME!

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
Well, it was fine. Entertaining enough, the sets were pretty, the deaths were awesome, and the movie wasn't completely brain dead. For a modern horror movie I feel like this is all I could hope to expect.

It was definitely average, but I will give it a 6, because it was better than I expected.

The House Bunny

So what is this one about?
Netflix explains the simple plot as,

When Playboy bunny Shelley Darlington (Anna Faris) gets evicted from the mansion, she is a woman without a country -- that is, until she meets the sisters of Zeta Alpha Zeta, a sorority on the brink of losing its campus chapter. The Zetas need Shelley's makeover expertise so they can attract a new pledge class -- otherwise, their house goes to rivals Phi Iota Mu. But the Zetas have something Shelly needs, too: the confidence to be herself.

oh yes. Very deep and complex.

And how much did I pay to watch?
Well, I watched it at Cinema De Lux, at night. So I think it was $11.

And what did I think?
Going into a movie like this one, well, you pretty much know it isn't going to be amazing. You don't expect much. Oddly enough, I saw some previews for this movie in May that made it look really awesome, and then I saw some previews in July and August that made it look like every brain-dead, basic, stupid comedy. I gave this the benefit of the doubt and went and saw it...all while dragging a friend along (oh he is so nice for putting up with the shit movies I drag him to), and I am going to be honest, it wasn't all that bad.

Sometimes I love to watch a normal movie. Between grad school concerns of democratizing or totalitarianizing countries, between the nightly news that is never good, and between figuring out what I am going to do with my life, it is nice to watch a movie or read a book or watch a tv show that isn't so heavy. Isn't so complex. Doesn't require much brain power. It is just a fun addition when it isn't the worst thing ever.

God, there was one part in this movie that was so funny I was actually laughing so hard I was crying. I mean, tears streaming down my face. Good god it was funny. I attribute that to Anna Farris. She really is quite funny. Oh yeah, and she has a killer body too. Who knew?

I also really liked the girl from Superbad who was the main Zeta girl. She was pretty funny too. Did you know Bruce Willis and Demi Moore's daughter was in this movie? Well, she was. Also, some girl from American Idol (I read it somewhere, because I do not watch that show). Oh yeah, also Beverly DeAngelo was in it.

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
It was pretty funny. Moderately predictable but not that bad. An entertaining movie that made me stop thinking as much as I usually do. So, kudos for that.

I'd rate it a 5 because it was pretty average, but I'm gonna give it a 6, because I haven't cried from laughing in forever.

Wall-e

So what is this one about?
Netflix says,

In a futuristic world, human beings have destroyed Earth and evacuated the planet, leaving the cleanup to an army of robots they've programmed to do their dirty work. Due to a mishap, the dutiful WALL-E is the only one left. But with the arrival of a female probe named EVE, the monotony of WALL-E's existence is broken -- and he experiences love for the first time. Andrew Stanton (Finding Nemo) directs this Pixar tale with a sci-fi twist.

And how much did I pay to watch?
Lets see if I can remember...I went to see this one in the theatre (at Joe's urging since he keeps telling me how amazing this movie is, and that it will change my life) at night, so I think maybe I paid $10.50.

And what did I think?
I mean how sweet is this guy?? His little voice and his big eyes...god, he is just the cutest robot ever!! The way he says Eve "eeeeee-vuh", I mean, come on!! His little robot claw hands... awwwww. There is no denying that he is one cute-ass mother.

I liked when Wall-e and Eve were taken into the space station (or whatever it was). I loved the fat humans who never walked anymore and had chairs that they lived in. Man, I hope one day humans will be that lazy.

But I'm not sure the message of the movie was very lasting for me. I guess it was something about the environment, or maybe love. It just wasn't too memorable as far as the message goes. But, who am I kidding. Pixar movies are amazing to watch because they're so well crafted in their animation. I think I was slack jawed for the first few minutes just in wonder about the animation (in the same was I was when I watched the first Harry Potter movie...it was all just so magical!)

Oh yeah, also Eve's voice was awesome too. The emotions you could hear in her voice....ADORABLE!

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
Now, I didn't think this was the most amazing movie ever. It didn't change my life. But, like most pixar movies I did watch with rapt attention and awe at the animation.

The characters were adorable, I mean really, they were just too sweet.

I feel ambivalent about it, really, so I'm gonna give it a 6, rather than a 5, because of the animation and the voices. I really can't get over those characters!

The Dark Knight

So what is this one about?
You might live under a rock if you don't know about this movie. If you haven't already seen the trailer (or, ya know...the movie!), you can watch it at the Warner Brothers site.

If for some reason you can't watch the trailer (like if you're at work, slacker, or you have an unsatisfactory video capability, come on) I will give you the regular description in words. Wikipedia says,

The Dark Knight is a 2008 American superhero film co-written and directed by Christopher Nolan. Based on the DC Comics character Batman, the film is a sequel to Batman Begins (2005), which rebooted the Batman film series after an eight-year hiatus. Christian Bale reprises the lead role. Batman's primary conflicts in the film include his fight against the Joker (Heath Ledger) and his strained friendship with district attorney Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart).

And how much did I pay to watch?
Well, Jack, my mom and I all went go the amazing Cinema De Lux to see the movie. She paid, but I think the tickets there are like $8.50.

But, like I said, I didn't pay, so zero dollars. (Thats one of the main advantages of seeing movies with my mom. All her gasping and jumping at 'scary' parts...thats not one of the advantages, I'ma tell you that right now!) (Maybe I shouldn't have written that, I gave her the link the other day, but I'm pretty sure she ain't readin' it, so, crisis averted)

And what did I think?
I really liked this. I think probably everyone who sees this is going to like it. (Even right now my mom and brother are yapping about it. Annoying!! What is the matter with them?! I am the only one who is allowed to yap about movies!)

I realize that many people who are reading this may not have seen this yet, and for that I apologize. So this entire post may merit a SPOILER ALERT! I will try and keep it under control, though.

Ok, so the thing I liked best about this movie was the social commentary. The layers, if you will. Though, I realize I need to see it again in order to unpack it a bit more. (The problem with writing a movie blog is I really have to process the movie while I am watching it and trying to get the plot straight, dur). The commentary was something about citizens relying on government and order and the Joker wanting citizens to revert back to their natural state of being, which Locke tells us is "angry, brutish, and short."

I think revenge was another very interesting theme in this movie. You had Batman (who is always sort of seeking revenge) and then Harvey Dent. Just like in Sweeney Todd, the audience sees the destruction of a character because their life has been corrupted by the desire for revenge. It is very interesting. The thing that was cool about this movie (and the thing that everyone has been babbling about for a week) was the Joker and the audience never really understanding his motivation besides the desire for chaos and anarchy. It isn't hard for the audience to identify him as a terrorist and then they can relate to him and to what Gotham is going through because then it can be a mirror for what America is going through. Though, in true grad school fashion I have chosen to focus not on the terrorism aspect but rather the social construct aspect of what society is. But, like I said, I need to see it again to understand it a bit more.

Cinematographically it is a pretty good film. Very dark (my mom crazily said it was one of the most terrifying films she's ever seen...though I disagree) but not overly stylized. Over stylizing things in super hero movies, I think, is very common, but this one didn't really do that.

Lastly, like everyone else, I will say a brief comment about Heath Ledger. I don't know that he deserves an Oscar for this movie like everyone is saying. Frankly, if he couldn't win for Brokeback Mountain (a movie I didn't really care for) where he was amazing I doubt he could even get nominated for a movie that is a "summer blockbuster". But, I will say it was surprisingly sad to watch him in this movie. I didn't even really care for him that much as an actor when he was alive. I thought he was quite talented, but he never made any of my top 5 lists for acting or looks. (Maybe I'll go into those later, but I will say that Gary Oldman is on my acting list). But, when I returned to my hotel one day when I was in Portland, turned on the TV and the news told me that he had died I was sadder than I remember being ever for someone I didn't know. I loved Tim Russert, but when he died I wasn't as deeply affected as I was when Heath Ledger died. I thought it was really weird. Though I guess Tim was an old guy, he'd had a great life, he could have had a longer one but he really had a great one. With Heath it just seemed like such a waste. I guess thats why it made me so sad. (And now I am a nerdy nerd just like everyone else for going on and on about him)

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
I don't really know what to rate this. I mean, it was good, but it wasn't great. If I didn't need to see it again to figure out why I thought it had such good social commentary I doubt I would see it again.

But, it seems quite good quality for a superhero movie. But, it wasn't especially fun like other ones in this genre. And it didn't really strike a chord in me at all. So, I guess for the time being, until I see it again, I will rate it a 6.

Wind Chill

So what is this one about?
Netflix hooked me on this one with the description of,

From director Gregory Jacobs and executive producers George Clooney and Steven Soderbergh comes this chilling highway horror flick starring Ashton Holmes, Emily Blunt and Martin Donovan. While driving home for Christmas break, two college students find their vehicle broken down on a deserted road where the souls of all who have perished there return to haunt them.

I mean, Emily Blunt, and Clooney and Soderbergh as Executive Producers? Sounds good enough for me!

And how much did I pay to watch?
Net.Flix.Bitches.

And what did I think?
Well, there was one thing about this film that was amazing. Astounding even. The lighting was so natural and wonderful. Almost the entire film takes place 1) at night, and 2) in a car. Many times, I have noticed, lighting in cars is bizarre because I'm constantly asking "where the eff is all that light coming from?!?!" In the same way with night shots I am always wondering, "wait a minute, its night! Where is all that light coming from!?!?" Then I run around the house in a tizzy, freaking out. Because clearly, I sound like an insane person... I digress.

One of the problems I had with the film was its lack of explanation of what was going on. In the director's commentary they explained that they had originally had more information about what was going on, plot wise, but they took it out. They kept saying they hoped that the plot would still be clear. While I agree that everything doesn't need to be jammed down the audience's throat, it was unfortunate because the audience had to take a guess as to what was happening. My understanding of the plot was correct, I think, but it would have been nice to actually know for sure.

However, the directors made a very interesting point in their commentary. The two characters didn't understand what was going on. Because there was no outside narrator (as their often is in horror movies) to explain the history [indian burial ground, serial killer on the loose, etc] to the two main characters, we as the audience knew as much as the two main characters. This is true, and I forgive the small failing now.

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
The movie was good enough, not amazing, but not bad. It wasn't all that scary, but it employed a good amount of tension build-up. Like I said, the lighting was amazing, as was the photography.

I think I'd make a good DP. Thats movie biz slang for director of photography. Aren't you impressed?

I rated it a 3 on netflix, but because of the amazing photography direction I will give it a 6 (rather than a 5).

Stop-Loss

So what is this one about?
Wikipedia explains that stop-loss

in the United States military, is the involuntary extension of a service member's active duty service under the enlistment contract in order to retain them beyond their initial end of term of service (ETS) date. It also applies to the cessation of a permanent change of station (PCS) move for a member still in military service. Stop-loss was used immediately before and during the first Persian Gulf War. Since then, it has been used during American military deployments to Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo and during the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and the subsequent War on Terror.

The policy has been legally challenged several times, however federal courts have consistently found that military service members contractually agree that their term of service may be involuntarily extended.

So, Netflix describes Stop-Loss

After a tour in Iraq, decorated hero Sgt. Brandon King (Ryan Phillippe) returns home to his small Texas town and tries to readjust to civilian life. But when he's called up again as part of the military's controversial stop-loss program, he decides to go AWOL. Directed by Kimberly Peirce (Boys Don't Cry), this poignant drama co-stars Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Channing Tatum as Brandon's war buddies and Timothy Olyphant as his superior officer.

And how much did I pay to watch?
You may or may not have noticed that I posted that this review was coming soon on July 7. Well, as you may or may not know Stop-Loss was released on July 8. So how did I swing this? One of the many perks of Jack working at Blockbuster (perks for me, not for him) is that he can get movies before they are out (I guess the store gets the shipment in a few weeks before they are released) and he can rent them before the 'public' can. So, he got me this one. For free.

And what did I think?
I have many thoughts about this film, but the one nagging at me the most has to do with Abbie Cornish, an actress in the movie who played Channing Tatum's (what sort of name is that?!) fiance. If you keep up on celebrity goss you may realize that Ms. Cornish was supposedly the catalyst for divorce between Reese Witherspoon and Ryan Phillippe. This seems mental to me, and apparently to the people at Idontlikeyouinthatway.com, because Abbie Cornish is busted. I mean, uggo. Wtf was he thinking? She has the unfortunate affliction of fat face/skinny body, whereas Reese is just hot! (On second thought, and while looking for an appropriate google image to link to "skinny body", Abbie Cornish just seems overall fat...I mean, not fat for a real person, but fat for a celebrity... yeah, I'm an asshole) BUT, I have veered way off course here. Back to serious movie reviewing.

Ok. I guess I felt it was unfortunate that the director, Kimberly Peirce went from the extraordinary Boys Don't Cry to Stop-Loss. I always feel a little bad when a director's first movie is so amazing that any other movie they make won't compare. I mean, how could this film compare to the other one? Answer: it couldn't. And I think I was waiting the whole movie for something that would make it stand higher than Boys Don't Cry--though of course we all know that would be absurd.

I also found the political message of the film to be convoluted and found myself asking over and over, "what is the message? what is the point?" Peirce said she wanted to make a movie from the soldier's points of view, but I guess their povs weren't communicated clearly enough. The end of the film left me wondering, "um, wait, why? what just happened?" and I think that was due to lack of a clear pov of Phillippe's character. Why did he make the decision he did? It just didn't seem to fit.

What Stop-Loss does do very well has to do with the actors. I've never really liked Ryan Phillippe because he isn't a very transformable actor. For example, when you watch someone like Chris Cooper you tend to forget it is Chris Cooper because he is good at transforming himself into the character he is playing. Russell Crowe is also ridiculously good at this. Ryan Phillippe can never convince me that he isn't Ryan Phillippe. So, it was shocking when I found myself really admiring his acting in this movie. He was really quite good (beside the end, which I think was a fault of Peirce's writing). Joseph Gordon-Levitt was great in his role (and it was exciting that his wife was played by Mamie Gummer--thats Meryl Streep's daughter for those playing along at home). Even the bizarrely named Channing Tatum was great. I'd say the acting was what saved this movie for me...or maybe it was the actors+their acting.

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
Like I've already said, this one was tough, because it was certainly no Boys Don't Cry. The acting was good, and I like the director, but the movie didn't really have a clear enough message. I think a movie like this is supposed to have some sort of point. Yes, the portrayal of young men (between 18-24 I'd say) destroyed by war was affecting, but you can see the same thing on NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams every night. Its clear that war is destroying the men and women who go to fight. It almost doesn't even need to be said. What did need to be said though was some sort of stance on what is happening. I think as a film maker Peirce needed to clearly state, "This is wrong, look what it is doing to the kids who fight", but she didn't.

Because of its ambiguousness I give Stop-Loss a 6.

Get Smart

So what is this one about?
When the identities of secret agents from Control are compromised, the Chief (Alan Arkin) promotes hapless but eager analyst Maxwell Smart (Steve Carell) and teams him with stylish, capable Agent 99 (Anne Hathaway), the only spy whose cover remains intact. Now, they must work together to thwart the evil plans of KAOS and its crafty operative Siegfried (Terence Stamp). Based on the classic television show, this comedy caper co-stars The Rock.

And how much did I pay to watch?
Nothing, because it was Lori's treat for me and my mom.

And what did I think?
I thought it was fine. Yeah, just fine. I know it isn't a glowing initial response, but it wasn't really that amazing.

Steve Carell plays one character in everything he does. Now, fortunately for me, I like that character so I have no problem seeing it all the time. You know, Steve Carell in The Daily Show and Anchorman are really the roles that are different, so maybe they deserve all the credit. But, I am getting off topic. Really the movie was fine. Maxwell Smart was the nice guy that Michael Scott is (you know, underneath all of his nonsense) and it made the character very likeable.

Seeing a love connection between Carell and Hathaway was actually disturbing. Carell, in an interview in In Style (crap, or maybe it was in People) said that it was weird that he played a character who got to kiss a woman, and I totally agree. I mean, Carell is a handsome guy and totally loveable, but a leading man type....not really. not at all.

There were some laughs, Alan Arkin was especially funny, but nothing earth shattering. I liked the little bit of DC backdrop and I liked that KAOS was gonna blow up Los Angeles. I liked the scenes in Russia...though I'm going to venture a guess and say that the countryside is not nearly as nicely manicured in real life. And I liked that one of the bad buys was from the former Yugoslavia. I think he might have even been Albanian...though Serbian would have been more accurate. HA!

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
It was really a fine movie. Not like, "man, that is fine tailoring on that coat!" but fine like "How are you today?" "I'm fine" fine. It got a 3 out of 5 on Netflix, but I'll give it a 6 here because of my love for Steve Carell.

The Reaping

So what is this one about?
Netflix says,

In the wake of a devastating tragedy that killed every member of her family, Christian missionary Katherine Morrissey (Hilary Swank) loses her faith in God, devoting the rest of her life to debunking religious phenomena with the principles of science. But when she's called to a small Southern town to investigate a series of strange occurrences that appear to be biblical plagues, she runs out of logical explanations.

I'd say thats pretty accurate. You might remember the commercial, with the river of blood and the swarm of locusts, right? Yes, fine film making.

And how much did I pay to watch?
Netflix.

And what did I think?
Frankly its always a little shocking to see Hillary Swank 1) looking feminine and 2) doing a movie that isn't oscar worthy. But I'm no film snob (not at all) and who doesn't like movies that bring up biblical plagues? No one, thats who.

Pretty much this was what I thought it would be. Slow building of intensity and scariness, but I had no idea how it would end. Turns out--SPOILER ALERT--twas a biblical plague brought on by a bunch of satanists. A whole town of satanists, in fact!! SWEET!! The resolution and introduction of the satanist stuff went pretty quickly and I would have liked to see more explanation but it was fairly clear already.

I also would have liked for there to be a twist ending, but there wasn't really.

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
It was a fine movie for the type of movie it was. It reminded me of The Skeleton Key but maybe thats just because they both took place in Louisiana. Interestingly enough, apparently this was filmed right after Hurricane Katrina, but all the people working on production onsite were really excited to have a paying job even though all the other stuff in their lives were decimated. Ahhh, the power of movies.

Anyway, it was fine for what it was, so I give it a 6. It gets the extra point (instead of a 5) because of all the satanist stuff. It was awesome.