Movie review: The Other Guys

Well, my plans for the summer didn't exactly pan out quite the way I expected. As some of you may remember, my plans for the summer consisted (in part) of watching plenty of movies and subsequently doing reviews. But, as you can clearly see, I haven't posted any reviews for the past couple months. I've been watching movies, but just haven't been able to do the reviews. Mostly because I spent the majority of the summer with my family, so I chose to spend my time with them rather than sitting in front of a computer. But now that I am back home, I'm able to catch up on some of my reviews. Since I have several movies that I need to catch up on reviewing, and since I'm probably going to be pretty busy with the semester starting next week, these reviews are probably going to be pretty brief...at least until I'm able to catch back up on them.


The Other Guys (2010)
Netflix streaming
Rating: 2.5/5
viewing: initial

I wasn't all that impressed with this movie. I had heard that it was pretty funny, and it's from the same director (Adam McKay) of movies such as Anchorman and Talladega Nights, so I was expecting it to be pretty humorous. But there were only a few scenes that I found myself briefly laughing. It was pretty disappointing. Most of what McKay does is usually hilarious. Mostly because he has found a formula for his comedies that he has been able to make work. Of course, the downside of that is that most of his movies have started to all feel the same. That might be due in large part to the fact that Will Ferrell usually plays the lead role...and that role is usually practically the same character. The first few movies, it was hilarious. But the more that he plays that role, the more it starts to just feel annoying and like it's the same thing I've seen time and time again. In The Other Guys, Will Ferrell's character did start out as somewhat more of the straight man...but there was enough of a presence of his "zany" character to begin with that it never really felt right. Then, as the movie went on and he got zanier and zanier, it just felt like "ugh...not this again." I did think, however, that Mark Wahlberg did a great job. He is a much funnier actor than what some people might give him credit for. As you could probably guess from my review so far, my recommendation is: pass. It wasn't unpleasant to watch, but I wouldn't have been missing out on anything if I had never seen it. If you are wanting to see a McKay/Ferrell movie, I say just stick to either Anchorman and Talladega Nights. Even if you've already seen them, I think you'd have a better time re-watching them than you would watching The Other Guys. If you are wanting a movie where Ferrell isn't playing that same type of character, I'd say go with Stranger Than Fiction. And if you are wanting Wahlberg in a comedic role, go for I Heart Huckabees.

Ok...that's all for now. I'll try to get more reviews up in the next few days.

Movie review: Thor

Sorry it's taken so long to post this review (it's been a week or two since I've seen Thor). I was busy making sure that everything was finished up for the semester, then I was busy taking advantage of the fact that it was summer and doing practically nothing for a few days. I'd prefer to do my reviews within a day or two of seeing them, and if it had taken me this long to review a DVD, I would probably have just rewatched it. But, seeing as how theatres have gotten too expensive for repeated viewings, I'm just going to have to do a late review.

Thor (2011)
Theatrical release, IMAX, 3D
Rating: 4/5
Viewing: initial

Being a bit of a geek, I'm really happy that the trend of comic book movies over the past several years has resulted in an increasing effort to make good, quality movies. Sure, there are still a few bad eggs out there that bring the genre down (*cough* Ghost Rider *cough*). But for the most part, comic book movies are being taken seriously, with big budgets to produce the special effects needed to keep the visual style, and big name actors and directors to actually deliver the plot...both of which are needed to do justice to the source material. The action in these movies is definitely important...it's why most people go see comic book movies. But the plot and the character development is equally as important, if not more so. This is what helps you care about the characters and what happens to them. If you don't care about the characters, then the action sequences don't have the same level of tension, because you don't really care who wins.

I thought that Thor did a really good job of delivering both the action and the characters, especially considering that this was an origin story. In most origin stories, it's easy to spend so much time developing the character that there is little time left for action sequences. Or, in attempts to combat that, it is also easy for origin stories to swing the other way and spend too much time in battle and not properly introduce the character. Finding this balance is difficult for most comic book (and other various action) movies, but it is even more so in origin stories. Part of the reason that Thor was able to find this balance was because the action and the plot development went back and forth. Rather than spending the entire movie building up the character and building the hopes of an epic final battle, only to be let down by a disappointingly short action sequence, the action in Thor was interspersed in such a way that not only did each action sequence feel satisfying, but also felt like the action was actually helping to drive along the character development.

Another reason that I feel like Thor worked so well was because of the directing from Kenneth Branagh. Branagh is probably most commonly known for his adaptations of Shakespeare. And I think that his Shakespearian experience definitely aided this movie. In most movies, when a character is not American, he/she is portrayed by someone British. I understand that it's because a British accent is just foreign enough for American audiences to say "hey...he/she's not from here!" but still understandable enough to not have to use subtitles. I sometimes have a problem with this, when it is just one character that could just as easily have been cast by someone actually from the country the character is supposedly from. But in Thor, it was easy to accept that the majority of the Asgardian citizens were British. In part because of the commanding performance by Anthony Hopkins (he might be pushing 75, but he is still totally believable as a Norse God!), and in part because of Branagh's film history (especially Hamlet). The dialog, which used a fair amount of "old English," seemed very natural rather than painfully overacted. And there were a few scenes that actually felt like they were being performed on stage (in a good way).

I do have a couple complaints though. The first of which is the love story. The connection between Thor and Jane Foster (played by Natalie Portman) feels like it developed a little too quickly. It seemed much more like Jane fell in lust with Thor than in love with him. But, this is only a minor complaint. The love story between Thor and Jane played a role in his path to redemption, and I feel like the redemption story (overall) was developed very well. And considering the fact that Jane did not talk well of her ex but still had some of his clothes at her place, how quickly she fell for Thor might actually be in character for her. Also, if much more time had been devoted to the love story, it would have felt pretty sappy fairly quickly.

The other complaint that I have is that I saw the movie in 3D. For the most part, the 3D did not seem to detract much from the movie. And in scenes that focused more on the depth of the scenery, rather than poking and throwing things towards the audience, it did look pretty impressive. But in many of the action sequences, the action (moving at normal speed) was too fast for my eyes to focus and register that a hammer was being thrown at me. But, again, this is primarily a complaint about 3D in general (for a pretty great explanation as to why 3D kinda sucks, check out the link) and not just about Thor.

Recommendation: Go see it! Even if you aren't much of a fan of comic books, this is a great movie. And if you are a fan of comic books, I think that Branagh did justice to Thor. If you aren't a fan of 3D, and don't feel like shelling out the extra dough just to wear some uncomfortable glasses (seriously...who designs those things?!!?), then just see the 2D version. Having seen it in 3D, I don't think that there was necessarily anything spectacular enough to warrant a required 3D viewing experience. But, it certainly wasn't a bad experience (except for a few times during some of the action sequences) in 3D. So, if you're a fan of 3D, then go right ahead...I don't think you'll be disappointed.

rating

I saw Thor a few days ago and thought that it was pretty awesome. I've not had a chance to do my review yet, but hopefully will be able to get that done either tonight or tomorrow at some point. But until then, just wanted to post a little reminder about my rating system. For the time being, my rating is very much based off of Netflix in that I am rating how much I liked the movie, and not necessarily how good the movie was. The two are definitely related, but certainly not interchangeable. If it was an incredibly well-done movie, chances are pretty high that I'm going to love it. But, just because I really like a movie does not mean that it is going to be a quality film...I do occasionally like the intentionally bad movies. So, as I do my ratings, here is a rough translation of what each of them means. 1/5 means that I pretty much hated the movie. 2/5 means that I really didn't like the movie...I don't want to see it again, but it wasn't total torture seeing it the one time. 3/5 means the movie was ok. 4/5 means that I really liked the movie. And 5/5, of course, means that I loved it! On occasion, I might add a .5 to my rating, which of course would mean that it's somewhere between the two (ex. 4.5/5...I really, really liked the movie).

That is all for now. Thor review coming soon...

contextual recommendations

So, I've only done one review so far, and already I'm starting to see some flaws/changes that need made. This is why I normally spend more time thinking about something before I do it...so I can minimize the changes needed. But, if I spent all summer trying to work out my system, then I'd never get around to actually watching movies (or, at least not doing reviews of the movies I watch). So, I'll just be making changes as I go. It might be kind of slow-going til I get these reviews to the quality that I want them, but stick with me. They'll get better, I promise (I hope). In the meantime, comments and suggestions (whether they be about the movie, or what you would like to hear more/less about in my review) are definitely welcome.

But back to the problem from my first review. I was making a judgment about whether or not to buy a movie based off of what I received from Netflix. I realized this problem as I was doing the review and tried to address it by saying that if what you receive from Netflix is all that you get when you buy it, then just hold off until you see it on sale somewhere (as much as I think that Inception is a must see film, if there aren't any extras then it's kind of hard to drop the cash for Blu-ray, seeing as how they can be kinda pricey). And I thought that solution was good enough for the time being.

But I realized after the fact, while that reasoning might be good enough for DVDs and Blu-rays from Netflix, that wouldn't work for Netflix streaming or movies I see in the theater. This hit me as I'm making plans to go see Thor today with one of my friends. I'm pretty stoked about seeing it, and was already looking forward to doing a review. But I realized "how can I make a recommendation to buy it if it isn't even out on DVD/Blu-ray yet??"

To solve this problem, my recommendations are going to be contextual. My initial intention of doing recommendations for buy, rent, pass, will primarily be for movies that are either in my collection or that I have borrowed from a friend. Recommendations for DVDs/Blu-rays from Netflix will be whether or not to add it to your queue. If there are enough bonus features on those discs, recommendations to buy might be added. But, since what you receive from Netflix does not always contain everything that you get when you buy it, I'm not going to punish the movie for Netflix's limitations. Recommendations for Netflix streaming will be whether it is worth the time, or a waste of time (or, if it's a good time-waster). And finally, recommendations for movies that I see in the theater will be whether to see it in the theater, wait for it to be available on Netflix, or pass.

One final note. I've been collecting movies for quite a few years now, and actually started my collection before I had a DVD player (in fact, I might have even started before DVDs were made). For some of those movies, I've upgraded and bought it on DVD. But for many of them, I still only have the VHS. But I haven't decided yet how I want to handle the recommendations for them. If they are available on Netflix streaming, then I might as well just watch that version, as it would probably have better video and audio quality than VHS. But since the VHS doesn't have bonus features, I won't be able to make the call on whether or not to buy. Hmm...I'll have to think about this. Or I might just avoid watching anything on VHS.

Movie review: Inception

Well, here it is...the first of (what I hope to be) many movie reviews over the summer. As I mentioned previously, the main reason that I want to start doing this is to have an excuse to watch movies over the summer. As such, I am going to try to do my posts within a day or two of watching the movie. Since this is my first review, I've not quite worked out what information I want to include or the order that I want to present it. So don't be surprised if the format changes a bit in subsequent reviews. But, for now, I think I'll start with basic information, my rating, whether this is an initial or repeated viewing, my review, and end with my suggestion of buy, rent, or pass (again, basing my system off of Chris Gore's system on Attack of the Show). Since I've not quite worked out the format of my reviews, I've not decided if they should be targeted to people who have already seen the movie or not. So there might be a few spoilers...but I'll try to keep them to a minimum.

Inception (2010)
Blu-ray, Netflix
rating: 5 stars
viewing: repeated (2nd)

Let me start by saying, I loved this movie! This is one of those movies that is easy to describe, but hard to explain. The basic plot involves a group of individuals, whose job is to enter into people's dreams to extract information, who are hired to implant an idea in the heir of an energy company. Sounds simple enough, right? Well, in order to do so, they must enter into dreams within dreams (within dreams). The setting of each dream is very distinctive, so it is fairly easy to follow along with what is happening at the time. It is not until after the film is over that you find yourself questioning much of what has happened. As the consequences of the dreams become much more realistic, and as reality becomes more and more dreamlike, the lines between reality and dreaming become practically indistinguishable.

This delicate balance was beautifully handled by writer and director, Christopher Nolan. In much the same way that sometimes you do not realize you are dreaming until after you wake up, you do not realize that you are confused by the movie until after it is over. But that is part of what makes it so amazing. You can watch it simply as a visually stunning action movie (the realism of which is enhanced by the use of practical effects rather than special effects whenever possible), or you can delve deep into the subtleties of the psychological drama.

The ability to draw you in is due not only to an amazing cast, but also to much more subtle tricks such as the use of jump cuts. In most movies (and tv shows), it is necessary to show how the characters get from one location to the next in order to maintain continuity. For example, getting into and exiting a car. It is not necessary to show the car traveling from one location to the next, but entering and exiting the car communicates to the viewer how the character changed locations. In Inception, there is very minimal explanation as to how characters get from one place to the next. In fact, this is even pointed out in an interaction between Leonardo DiCaprio and Ellen Page's characters.

Of course, as with any movie that actually makes you think, it is also easy to start over-thinking and look for patterns and explanations where there might not be any. For instance, the names of many of the main characters, Dom, Richard, Eames, Arthur, Mal, & Saito spells out DREAMS. Was this intentional? or simply a coincidence? Even if it was intentional, it surely wasn't a major aspect of plot development. Some reviews and discussions online have actually used that as evidence to try to "figure out the answer" to the movie. But part of the elegance of the movie is the ambiguity. For those of you who haven't seen it yet, mini-spoiler...the ending is supposed to be ambiguous. Whether or not the end of the movie is a dream is not the focus...it is the resolution that Dom experiences that is supposed to be the focus.


Recommendation: Two of the factors that play a major role in whether or not a movie is a "buy" are rewatchability and the quality of the extras. For me, Inception has very high rewatchability because each time you see it you notice something you didn't notice before. But, unfortunately, the Blu-ray from Netflix did not have any extras...at all. I do not know if there is a supplemental disc with extras, since Netflix does not send out supplemental discs. Seeing as how it is my intent to base my reviews off of what I am able to see, I can only give a review for what I received from Netflix. So, unfortunately, since the version from Netflix does not have any extras, I'm going to have to say that this is only a rent. But, it is a very, very, very strong recommendation to rent! I would definitely say that it is a must see. So if you have Netflix, add it to your queue immediately. However, since I think there is a high level of rewatchability, if you see Inception on sale or relatively cheap at a used store (such as MovieStop), then I'd say it's definitely worth it to pick it up. As a side note, I suggest that you watch some of Christopher Nolan's earlier films (not counting the Batman movies) before watching Inception. He frequently makes use of telling the story in an asynchronous fashion, and I think that having a familiarity with some of his work (such as Momento or Following) greatly adds to the appreciation of what he is able to do in Inception, and why he is able to make the ending work as well as he does.

edit: Because I've revised the way that I'm going to be doing my recommendations, ignore what I said about not buying Inception. Only focus on what I said about how it absolutely needs to be added to your Netflix queue right now. If I get around to buying Inception, I will re-review it (or, at least the extras)

nothing to report

The two or three of you out there who actually read my blog have probably noticed that it's been a while since I've been on here. Almost two years, in fact. I'd like to say that it's because I've been insanely productive and just haven't had time for such things as blogging. But, sadly, that's not true. Don't get me wrong, I have been productive and most certainly have been busy. But to say that I've been too busy to be on here just is not true. I've had the time...I just haven't really been taking advantage of it.

I plan to remedy that.

I know I've said that several times before. And I've meant it before. And I mean it now too. I'm not going to make guarantees that I'll make frequent, or even regular posts. But with classes almost over and summer almost here, I'm reasserting my intention to blog more. Along with photos, sketches, and random thoughts, I've also decided to add a new category to my topics of discussion. I'm going to start doing movie reviews.

Those of you who know me (and realistically, how many of the people who read this don't know me?) know that I love movies and that I love talking about movies. But, along with other hobbies that I've not been making the time for, I've not been making the time to watch movies as frequently as what I would like. So, over the summer, I plan on posting reviews of the movies that I watch. I am well aware that my movie knowledge is nowhere near as in-depth as what I would like. So don't expect the reviews to be of the same caliber as film theorists or professional movie reviewers.

The movies that I'll be reviewing will not all be brand new movies as soon as they come out. I'm going to try to see a few in theatres, but most of what I'm going to watch is going to be movies that I either already own or are available on Netflix. Some of them will be movies that I have seen countless times, others will be the first time that I'll have viewed them. With as much as I love movies, there are a number of titles that I'm ashamed to admit that I've never seen. But, when I do my reviews, I plan on mentioning whether it is my first viewing or a repeated viewing. I also plan on letting you know the version of the film (theatrical release, director's cut, special edition, etc.), and whether it is in my collection or available on Netflix or Netflix streaming. I might even try to work out my own sort of rating system. But, because I don't want that to hold up my viewing and reviewing, don't hold your breath for that. For the time being, I'll be doing a mix of Netflix's star system (hated it, didn't like it, it was ok, liked it, loved it) and Chris Gore's system on Attack of the Show (buy, rent, pass).

I'm looking forward to giving this a shot. In large part because it's going to give me an excuse to watch movies more often. Feel free to add your comments to my reviews. And if you have any suggestions on movies you think I should see, send those along as well. Let's see how this goes...