zerogirl42 Reviews

The Secret Life of Pets (2016)

Darker than expected, not for small children

[5/10 · 11 July 2016]

The preview gives the impression this is a light comedy. Some parts are cute and sweet, while others are very dark and just plain cruel. Some animals have very nefarious plans.

At the screening I attended, when those evil plans were revealed, about 15 people walked out of the theater (about 6 or 7 families with children under 8). There's a character that gets off on violence and violent stories.

That being said, it's not a horrible film. It definitely has its moments, but the pacing is just odd. It can't make up its mind. Characters change alliances randomly. One minute it's funny, the next it's very disturbing.

There's even a psychedelic, drug-like sequence all of a sudden which just seems out of place and is just weird. I couldn't wait till it was over.

The film was obviously made by and for dog lovers, not cat lovers too.

I left the theater feeling empty at the end.

If you're looking for a solid family film, Finding Dory is a better choice and movie overall. You might want to pre-screen The Secret Life of Pets if you have small children.

Once Upon a Time in Wonderland (2013–2014)

A Wonderful, Creative Fantasy!

[10/10 · 21 November 2013]

Once Upon a Time in Wonderland is the story of Alice, but later on in her life. This is nothing like the Tim Burton interpretation. This is the spirited, little girl that we loved as Alice in books but all grown up. She's now a clever, young woman with determination.

Wonderland takes on a life of it's own, incorporating parts of the original story like the mock turtle and chess game, but serving them up in a whole new way.

There are references to Once Upon a Time, there's no need to watch this before Wonderland. Wonderland stands on its own as an interesting tale.

It's VERY creative and the story begins quickly. I suggest watching through to at least the 3rd episode then deciding if you want to stick with it. The 3rd, 4th and 5th episode are all great character studies, while the 1st and 2nd set the stage.

Strong female AND male characters lead characters are a nice touch. It's very balanced.

The story isn't spoon-fed to the watcher either which adds to the unpredictability. Anything that seems out of place (like the phony Queen and the presence of Jafer) are there for a reason is all I have to say.

It's great to see an extremely creative, fantasy show on TV. Being a fan of shows like Pushing Daisies, Wonderfalls, White Dwarf (I wish that made it past the pilot), and others, I really hope this show's given a chance.

A lot of sci-fi or vampire shows seem to make into several seasons, but fantasy seems to have more of a challenge.

This is definitely one of the better ones, but I fear it may suffer a similar fate to Stargate Universe (which starred Robert Carlyle AKA Rumplestilskin), where viewers expect it to be like the previous incarnation.

It's wonderful to see Michael Socha (The Knave of Hearts) play the underdog who struggles to do the right thing. (He was also in the ill- fated fantasy/horror "Being Human" UK version which ended too soon).

Wonderland is focused on just a couple stories, instead of several like Once Upon a Time. It's more of a quest and journey focusing mainly on Alice, but with VERY interesting characters surrounding her.

Funny People (2009)

Not Very Funny, Boring and Long

[5/10 · 3 August 2009]

First, I've been very entertained by films like 40-year Old Virgin, I Love You Man, and Superbad. I'm generally not offended by gross-out humor or films with a long running time so that's not my issue with Funny People. The problem is that Funny People is an extremely self-indulgent film with uninteresting characters. I'm okay with unlikable characters, I welcome the kind of characters that you love to hate like Jack Nicholson's character in As Good as It Gets, but I didn't find anyone lovable, much less likable in Funny People.

The lead characters in Funny People are just not the kind I care about. Sandler plays George, an extremely successful Comedian who is diagnosed with a terminal illness. He's not a jerk, just a typical, spoiled rich actor who has free stuff given to him and sleeps with groupies all the time. He hires Ira (played by Seth Rogen), an aspiring comedian, to follow him around and do things like sell off his excess car collection. Sandler regrets not having love in his life so he calls an ex-girlfriend. All I can say is, so what? I don't care. Ira has two room mates that are aspiring actors with varying success. The characters are either spoiled actors or people who want to be spoiled actors. Funny People is all about their boring lives off the stage and screen. So what that George has trouble sleeping at night and sucks a popsicle after sex. So what that Ira can't get a date with a nice girl.

There's no depth in this movie, just a shell of superficiality that's parading as deep. Even with Sandler's inclinations that there may be something deeper that he's missing out on like a family or kids, his actions in the film show that he doesn't care. The characters don't grow and change. Ira gets to pal around with a big celebrity like George for awhile, but he doesn't really learn much from it. He just sits in the living room while George has sex with willing women. I could care less about an aspiring actor's fantasy like this.

Now, it's not all bad, but I needed to vent about the real problems of this film first.

The supporting characters are where some of the depth comes in. There are a few laughs with a tall, imposing doctor and Eric Bana is surprisingly tolerable as the husband of the ex-girlfriend whom George misses from the past. In fact, Bana's character is almost likable as the Aussie businessman who puts down his wife and finds peace in Buddhism. There's also camaraderie and friendship in Ira's room mate situation which is unexpected. I was with two guys who kept laughing at the male genitalia humor. Some of it went over my head, so I guess you need to be a guy to understand some of the stuff going on down there.

The film just doesn't get funny enough or dramatic enough to be interesting. There's not much of a story here unless you like the boring lives of actors. I would caution woman on seeing this film. There won't be anyone you can relate to unless you have the fantasy of banging an actor.

Away We Go (2009)

A Charming Journey/Roadtrip

[10/10 · 21 June 2009]

The style of Away We Go very much reminded me of a late 1960s/early 1970s film. I kept thinking of Harold and Maude or The Graduate, where the lead characters learn about themselves as their relationships grow and change. There were some characters that were so despicable that they'll make you laugh and cringe at the same time. The disappointments were done in a comedic way so the movie never drags. There were introspective scenes along the journey where I thought a Cat Stevens song would start playing.

The main couple travel to various cities to find the perfect place to raise their daughter and they meet an insane cast of characters along the way. These people remind me of people I've actually met in real life. A lot are parents with the best of intentions but what they are doing is just plain wrong.

Maya Rudolph should be in more serious roles. She's an amazing actress. She gives a very genuine performance, no overacting at all. As for John Krasinski, he was very good too as the loving, supportive boyfriend. There's a scene where he kept trying to say the right thing, but it keeps coming out all wrong. I think any couple will be able to relate to it when they see the film.

What makes this movie charming and deeper than a lot of romantic comedies is that you already have an established couple that's very much in love. This is usually where a romantic comedies ends, but Away We Go probes the deeper question of what happens after you meet the person of your dreams. Away We Go completely avoids the cliché of boy finds girl, boy loses girl, boy finds girl again.

I thought the music was okay, not the best, but the two men I was with very much enjoyed it.

I don't want to give away too much, but if you like a quieter film with a tone like the other movies I mentioned, you will enjoy this. If you're a looking for just a mindless roadtrip, this is not the film for you.

***I just read an article that the screenwriters were influenced by early 1970s movies, especially Hal Ashby who directed such classics as Being There and Harold and Maude. That explains why I kept thinking of Cat Stevens. If you go to the FilmInFocus website there's a 6 page interview with the screenwriters.***

Also, there's a comment that the film glorifies animal cruelty. The dog races were chosen because it's the saddest place the screenwriters could imagine to do the scene in Arizona. The context in the movie was to show the misery of a place like that, not glorify it at all.

C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America (2004)

Extremely Funny Mockumentory

[10/10 · 29 May 2009]

CSA was much better than I expected. It was produced by Spike Lee and was obviously a labor of love from Kevin Willmott. It shows an alternate history for if the confederates won the civil war.

The style is like a documentary you'd see on the History Channel with fake commercial breaks that show popular products. Probably one of the most disturbing things is that you find out a lot of these products are based on real items (Niggerhair cigarettes and Darky toothpaste come to mind).

As with any good satire, there needs to be an element of truth which is definitely explored in CSA.

I watched the movie with a friend who just got his MA in History, focusing on the civil war. He was extremely amused by CSA and pointed out that a lot of elements would be true if the confederacy won. For example, growing cotton devastates the land, so using manifest destiny as an excuse to acquire land masses is a definite.

There are also fake film clips like The Northern Wind (based on Gone With the Wind) and a commercial for Leave it to Beulah (based on Leave it to Beaver). Instead of Better Homes and Gardens, there's Better Homes and Plantations.

There's also a mention of what happens to Chinese immigrants and Jews.

Overall, very funny. If you watch the trailer and like it, you should definitely see the the entire movie. If you didn't find it funny, avoid CSA. It won't be your kind of humor.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008)

Bring the Handkerchiefs

[10/10 · 26 December 2008]

If you don't enjoy tearjerkers, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button isn't for you, Wow, I haven't cried this much at a film in a long time. I brought my boyfriend's teenage sister and we shared a good, cry fest.

I know a lot of people have commented on the length of the film. Yes, it is long but I feel that it was necessary to bring the depth needed to get personally involved with the characters. The character development was excellent; relationships weren't just assumed.

There are really two stories in the film. The first is the obvious one, a man aging backwards, but just as much of the story is devoted to a little girl as she transforms into a superficial young women, then into maturity. It was a great contrast to really explore what a person goes through while aging (enhanced with amazing make up and acting).

There's tragedy in the film but there's also comic relief so you never get the feeling of hopelessness while watching. There are some beautiful, erotic dance scenes that are somehow also tasteful which I wasn't expecting. It's hard to describe. You'll have to see the film to understand.

I honestly feel that saying Benjamin Button is the same as Forrest Gump is unfair. The only thing the characters have in common is being born with disadvantages and having someone believe in them. That's all though. Benjamin Button isn't a fairy tale and is no where near as light-hearted as Forest Gump (which was a relief). The two movies have a completely different tone to them. Benjamin Button is more of a parable about aging and loss. Button is an intelligent man, fully aware of his disadvantages and the pain it may cause.

On a lighter note, there's also great costuming. They really got the look and clothing of the time periods right (and there are a lot of time periods). The 1930s, 1940s and 1950s dresses were distinct and correct for each decade. I wouldn't be surprised if the film won some awards for its flawlessness.

Benjamin Button wasn't as predictable as I thought it would be either. It was a very nice, solid film. Definitely worth the price of admission.

Blindness (2008)

Interesting Idea, but a Let Down

[2/10 · 4 October 2008]

If you like shocker drama, you'll probably enjoy Blindness.

Blindness begins as very promising. The editing and art direction cleverly shows peoples' mental states as they panic from not being able to see. Random people are struck blind and forced to live in a quarantined areas with limited resources and no links to the outside world. Julianne Moore pretends to be blind so she can stay with her husband. There's wonderful character development in the beginning, but the middle spirals downhill. For an hour in the middle logic is thrown out the window allowing for extremely graphic violence and sex.

Main characters allow idiotic things happen which can easily be stopped. I sat cringing through not 1, but 2 very long, brutal, rape/orgy scenes which could have been prevented. In the first scene, one of the women is beaten to death and continually raped. These scenes are very traumatic. Even if you cover your eyes, you can hear a man's graphic, verbal description of how he's raping a women. If I had been warned about them, I would not have chosen to watch this film. Julianne Moore has a weapon, can see, but goes along with being raped, stands by her husband after he has sex with another women in the cafeteria and just wonders around powerless for 2/3 of the film as bullies horde the food. It's completely ridiculous. There's no discussion about the affair so Moore's forgiveness to her husband makes no sense. In fact she just hugs the other woman after watching them have sex.

There's also a lot of feces, trash and naked people scattered around (some having graphic sex). I get the message that things are bad, but the film just lingers in this state for an hour, so I found myself getting very bored. I don't need to stare at close ups of dogs devouring people for several minutes or people's pets starving or dead in their arms.

The ending is treated like a fairy tale (complete with Moore's blind husband coming in like the knight in shining armor. He somehow finds Moore in a mob and rescues her). People get their sight back and Julianne Moore has sex with her husband again like nothing bad just happened. Everyone's happy. There's a scene with 3 women showering that seems thrown in to show more nudity.

Blindness focuses little on the process of how society outside the quarantine area collapses and rebuilds itself. That's what I was hoping to see, but it didn't happen.

The film left me feeling empty. The acting was fine, but I didn't learn anything new. Watching Blindness is a journey that I would not want take again. You also never learn what actually caused the blindness.

Babylon A.D. (2008)

Interesting Futuristic Details Stitched into a Poor Story

[3/10 · 7 September 2008]

Wow. I didn't have high expectation, but thought I'd at least enjoy Babylon AD. I like just about anything science fiction and most B movies. Babylon AD seriously got the Homer Simpson treatment which I explain later in my review.

The setting is the world in ruins after nuclear war. Vin Diesel comes in as the anti-hero, terrorist hired to deliver a "package" to the US. Enter Michelle Yeoh as the protector and chaperone to the package. She's excellent in her role as a nun in a seemingly peaceful cult spouting lines such as, "just because we are peaceful, doesn't mean we are weak." There are some nifty special effects and enough mystery at the beginning to make me believe the film is going to get 7 stars.

Except for some futuristic technology, that's about it for the good parts of the film.

As for the bad parts, have you ever seen The Simpsons episode with Mel Gibson? The last half hour of Babylon AD is treated like Homer Simpson's version of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. I'm not kidding. It was shockingly bad and truly follows Homer's vision.

I'm still not quite sure what point the movie was trying to make. The story becomes so muddled and the acting is so bad at times that I had no idea what was going on. About 3/4 through the movie, one of the most awkward sexual tension scenes is thrown in for the hell of it. There's no build to it and it makes absolutely no sense, which unfortunately becomes the recurring theme until the end.

Journey to the Center of the Earth (2008)

Silly & Fun Adventure

[8/10 · 8 August 2008]

Put on those ridiculously over-sized, 3-D glasses which is THE ONLY way to see Journey to the Center of the Earth. "Nerd alert" was what people were shouting in the theater before the film, so it was nice to be surrounded by a festive crowd.

Journey to the Center of the Earth really beckons to the time of 1950s horror flicks with huge monsters chasing the hero and heroine who escape situations with luck and crazy logic. It's a fun ride with weird creatures biting at your face and things flying around that you will feel the need to swat at, even though nothing is really there. It's not everyone's taste, but I love these types of films. I was probably one of the few people who enjoyed A Sound of Thunder because of this.

I highly recommend this for a family outing. Kids will love it. No nudity or foul language. Little kids may find some of the monsters scary, but nothing gross happens.

I saw it with my long-time boyfriend and it was just a hoot. It's not a film to take too seriously, but not all films are meant to dredge the soul. It was just a very nice escape for a couple of hours and was very easy on the brain.

All the acting is decent enough. Even the teenage boy who seemed like he would be really annoying at the beginning won me over.

There are some very cool special effects. I wondered how the film was going to answer the question of lighting in the center of the earth, but that's summed up quite nicely. Beautiful landscapes show that a lot of imagination went into the set development. The film moves quickly. I really felt like I was on ride at Disneyland.

The plot is simple enough. Brendan Fraser plays a scientist who's brother disappears while investigating volcanoes. Several years later, he discovers something very curious in one of his brothers books which leads him on his journey to solve the mystery.

There are only two annoying things, a sentient creature who really shouldn't be sentient and a scene where the characters run into someone who doesn't speak English, so one of the characters adds an accent to his English so the guy will understand him.

The trailers were done well too. All were in 3-D. We saw "Fly Me to the Moon" and "Bolt." Both looked like great fun.

Journey to the Center of the Earth would rate about a 6.5 without the 3D glasses. I'd only bother to see it in the theater if it's in 3D otherwise it'll be a waste.

So get that popcorn, put on those nerd specs and have a jolly good time.

Get Smart (2008)

A Remake That Works

[9/10 · 24 June 2008]

Finally, a movie that doesn't rely on gross-out humor to get a laugh. I'm so sick of that trend in Hollywood to drag out all these disgusting-joke scenes for way too long. Thankfully, Get Smart beckons back to comedies before all the potty-humor took over the screen.

I can see why Get Smart wouldn't be for everyone. If you need those R-rated chuckles, this isn't the film for you. There is no dark humor. Get Smart is more slapstick and physical comedy. The jokes are smart and quite witty. You can definitely see Mel Brooks's humor shining in places.

There was an elderly couple sitting next to me in the theater and I was scared the silver-haired gentleman was going to crack a rib, he was laughing so hard.

I was reluctant to see Get Smart. I loved the original series and could not imagine how it could be done right. I got dragged to see Get Smart by my boyfriend. I'm so glad I gave it a chance.

Don't expect a carbon copy of the original. This is a new interpretation with similar characters. If you get caught up hoping that this will be exactly the same as the original, you will miss out on a very good film.

One of things I admire about Get Smart is how it deals with plump people. There were a couple scenes where the writers could have taken the easy way out and made some fat jokes. Thankfully, this did not happen and the character(s) were treated with respect and sophistication.

Also, there are some nice special effects and action scenes. Just remember, this isn't meant to be Die Hard. The comedy comes first so this won't be back-to-back action.

Oh, and there's a funny cameo from the original head of KAOS. I won't spoil it for you.

If you're looking for some laughs, this is a great film. One of the best comedies I've seen in awhile.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)

Extremely Average

[3/10 · 25 May 2008]

If you have nothing better to do, this might be good for a matinée. I would certainly not pay full price to see this. Whatever you do, don't have high expectations. There will be a lot of one-liner jokes that are kind of funny to kids or teenagers.

It's a struggle to think of something good or exceptional about the film. The sets were the most interesting part. There's a temple with an interesting opening mechanism, a creepy sanitarium, a model 1950s town complete with mannequins watching TV and a nuclear blast that's rather dynamic, but some parts just reminded me of Happy Days (complete with the Malt shop). Unfortunately Shia isn't The Fonz even in an ironic sense. He has a compulsion to comb his greasy hair throughout the film.

The saddest part is that the actors seem to be doing their best with a script that's more like a commercial for Scientology, than a true action thriller. There's a strong history that's laid out in the film about aliens interacting with humans and creating paranormal ability. There are all these, "I'm going to use my psychic powers on you" scenes.

The continuity in the film is extremely flawed. Some of the characters' motivations are just stupid. I'm not going to list any spoilers, but several come to mind that just make me cringe. It was extremely disruptive to watch the film and see something that makes you go, "Wait a minute. That character wouldn't do something THAT stupid." Just be prepared, scenes like that are forced in there to move the story along.

The effects were very disappointing too. There's an insect infestation that's a tiny step above Recon 2020. The animals just a have an unreal look to them (gophers with "Uh oh" expressions and the like). If you like that kind of thing you might enjoy it, but it just seemed childish in this film. Not a good use of computer graphics at all.

I'm not sure if the actors did their best with what they were given or if some of them have just lost their touch. If you don't like Shia, this film isn't going to change your opinion about him. I could tell he was excited to have a role in the film to the point of overacting (you could see that "wow, I'm in this Indy film" in his eyes), but he just didn't have the physicality needed for this role (too short, just a not leading-man look to his face). I had to control myself from laughing at Cate's accent. She attempted to sound Russian, but sounds more like Natasha of Rocky and Bullwinkle. Her English accent slips out too. Harrison Ford is good as usual, but he seemed a little tired. He didn't have the spirit of someone like Bruce Willis in the last Die Hard movie (I enjoyed Live Free or Die Hard more than Kingdom of the Crystal Skull btw).

My friends were shaking their heads throughout the film in disbelief over how poorly Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was executed. One of my friend's was all exciting before the film, talking about renting the entire trilogy for us to watch. After the film all he could say was, "this is ruined for me." As for me, I watched the first Indiana Jones in the theater when it first came out. It was fun. The second I saw on DVD. It didn't have the spark of the first, but was watchable as a light action movie. I didn't feel compelled to see the third. I felt like I came into Kingdom of the Crystal Skull from an extremely neutral place (not a mega fan, but not completely unfamiliar with Indiana's roots). I read some of the reviews and set my expectations pretty low. Unfortunately, the film was worse than my hopes.

My friends who loved the first 3 Indiana Jones movies felt like Lucas just spent 2 hours kicking them in the crotch when we watched Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Also, two scenes were recycled directly out of Spielberg's Young Sherlock Holmes.

In it's defense, the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull wasn't as disappointing as Spiderman 3, but it does suffer from the bad-sequel syndrome. It's more on par with Phantom Menace without as good special effects. There were a lot of similarities to National Treasure 2 (let's find the City of Gold before the bad guys and have a family reunion in the process).

There were applause after the film from a bunch of kids that were there for a birthday party (about 30 boys around 11 years old). I did have to ask a mother to have her kid put away the cellphone in the middle (he was so bored, he was playing flashing games on it).

I just hope there won't be anymore Indiana Jones or Mutt Jones films. It's time for Hollywood to come up with new characters and new stories.

Jumper (2008)

Great Popcorn Flick

[7/10 · 25 February 2008]

Wow, I'm surprised Jumper got such a low rating. It's much better than the National Treasure sequel.

There's plenty of action, a cohesive story, and fun special-effects. The fight scenes are extremely creative too. I was on the edge of my seat, awestruck by some of the chase scenes.

It's not an academy award winner, but it's definitely an enjoyable film. Bell is the perfect, comedic foil to balance Christensen's sadness in the film. Their interaction reminds me of the dynamic between Spike and Angel in the Joss Whedon TV shows such as Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel.

The film focuses on Christensen's character and how his superpower effects his life. Jumper begins with some of the lead characters in high school and the casting is excellent for the younger versions of the stars. They actually look like they're in high school too. Their interactions are believable and set up situations that become important later in the film.

Superpowers seem to be popular these days with the success of shows like Heroes and The 4400. Basically, Jumper explores one superpower that is shared by a select few. There's also another group of people called Paladins who view jumping as an abomination of God. Jackson plays the typical villain, but excels in the "worst hair" category (the whole audience laughed and snickered when he came on screen).

I won't give away too much. If you enjoy shows like Heroes and The 4400, you might really like Jumper. The acting is decent. The script does a good job of adding comedy when needed and mostly avoids clichéd dialog. I say mostly because it's not perfect, but there are definitely some original jokes in Jumper. It had much better dialog than something like Star Wars Episode 1.

If you're looking for a fun time at the movies that won't break your brain, this is a good choice. It would probably work well as a first date movie too. It's been a long time since I saw a good, popcorn flick. I almost forgot to mention, the film takes place in amazing settings like Rome, Tokyo, Egypt, London, and the Mojave Desert, . I felt like I took a mini trip around the world.

Resident Evil: Extinction (2007)

I'd Rather Get Eaten by Zombies Than Watch This Movie Again

[1/10 · 25 September 2007]

I got dragged to this stinker by 5 friends. I can tell you right now that at least 6 people walked out in the middle because Resident Evil: Extinction was so bad.

If you enjoy hicks attempting to rape a fully clothed Milla (there's no nudity), you may enjoy this film, but I'll warn you, this is the only plot point that makes any sense.

To sum up, scientists decide to make zombies more intelligent. According to their reasoning, smart zombies won't crave flesh anymore and can then be used as a slave workforce.

My boyfriend and I were the first to leave. I just wanted to go to our car and get out of there, but my boyfriend insisted that we deserved a refund for this atrocity. We found the manager and said we wanted our money back. The manager didn't even ask for a reason and seemed unsurprised. He quickly accommodated us. If you find yourself in a bad film, keep your ticket stub. You have the right to not have to waste your money or time on lousy films.

About a half hour later I got a call from my boyfriend's brother. Our other friend's had walked out too and got a refund. He said the movie just kept getting worse with Milla putting out fires with her mind.

Ultraviolet was better and made more sense (don't mistake that for an endorsement, Ultraviolet was very hard to sit through)

Paprika (2006)

Mesmerizing

[10/10 · 22 June 2007]

Paprika isn't for the faint-hearted. Don't expect a story for children.

The story opens with a cop who's plagued by a recurring nightmare, so he seeks psychological help. If you've ever seen and enjoyed Alfred Hitchcock's Spellbound, it'll help you understanding what's going on in the film.

The cop forms a relationship with Paprika, a dream character who becomes his guide in helping him understand what happened in his past that makes him feel such shame in the present. Paprika assumes many forms in the everchanging dreamscape to relate to the other characters.

This seems all good at the beginning, but the device that enables dream analysis is stolen. This creates an even bigger problem than just nightmares; what happens when people can't control their dreams and has them hijacked by evil? Paprika isn't the easiest movie to sum up. On one level, it's like watching dreamy, fantastical animation, but there's also a deeper psychological question being asked: What is a dream exactly and to what extent does it affect your consciousness and waking life? How much fantasy is good for a person whether it be in dreams or spending time on the Internet? If you bury guilt and desire into your subconscious, how will it manifest in your dreams?

Paprika is definitely a visual spectacle. I don't recommend waiting to see it on video. I had the honor of catching it on the big screen, which I believe is necessary to capture the depth of the imagery. Parts of it really seemed like dreams I've had (times when I've tried to walk, but couldn't get anywhere and the harder I tried, the worse it got).

I put Paprika up there with Pan's Labyrinth. A lot of people will be turned off from it by the subtitles and another set of people will be lost by the mythology in it. If you don't have problems with these kinds of things, you will probably have a delightful viewing experience.

It takes a person with an analytical mind to put the plot together. If you follow the recurring images, the mythology will make sense. A lot happens on the screen. I didn't have a problem understanding what was going on and I enjoyed putting the puzzle together. I don't think most moviegoers are like that these days, so I can see them getting bored or annoyed because they can't figure out what's going on. If you prefer the Disney genre of animation, avoid Paprika, it will just frustrate you. If you're crave more than a simple plot, Paprika will satisfy that hunger.

The soundtrack is quite good too. It's a refreshing break from Elton John power ballads.

White Dwarf (1995 TV Movie)

Fantasy Fun!!!

[10/10 · 1 June 2007]

I caught this by accident on the sci-fi channel several years ago. It's a wonderful fantasy mixed with an original storyline.

The lead character (Neal McDonough as Dr. Driscoll Rampart) is an aspiring doctor who takes his internship on an out-of-the way planet. His intention is to bring back quaint anecdotes that he can tell patients when he opens his money-making practice on Park Avenue (there's a great joke about the name, but I won't spoil it here).

Rampart doesn't take his assignment seriously. Afterall, how much can a doctor learn on a back-woods planet? As time goes on, Rampart finds out much more than he expected as he runs into shape-shifters, immortal creatures and unorthodox medical procedures. Rampart must confront his own fears as he struggles to understand his new environment.

White Dwarf does a nice job of blending science with faith, understanding and kindness; not an easy job, but necessary for the culture of Rusta (like all good sci-fi themes, its suppose to be a fictional mirror of our own culture).

I can see some sci-fi fans not enjoying White Dwarf. There aren't space battles, but White Dwarf isn't suppose to be an action film. It's more of an interesting drama with some humorous elements. It just happens to take place on another planet.

This will always be a favorite movie for me. It has good, life-lessons (it doesn't beat you over the head with them) along with being entertaining. The characters are compelling and different from anything I've seen in other films.

It's worth giving the movie a chance. I liked the mix of technologies, it's what made White Dwarf unique and creative. Keep in mind, these technologies (or lack of technologies) were only props to show a deeper story.

The Thief of Baghdad (1961)

Mythological Tale with Magic and Laughs

[10/10 · 10 May 2007]

The Thief of Baghdad is a wonderful fantasy with plenty of battles, puzzles, and obstacles that you would expect in an epic adventure. Steve Reeves stars as Karim, an Arabian "Robin Hood" who cleverly thieves his way into the royal palace charading as a prince. While he's there, he falls in love with the princess who also falls in love with him.

Even though forbidden love motivates the storyline, The Thief of Baghdad is more like Homer's Odyssey. The film focuses more on the quest Karim must complete to prove he's worthy of Princess Amina's hand in marriage. With the help of a man in white (who keeps appearing and disappearing), Karim battles tree monsters, Arabian sirens and much more.

There's a lot of humor in the film which is probably due to the director, Arther Lubin (he was primarily a comedy director). There are also battle scenes along the lines of Braveheart where clever tactics are used.

Overall, The Thief of Baghdad is a very light-hearted fantasy. It was a childhood favorite (we had an old, betamax copy that we taped off the TV when I was a kid). My older brother was a huge sci-fi, fantasy fan and introduced it to me. I hadn't seen it in over 20 years, when it got brought up in a conversation with friends who play D & D. We were talking about the skeletons in the 7th Voyage of Sinbad and I remembered this curious, little film from my childhood. There isn't as much animation in The Thief of Baghdad, but the storyline is excellent. Steve Reeve's does all his own stunts too.

I found a copy on eBay. It was totally worth the $20 I spent on it. After viewing it as an adult and showing it to someone who had never seen it before, I can truly say this is a classic and people of any age can enjoy it.

You can vote for The Thief of Baghdad to be reissued on DVD at the TCM site. Be sure you choose the 1961 version, there are several movies with the same title, but they are not the same story as the one starring Steve Reeve's. The original film was in in Italian, but I'm only familiar with the English-dubbed version. The voice acting is excellent. The Thief of Baghdad should be required viewing in dubbing school (if there is such a thing).

The Illusionist (2006)

Magically Beautiful and Romantic

[10/10 · 10 May 2007]

Films like these are why I go to the movies. The Illusionist is a lovely fantasy with lots of magic tricks. It plays on the mythical theme of forbidden love and sets the stage in Victorian Europe.

There's some creative photography work from the beginning that will transport the watcher into another world beyond the mundane. I liked the chemistry between Norton and Biel. They definitely showed the passion of trying to hide their love from onlookers. The lovers are plagued with the world working against. Tons of problems get in their way such as arranged marriage, different classes, high-profile lives, police scrutiny and murder which makes it impossible to declare their love, much less get a moment together.

Giamatti plays the inspector who's fascinated by magic and tries to makes sense out of seemingly supernatural events. Although you see some of the action from the lovers' points of view, the story is very much told through Giamatti's observations.

If you like romance and the 19th century, you will love The Illusionist. I saw The Prestige around the same time which I found to be dark, brooding, and ugly (it was very disappointing). The Illusionist was everything I hoped the Prestige was going to be and more. I initially got turned off from seeing the Illusionist because reviews said the leads had no chemistry and there wasn't much of a mystery. I completely disagree. The Illusionist is a lovely film that uses magic for beauty, not for evil.

Spider-Man 3 (2007)

Dawson's Creek Meets Elektra...

[4/10 · 5 May 2007]

...with a little Xanadu sprinkled in for good measure. The producers of these must have had something to do with the production of Spidey 3 (I'll explain these comparisons in my review). I dislike spoilers and think the best way to properly review this movie without giving it away is to compare it to other films and TV shows.

I stopped guessing who was going to be caught kissing whom by the end and I just didn't care anymore. I went into Spidey 3 not expecting it to be as good as 1 & 2 (I had read other reviews), but good lord! It was like someone p*ssed on the iconic scenes from the first two movies. Shame on whoever came up with this mess.

I don't mind complex characters. In fact I enjoy them, but it was like Dr. Phil was involved and wanted to show the tortured, tender sides of the villains, while Spidey is shown as no saint. Spidey 3 had the same problem I had with Elektra, I didn't know who to cheer for, and to top it off, Elektra had a better script. I'm serious. I'm not exaggerating. It was like the producers of Spidey 3 came up with all these great fight scenes and musical numbers first, and then realized they should have some kind of story to tie it all to together. The logic and motivations of the supposed "good guys" are completely off (even if they are being influenced by evil). The only truly good person is Aunt Mae, who randomly bursts onto the screen to offer pearls of wisdom akin to Yoda guiding a young Luke Skywalker.

To top it off, the heroes are just plain stupid in the heart-to-heart dramatic scenes (don't worry, I won't spoil the heartbreaking moments). Just watch an episode of Dawson's Creek and that will give you a good example. The audience was actually booing and someone sitting behind me called MJ a b***h.

The dialog was on the level of the junior high school kids in an after school special. It was obviously written by someone who'd never actually stepped into a college classroom. Peter Parker even gets picked on for being a nerd in a college-level physics class by a jock throwing spit balls at his head and another shining a mirror in his eyes while he's trying to read the chalkboard.

I won't go into the massacre of the Gwen Stacey character (Peter's lab partner).

There are some continuity problems which can jerk a watcher out of the moment which are quite annoying (my brain would go "wait a minute" when the poor editing would change what a character was doing in mid-sentence).

The only reason I suggest seeing this on the big screen is for the special effects. They're pretty amazing. The Sandman is quite breathtaking.

See Spidey 3 if you must, but expect a huge spectacle like Xanadu with flashy numbers and thin dialog in the middle. You've been warned.

The Host (2006)

Monster Movie That Can't Make Up Its Mind

[7/10 · 22 April 2007]

There are some brilliant moments in The Host, but when it all adds up, it isn't a brilliant film. To sum up, a family bonds together to save its youngest member, but encounters ridiculous obstacles on the way.

The Host aims to be an action/horror film sprinkled with biting comedy and hits the mark for the most part in the first 30 minutes, but the formula falls apart in the later half. The pacing becomes uneven and very slow and could benefit from tight editing. There's some clever storytelling going on, but it gets bogged down when the film takes a heavy-handed approach to political messages. The messages aren't the problem, but the style chosen for the storytelling later in the film is completely different from the beginning.

The tone of the story is completely erratic. I didn't know what I was watching. I don't want to spoil the story, so all I will say is the movie didn't leave me satisfied. I felt like the old bait and switch, very lured in at the start, but ultimately not an enjoyable experience towards the end.

The only reason that I'm rating the film as high as a 7 is because of the acting. The quirky characters kept my attention (I wouldn't go so far as to call them dysfunctional like in Little Miss Sunshine but they do have problems).

Also, the movement of the monster is quite good. I liked that The Host wasn't a gore fest either. It has disturbing imagery, but it's not as intense as something like Saw or Slither.

The Sword and the Sorcerer (1982)

Ugh

[2/10 · 24 March 2007]

There are so many bad things about this movie, I don't have the time to list all of them: Incoherent plots (there were several at once), poor acting, boring storyline, and unappealing actors are but a few of the problems with this film. I hated all the characters. All the women in the film were treated as sub-human. The men were only after being king or killing the king. I wanted everyone to die at the end.

Oh, there's also no sorcerer in the movie, so don't expect magic.

One of the poor plot lines had to do with a woman trading sex to save her brother. This was the heroes payment for helping out. I know some of the people reading this will go, "Alright, we get to see gratuitous sex!" Before I get some of your hopes up, let me say that there is no sex in the film. There are a few bare-chested women shown very shortly in one scene. There are hints at a brothel, but all the men have their pants on. There's little eye-candy for anyone.

The setting was a combination of the desert, forest and the tropics. Everything was mixed up with camels and pine trees.

The worst were the fight scenes. They had music that sounded like it was from a Lassie movie dubbed over slow-motion scenes with nothing spectacular happening in them. Most people died one of two ways:

1) Men held their sword over their head while another man whacked them in the stomach.

or

2) Men would walk into or over a wall and die out of their own stupidity.

If you like epic battle movies, go see 300. If you want to see a really bad, slapstick, Viking movie go rent Eric the Viking (it's really good to heckle).

Even watching The Sword and the Sorcerer with some drunk friends didn't help it (I wasn't drunk, but even my drunk friends thought it was terrible). We thought it would be a good heckle-fest, but sadly, it failed. Ninja Squad and The Covenent are better for this.

There are some very gory scenes in The Sword and the Sorcerer which some might enjoy. That's the only reason, I'm giving it two stars instead of one. Rent at your own risk.

This Film Is Not Yet Rated (2006)

Should have been called Films With Rape and Orgasms

[5/10 · 2 February 2007]

The film has a very good premise; to infiltrate the inner chamber of the MPAA and expose who's rating our films. A team of private investigators is hired to track down who's responsible for evaluating films, but we soon find out it's not as simple as calling them on the phone.

There's wonderful interviews with a ton of directors such as John Waters and Kevin Smith who have been urged to cut their films because of the content. Getting an NC-17 rating is a financial death sentence because most big, chain stores such as Walmart and Blockbuster will refuse to carry your film if it has that rating. This doesn't mean that a film-maker needs to cut down a film to get it released, just that it won't make as much money and needs to be independently financed.

I can see the film being quite titillating for someone who doesn't want to bother with the plot of a film and just cut to the sex. There are some very astute points that are made, but I don't feel that This Film Is Not Yet Rated delved deep enough for me or showed enough history. I wanted to learn more about the social history of attaching ratings such as pre-code films, PMRC (the counsel that believes popular music causes rape, violence and other destructive behavior) or other rating systems that border on censorship.

There's some interesting juxtapositions of sex scenes that look exactly the same (such as comparing American Pie to But I'm a Cheerleader), but got different ratings to show the arbitrariness of the the evaluation process, but after the 200th pelvic thrust, I got the message. There's quite a montage of sexual content in the film. I wanted to see more about the investigation. After watching the same (and I mean the same) clip from a film for the fourth time, I felt like I was watching documentary on the longest orgasms in film instead of a documentary about the rating system.

I hope to see this subject approached in another film in the future. It's a very important topic. I remember the days before PMRC and listening to bands like Suicidal Tendencies when I was a teenager. I'm still alive today with no rapes or suicide attempts.

Another film you might want to see if you're interested in censorship is Cinema Paradiso. It's not a documentary, but its about a movie theater where a priest cuts up films before his town can view them. You may also want to see Red-Headed Woman, a pre-code film about a woman seducing a married man.

Ever After: A Cinderella Story (1998)

A Charming Twist on Cinderella

[9/10 · 30 January 2007]

Ever After is a wonderful tale about the fictional "true" inspiration for Cinderella.

It opens with The Brothers Grimm approaching a very wealthy, old woman to find out what Cinderella is really about. The lady tells the tale of her grandmother, Danielle, a strong-willed girl placed in terrible circumstances.

Danielle isn't a damsel in distress like in typical fairy tales. She's determined to take charge of her life and isn't afraid to ask for help along the way. Danielle has a Scarlett O'Hara style of determination to save her home and take care of the people she cares about.

I usually don't enjoy Drew Barrymore, but she is quite delightful as Danielle. There are lots of laughs and some very cruel moments doled out by an evil stepsister and mother played by Anjelica Houston.

The costumes are beautiful and the characters are fun and interesting. There's even the appearance of da Vinci with his crazy contraptions.

I recommend Ever After for romantics. I'm an adult and I very much enjoy the film. I find it to be good to show to the teenage girls in my family. It's also nice to have play in the background when I have girlfriends over and we work on sewing projects together.

Little Miss Sunshine (2006)

Worth Watching Just to See the Ending

[9/10 · 26 January 2007]

I saw this with a group of friends who didn't know much about the film. After about 30 minutes, one of them commented, "Is this suppose to be a comedy?" That's pretty much the feeling for the first half of the film, but once the characters are established, the viewer is set up for one of the most charming displays of a family bonding ever in a film.

The family is extremely messed up. It felt like we were visiting a home where we were seeing things that we shouldn't be seeing. It was painful and compelling at the same time because you could tell that everyone cared for each other very much but all their personal S**t was getting in the way of them making healthy connections to each other.

The youngest of the family, 8 year-old Olive, gets into a beauty contest and the whole family embarks on a trip across country in a decrepit Microbus to support her dream of being Little Miss Sunshine. Olive is adorable, but not cutesy at all. Her father is so hard on her to be a winner that he even starts getting her to hate her body and be thin so she can become a beauty queen. Olive isn't fat at all. She looks like a normal kid. This isn't light humor, but biting commentary about society.

The middle part of the film is a bit like the movie "Vacation." Unfortunately, there are some plot problems that couldn't be ignored so I took away a star.

Once the family reaches The Little Miss Sunshine Pagant, be ready to be hit over the head with some of the funniest comedy I've seen in a long time. My friend who first asked, "Is this a comedy?" couldn't stop laughing.

I felt like we had listened to the details of a very long joke and were finally given the punchline.

Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby (2006)

Waste of Time

[2/10 · 24 January 2007]

If you judge woman by their breast size, this movie is for you.

If you like stupid, sexist humor, this movie is for you.

I found the movie insulting to my eyes, ears and intellect. Perhaps a bunch of drunk, yokels may enjoy it. I did not find it clever or entertaining at all. This is the lowest common denominator of humor.

There's one funny joke with a cougar in a car, but the rest is a big waste of time.

After seeing the movie, I was with a group of friends who rented it (I hadn't shared my review and none of them had seen it yet). I tried to give it another chance, but after 25 minutes one of my friends shut it off and called it garbage.

Idiocracy (2006)

Biting Satire About the Future

[8/10 · 24 January 2007]

This isn't the easiest movie to sum up without posting spoilers but i think I do a good job here.

Idiocracy takes the controversial topic of dysgenics (the hypothetical evolutionary weakening of a population) and explores its progress over the next 500 years. The world is populated by morons who would make Homer Simpson look like a Einstein.

Idiocracy isn't as stupid as it first seems. I hated Baseketball and Anchorman. I have no patience for stupid humor. There's a deeper message/warning going on in Idiocracy. I would actually liken it more to Children of Men in a philosophical sense. Instead of a birth dirth, there's an exploding population of people too stupid to use birth control.

Joe (Luke Wilson) is an army librarian who sits on his butt all day waiting for his pension. He's forced into an army experiment that goes wrong and wakes up 500 years in the future. In the future no one reads or even knows the word "scientist." Humans are slowly dying because of their own laziness. The future becomes a wake-up call for Joe to do something/anything worthwhile in his life. He desperately wants to get back to the past so he can improve his ways before it's too late.

The visuals help add to the urgency of Joe changing his life and the world. The landscapes and backgrounds are amazing. I highly recommend using the pause button to study these.

There's a societal message in Idiocracy that's much more interesting than sappy, comedy melodramas like Click or The Family Man. If you're looking for a feel-good family comedy, Idiocracy isn't it. If you want deep, social commentary done in a creative way with bite, you may appreciate the genius of Idiocracy.