Where's My Popcorn?

OVERALL

Holy cow. I believe I may have seen one of the fakest-looking movies of all time. I didn't get a chance to see "300" in theatres, but all of my friends were saying "Dude, this is one of the greatest movies of all time! You NEED to see this!" So I Netflix'd the movie, totally looking forward to seeing it, and then my wife and I watched it.

Halfway through my wife said "Gee, I wonder if he's going to do another speech?" And boom, right on cue, we got another Braveheart-esque speech by our ab-friendly good guy.

This movie was made almost completely with CGI, and you can tell. Just from the sky. That's what made the movie seem so fake. The slow-down-speed-up scenes during fights were tacky. Some parts of the story, including the Oracle, were completely unnecessary and seemingly tacked on. It looked to be made just for guys, so let's throw in another naked chick!

So yeah, I really didn't like this movie. I saw it already when it was called Braveheart, and that movie was much better. Of course Braveheart also had homophobic scenes (funny enough, the coolest looking character with the best voice was portrayed as a flaming "family" member... if you know what I mean).

You know what's going to happen in this movie, but I found myself just not caring. I didn't really like the main character, King Leonidas, but the actor who portrayed him Gerard Butler had great delivery. Sure he yelled a lot but he yelled with a lot of PASSION. I do hope this gets him some more roles.

PRO vs. NO

PRO: A lot of no-name actors portraying characters who stood out. If you forgot the storyline of the movie, you won't forget the imagery of how the characters looked.

NO: Just take a look at the overview. This was a story that's been done many times before (few vs. many), and it's been done better.

SIX WORD FINISH
"We're in for one wild night."

FINAL BELL
-- 2 out of 5 -- I love macho movies. And this one was dripping with machismo... so why did it not resonate well with me? How could I not love this movie? Was it TOO macho even for me? Or did it dip into the fantasy land of self mockery? There was a strong woman character, the King's wife, and you find out the narrator plays a good part in the story. Would I have liked it more if I hadn't seen Braveheart? Maybe. What if I play the role of a good reviewer and not account Braveheart? Then what? Maybe the movie would get a 3 out of 5, but for the main reasons in which I DON'T mention Braveheart.

WORTH THE PRICE OF ADMISSION?:
For me, no. For some people, including those guys looking for a movie that will make them feel better as a man, yes.

IMDB:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0416449/

OVERALL
This is one of those movies that suffer from inexplicable marketing. Directed by Barry Levinson, the same man who brought us "Wag the Dog", the release company Universal depended on Robin Williams' comic background to bring people in.

So "Man of the Year" was marketed as a comedy. We've got Robin Williams being funny in the trailers, and we got a poster with him dressed in a funny wig. But in the movie his character, a "fake news" anchorman a la Jon Stewart, is playing a character who's funny. So he's a character who's playing a character.

But it wasn't exactly that character who decided to run for President of the United States. It was Williams' character Tom Dobbs who decided to run. And did anybody really think he even had a chance?

"Be funnier," they kept telling him as he campaigned. Don't be the straight man. People enjoy your character more, and that character is more likely to win some votes.

He wins... but did he really? The second part of the movie is a thriller with parts that would surprise you. I found certain things to be implausible, but they cover their tracks well. The big question I had was -- could this really happen? Not the way Dobbs wins the election, which (scary enough) could happen with current technology, but with the way he ACTS as president.

You'd think there would be better handlers out there who would want him to uphold the throne of the United States a bit better. More than once I thought about John Goodman's "King Ralph" and the way his character had to fight to act the way he wanted.

PRO vs. NO

PRO: A much better drama than it was a comedy, although the finale on a certain late night television show was great. Plus Lewis Black was great.

NO: They were looking for an intense thriller by the end, but it didn't hook me.

SIX WORD FINISH

"Politicians are a lot like diapers."

FINAL BELL
-- 3.5 out of 5 -- A move that tried and almost got away with it. I think if the studio had played more on the fact this was the same director who did "Wag the Dog", they might have sold a few more tickets.

WORTH THE PRICE OF ADMISSION?:
If anything, this was a rental. As I said, it was a pretty good movie, but not a great one.

IMDB:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0483726/

OVERALL

This was a film with a LOT of potential. Of course, with Scarlett Johansson playing the lead character, I was hopeful. But then the movie, directed by Burman and Pulcini -- those who brought us American Splendor -- failed to live up to expectations. It was a decent movie, but not one I would want to see again.

Taking a step back, the beginning of this movie was great. We had characters with no real names, and a tour of a freaky museum, and I really liked that. It was showing the story a bit differently than the conventional format.

Then the actual meat of the story begins, and it almost turns into the Lifetime Movie Of The Week. We have the protagonist who is almost literally forced into being a nanny for a young child, instead of following up her college degree. You've probably seen enough movies to understand what's going to happen next, and for the most part you can probably guess the rest of the movie.

The saving grace, other than Johannson and Alicia Keyes (who plays her best friend, and has a good role in the movie) are the meetings of the mothers who have nannies. The way the nannies are treated and talked about in the movie are a bit eye opening.

Some have compared this movie to The Devil Wears Prada, with a character getting in over her head, and they almost hit the nail. However, this would be Prada Lite. Prada 50% off, actually. Except this movie didn't have the protagonist getting early copies of the new Harry Potter book, which still bugs me about Prada... but I digress. Prada had a more central storyline that didn't hide anything, whereas Nanny Diaries seemed like a parody of somebody looking at Prada and trying to emulate it.

PRO vs. NO

PRO: It's a cute movie with a child that (somewhat) grows on you. Scarlett Johansson does a good job, as does Laura Linney playing the socialite mother. The love interest and romantic storyline was interesting, with likable characters.

NO: The beginning of the movie was great. After 15 minutes in we didn't really see much of anything that reminded me how the movie started. It had a LOT of potential to be something different, but it chose not to.

QUOTE
"There's a common belief among anthropologists that you must immerse yourself in an unfamiliar world in order to truly understand your own."

FINAL BELL
-- 2.5 out of 5 -- A movie that I would not normally had seen if not for a friend. I didn't feel like it was a waste of time, but it was a waste of a good beginning.

WORTH THE PRICE OF ADMISSION?:
If you're expecting a movie called "The Nanny Diaries" you'll enjoy this one. If you have expectations due to the beginning of the movie, you probably won't.

IMDB:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0489237/

OVERALL

Show of hands. Who expected a movie called "Vulgar" to be about a clown who starts doing bachelor parties, ends up getting raped, becomes a hero, and then gets blackmailed, then looks for revenge? Not you, Silent Bob.

There are a few familiar faces in this movie if you've seen some Kevin Smith movies, as this film is written and directed by Brian Johnson, a familiar name to those who've seen Smith movies, and a long-time friend of Smith himself. Actor wise, this main antagonist in this movie is played by Brian O'Halloran, aka Dante from Clerks in a very un-Dante role. His best friend is played by Super Producer Scott Mosier, and the man who wants to make him a star is Silent Bob.

But this isn't a comedy. Not by a long-shot. If anything, you might see it as a dark comedy, but even then you'd have to be pretty sick yourself. This borders on drama/horror, especially if you don't like clowns. The title of the movie isn't the feeling about the movie itself, but the name of the main character/clown.

First and foremost, the production of this movie is pretty bad. It looks and acts just like an indy movie that would never get released in theatres. But the acting itself is top notch.

NOTE: Some people HATE the acting in this movie. I mean really, really, REALLY hate it. Just look at some of the reviews through Netflix. Yowza.

But I repeat, I thought the acting was great.

As I said before, this is a sad little movie about a children's clown who had something done to him that nobody would want to experience. And after what happened, his world is changed, along with the mood of the movie. Then comes the unexpected -- he saves a little girl and becomes a hero, which puts him on television... but of course his past comes back to haunt him.

I had no idea what this movie was about going into it. The description at Netflix didn't say much, and really wouldn't make anybody to go out of their way to see it. In fact, I can see only View Askew-niverse folks (Smith fans) watching this one.

PRO vs. NO

PRO: A hidden gem of a movie. One that expresses a lot of feeling, whether it be rage or remorse.

NO: It's a indy-riffic looking movie with a slow beginning and a kinda-out-there ending. Although I liked the acting, it looks like I'm in the minority. Also, the mood in this movie is really, really dreary.

SIX WORD FINISH
"I must have the wrong place."

FINAL BELL
-- 4 out of 5 -- I'm glad I saw this movie. It's an interesting premise but a very dreary movie. Not too many happy moments because a sad one is right around the corner... and you're probably expecting it. I enjoyed the acting and the storyline, although one scene was really tough to watch.

WORTH THE PRICE OF ADMISSION?:
It's worth seeing. I don't see many people really looking to see this movie, but it's an experience nonetheless. I think I would have enjoyed seeing it on the big screen, and would recommend it... but only to a certain minority.

IMDB:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120467/

OVERALL
You get what you paid for. You want mother-effin' Samuel L. Jackson on a plane with a lot of mother-effin' snakes... you GET mother-effin' Samuel L. with a lot of m... you get my point.

If Jackson's roll was played by any other actor, this movie would be shown on the Sci-Fi channel, edited for TV with a lot of commercials. If it were actually released to theatres, or even straight to DVD... not too many people would be interested. Well... except for the title.

The main marketing focuses of this movie was THE LINE by Jackson, and the name of the movie itself. Snakes On A Plane. You know what you're going to get. But releasing this movie in all of it's R-rated greatness, you get people acting badly with a bad script.. .but Jackson MAKES this movie.

Overall, this is a pretty dismal movie when it comes to acting and dialogue. But directors David R. Ellis and Lex Halaby made this movie an experience. You don't go to enjoy the movie, but to enjoy the entire aspect of the movie.

PRO vs. NO

PRO: This movie may not be on the level as "Army Of Darkness", but it has just enough dark humour that it's worth it for a drinking game, or just to revel in the greatness that is Samuel L. Jackson.

NO: This movie was not meant to be a good movie, but the directors tried. It was a little long at 104 minutes, and the supporting characters were just an afterthought.

SIX WORD FINISH
"F***ing snake! Get off my d***!"

FINAL BELL
-- 3 out of 5 -- Watch this movie with a group of people who are open minded, love bad horror movies, or just Samuel L. Jackson. You'll thank me.

WORTH THE PRICE OF ADMISSION?:
Not by yourself. See this movie with many people.

IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0417148/