My Movie Review: Dinner for Schmucks

My Movie Review: Dinner for Schmucks
2.5/5


Opening Statement: Based on the French film "Le Diner de Cons" Dinner for Schmucks is the story of Tim (Paul Rudd) your average businessman trying to get promoted. In order to get the promotion he seeks he must attend a dinner his bosses schedule where the make fun of idiots. Tim debates if this is morally right before he runs into Barry (Steve Carrell) a dimwitted man who specializes in turning dead mice into works of art.


What's Good: First of all, it is funny. At times it is even hilarious. I have to say the best thing about this film is the characters and the actors who play them. Directed by Jay Roach the master mind behind "Meet the Parents" who stays within the same type of comedy as those films. Paul Rudd does well as Tim, you really care about this nice character who is trying to maintain his cool while the world is collapsing around him. At time the humor gets brutally awkward and you can't help but laugh. The most noteworthy performance is obviously Steve Carrell as Barry, the schmuck. Carrell makes this character incredibly silly, but at the same time warm hearted with good intensions. I really came to like these characters.


What's Bad: The movie comes up as average. You will laugh, you will talk about like two scenes for a week. Then it will vanish off the radar. It is hard for me to criticize Roach for lack of creativity when he is being so mindful by staying in his comfort zone.  There is just so much more that could've been done with these awesome characters. There is nothing really that bad about "Dinner for Schmucks" only that it makes a goal of an average comedy, and achieves it. 


The Rant: I'm not too wired about anything in particular. However I do want to point out that the trailers might be a little deceiving. It makes the film seem primarily about making fun of the schmucks and acts as that is the only source of comedy. It is not the Schmuck we are laughing at, but the situations the Schmuck causes. At times the film does make you laugh at the Schmuck. A lot of critics accused this as an "identity crisis." Roach's approach seemed more about dragging the mean business executive type out of us. So it's not that i'm angry that the critics accused it of this, however I think it would all be easier if we knew Roach's motive.


Consensus: "Dinner for Schmucks" strikes the average comedy. The same old Jay Roach material. 

My Movie Review: The Girl Who Played With Fire

My Movie Review: The Girl Who Played With Fire
4/5

Opening Statement: Lisbeth Salander is back in the second part of the Millenium trilogy. This time it is about a year later and she is being framed for a triple murder she did not commit. This catches eye to Blomkvist our protagonist from The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo as he tries to help her and develop a deeper understanding to who Lisbeth Salander truly is.


What's Good: I am falling in love with this trilogy. It maintains the same star rating I gave the first one, but to be honest they are both good in two completely different ways. The Girl Who Played With Fire picks up some of the pacing and  I love that we are learning more about Salander. I believe that Lisbeth Salander is my favorite heroine in the history of cinema. She is trying to maintain a normal life but is constantly having to run from her past. While Blomkvist is going on with his life after his jail sentence, and he seems almost completely intrigued by Lisbeth. The movie doesn't stray away from the fact that it is just telling a story, no matter how sexual or disturbingly violent things may get and I love that. This is a no holds barred mystery flick that throws more and more surprises at you. The mystery genre does not get much better than this.


What's Bad: Some of the soul is lost from the first one. It makes up for most its losses. The symbolism, mystery elements, and originality were so much more subtle in the first part. At times you may feel you are being jerked around by the straight forwardness and would like the movie to chill a bit.


The Rant: No Rant for this one! Everyone should see these movies though.


Consensus: It loses and gains things from The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, but altogether this is one hell of a trilogy, and Lisbeth Salander is one hell of a character.

My Movie Review: Vampire's Suck

My Movie Review: Vampire's Suck
0/5

Opening Statement: From writer/ directing team of Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer, the same assholes who brought us Epic Movie, Date Movie, Disaster Movie. Comes Vampire's Suck which aims its parodies at the recent media fads mainly Twilight.


What's Good: Absolutely Nothing.


What's Bad: Now I understand my job as a film critic I am suppost to critique the film. Which means pointing out its faults, praising what is good, and offering suggestion on how it could've been better. Well there is nothing good About Vampire's Suck. There is no ambition to make this film better than the recent bombs, the jokes are basically the same, just more annoying than the others. I am apart of the group that would love to see Twilight fans get knocked down a couple of pegs. However, not even Twilight deserves this fault. Actually, I take that back the Twilight saga is so much better than (excuse my language) this piece of shit! The team behind Twilight shouldn't bat an eye at this parody. Seltzer and Friedberg are now just being jerks, making money on audiences who don't know better, and being complete assholes. I tried to eat a sandwich while watching this, I couldn't do it. Why? Because this film is so grotesque. I wanted to turn this off more and more after every joke. I knew I couldn't critique it until I saw the whole thing though. 
          It is said that with the Fight and Flight response of the brain we run from things that put us in danger. Sometimes we get super human strength. Well, if someone were to tie me to a chair and try to make me watch this I would develop super human strength and bust free. I honestly fear for Seltzer and Friedberg's safety, people are going to kick their asses if they keep releasing these films. Once again my job is a critique is not to spew negativity but to offer suggestions. I suggest to Seltzer and Friedberg to find another job and to stop scamming the unknowing tweens out there. They are going to hell for this movie, not even Jesus has enough power to save them now. 


The Rant: Pretty much covered above, even if as a critic I am assigned to watch these movies ever again...I won't.


Consensus: Vampire's Suck is the worst of the worst. Seltzer and Friedberg make Ed Wood look like Steven Spielberg. I now feel the need to do everything in my power to stop people from seeing this movie. Stop your friends from seeing it, get the word out!

My Movie Review: Winter's Bone

My Movie Review: Winter's Bone
4.5/5

Opening Statement: Based on a novel by Daniel Woddrell of the same name, Winter's Bone is the gritty story of a 17 year old girl played by Jennifer Lawrence who has been taking care of her sick mother and younger siblings. Her father is no where to be found, and when he doesn't show for a court date the house is up for grabs. Now this young girl is on a mission to journey through her corrupt, drug-peddling family in order to find the truth to where her father exactly is.


What's Good: The little film that could. This very well-done adaption conveys so much strong emotion and characterizations. One thing that truly stood out to me was the cinematography and art/ set direction. From every magnet on the refrigerator, to the broken down cars sitting in the front lawns. This is one beautiful, oscar-worthy film. Never have I felt a place was so real. It is easy to convey sets/ art to things the average American doesn't know much about though. This a realistic depiction of the dark side of the country in the United States of America. There is very little music/ score to maintain the ominous mood. There is one sequence toward the end that really feels disgusting and dirty. The fact that you learn to care so much for these characters, mainly our protagonist Ree, only makes you hurt more inside whenever dark truths get revealed along the way. Lawrence and Hawkes really drew my attention to their acting. I couldn't tell you a movie either of them have been in off the top of my head, however I want to see them in many things to come. These are top notch Oscar calibur performances. Theses actors aren't just acting, this is real. I can barely tell the difference. The film was directed by Debra Granik, she's newer to the movie scene, and another powerful female director, much like Bigelow for The Hurt Locker. 


What's Bad: It may feel a little slow at first, or a little too cliche' independent style with its symbolism. However the more you think about it, the more Winter's Bone feels like its own movie. 


The Rant: Give it a chance. I know with ADD action packed films out there like Salt and Sorcerer's Apprentice you are going to put Winter's Bone on the back burner. That really makes me sad. Please listen to me when I say SEE THIS MOVIE. I beg you to see it, do your self a favor and save yourself from the Transformers 3 and Twilight cult!


Consensus: Winter's Bone makes for a perfect adaptation by using forms of tone, mood and depth in methods that I have never seen before.

My Movie Review: The Kids Are All Right

My Movie Review: The Kids Are All Right

4/5

Opening Statement: Julianne Moore and Annette Bening lead an all-star cast in The Kids Are All Right. Which also includes Mark Ruffalo, Josh Hutcherson, and Mia Wasikowska. The story revoloves around a family that contains two lesbian mothers (Moore and Bening) who have two teenage children (Wasikowska and Hutcherson.) The children decide they want to meet their sperm doner father Paul (Mark Ruffalo) whose interactions with the family begin serving more as a complication than a hallmark moment.

What's Good: A lot. Go ahead academy give the Oscar's to Ruffalo, Bening, and Moore. I don't usually mention the acting first thing, but damn. One thing you have to realize this is being advertised as kind of a family comedy. Truthfully it is a very dark film about a family crumbling apart in different ways. The movie express its own sexuality in very diverse ways. This is one of those dysfunctional family films that doesn't act subtle to show you its point. These are very open characters. It is very interesting how these characters act toward each other in hilarious awkward situations, and in dramatic, moving situations. Which brings me to the best part about The Kids Are All Right, it is funny. It is hysterical. Every attempted awkward joke is a success. My theater was in thunderous laughter as was I.

What's Bad: My only problem with The Kids Are All Right is it doesn't stick. I'm glad this is independent because it wouldn't stick with a mainstream audience. The movie makes its point, a point in which is similar to very very many other movies. However, it does a way better job of making that point. Much like Cyrus with its not-so original storyline but demonstrated in a very original way. In all reality there is nothing wrong with The Kids Are All Right, except the fact it might not stick with you for that long.

The Rant: What is the problem guys? There is so much controversy surrounding the issue of lesbian activity in this movie. Much like Brokeback Mountain. It surprises me that so many people could be so simple minded. The Kids Are All Right is not about homosexuality just because homosexuals are in it. Even so there is no reason at all homosexual and heterosexuals should be insulted by this movie in any way, yet they are. I just don't get it.

Consensus: The Kids Are All Right is a very dark, yet heartwarming comedy. You will laugh, you will cry. Its sophisticated use of humor might go over some audiences head, but it gets its point across in a very human manner.

My Movie Review: The Sorcerer's Apprentice

My Movie Review: The Sorcerer's Apprentice

3/5

Opening Statement: John Turteltaub, director of National Treasure, joins producer Jerry Bruckheimer in bringing us The Sorcerer's Apprentice. This story follows Dave, played by Jay Baruchel, a 20-year-old college physic nerd who, during his childhood, had an incident with Balthazar, a mysterious sorcerer played by Nicholas Cage. Now Dave must work with Balthazar to stop en evil sorcerer named Horvath, played by Alfred Molina, from ENSLAVING THE HUMAN RACE.

What's Good: Bruckheimer is the summer movie guy. His movies are never the best of the summer, but they are fun nonetheless. There are certain things about The Sorcerer's Apprentice that are simply, magical. I understood they had some inspiration from the dancing broom scene in Fantasia. It is scenes like that in Sorcerer's Apprentice that put a smile on my face. Also the tasteful cheesy comedy. The jokes don't necessarily make you laugh, but make you smile and feel good. The actors bring a great deal of charisma to the scene. Cage and Molina are the best here. The way Christopher Nolan brings out the best in his actors, I see this from Bruckheimer films as well. Especially a modest Jay Baruchel who seems to be joining the sarcastic comedy team (Eisenberg, Rudd, Cera) however he keeps his stuff on a very PG level, I was impressed by his performance to say the least. The whole premise of The Sorcerer's Apprentice makes you feel the Disney within, which is a very good thing.

What's Bad: While the actors made me care very much for the characters, I didn't feel much emotional involvement in the story. In fact I was thirsty for more. Unlike Prince of Persia which had you more into the story than into the characters. You see, I loved the sequences with the dancing brooms, the flying swords so much that I wanted more. The effects of fireballs and lightening strikes aren't that impressive, but they do good with the effects. The Sorcerer's Apprentice may be something you only remember for a week or two, but it holds its own in a time when summer blockbusters go large scale.

The Rant: No Rant.

Consensus: The Sorcerer's Apprentice makes you smile often with its Disney feeling. The kids will definitely love it and want the action figures the next day. However, it is still far from perfect.

Armond White "No one under 30 should be a film critic"

It was excruciating, yet kind of comical, listening to infamous film critic Armond White of New York Magazine, on slashfilm's podcast last night. The man is informed, and well-educated, but is arrogant as hell. There was an uproar once White disrupted the perfect tomato-meter score of Toy Story 3, but at that point I was still unaware of who this man actually is. Maybe he had a legitimate reason for disliking Toy Story 3, maybe a legitimate reason for disliking Inception. I have read his critical analysis on these films, they exercise great vocabulary and he explains well why he doesn't like these movies. Listening to him on that podcast though I couldn't help but cringe at his sheer arrogance. He was asked if there was anything at all he liked about Inception. He simply said no. Even if it bored the hell out of you, and just wasn't your type of movie, there is still effects, acting, ect. to be admired. His review of Inception attacks Nolan as a con artist, by manipulating his audiences. Yet, this is being said by the man who admired Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen, which is EXACTLY the kind of summer blockbuster that does manipulate an audience!

In the world of movie criticism, you have to realize that every movie is subjective. I can't get pissed at Mr. White if he doesn't like a couple movies that I love. In his podcast he went on to insult Roger Ebert's style of film criticism as well to say that the internet is killing the profession. A lot of people, like myself, love critiquing film. How many readers do I get? Probably about 50- 100 viewers per review and not even 25 people will read this article. I am typing it up anyways, because I enjoy doing it. I am not trying to kill people like Armond White's career, but at this point he should be more worried that he is killing his own career as a troll. In the movie criticism business you have two types of critics, those who judge on their personal opinon and those who judge on how the target audience will like the film. White is strictly selfish with his review and at times it feels he is just attacking to, well attack. If I were Roger Ebert I wouldn't shed any notice of the alligations White put toward him, Ebert has better things to do. Once again I am not bashing Armond because he hated Toy Story 3 and Inception and praising Ebert because I agree with him more, in fact one of my favorite of the year (Kick-Ass) Ebert hated and with just cause.

Another thing about Armond is he says "No one under 30 should critique movies." This doesn't bother me too much. As you all know I am 18, and I am reviewing movies. Armond goes onto say that when you are under 30 you aren't informed enough about art, literature, or even older movies to be able to critique a movie. So when a film like Twilight or Harry Potter comes out and a young adult like myself is the target audience, would that not make my opinon more valid then someone older and more educated? When I critique movies I offer my own personal opinon and shed some insight on how it would be to the target audience. I would've hated Despicable Me and gave it a very low review, but the fact that I didn't find it funny doesn't mean the young kids won't, the movie is not for me, it is for them. Someone my age is suppost to be in Kick-Ass or MacGruber. I awarded Despicable Me 2.5/5 clearly in my review because, even though I thought the emotion was illbalanced, and the 3D was "tacky." Those kind of things aren't going to matter to young kids who will laugh their asses off in this movie.

What I am trying to say is, I no longer will accept an Armond White review as valid criticism. It is to biased, and the man seems to be just wanting attention. Most film critics are arrogant, but when reviewing your film I strictly believe it shouldn't just be you trying to get in the limelight, you are writing about a product someone has worked very very hard on, you can't just give them the negativity, you need to do your job and critique which at times includes offering suggestions of improvement and compliments on what they did right. Which is why I use my What's Good and What's Bad format.