Where's My Popcorn?

OVERALL

First and foremost I LOVED this movie. But I have particular tastes. With "tastes" being the particular word in question. If you love food... good food... you'll probably like this movie. Not saying that YOU will love it, but you will definitely appreciate it.

With Ratatouille, director/writer Brad Bird redeemed himself for The Incredibles. Now, you may be thinking "What?! The Incredibles was a GREAT movie!", but I have to disagree. The Incredibles was a good movie that COULD have been great.

Mainly because I saw The Iron Giant, which was a GREAT movie. Ratatouille is almost indescribable regarding the many feelings it brings out from you. There are funny parts, serious parts, cartoonish parts, real-life parts, and mesmerizing parts.

You'd watch this movie and you would appreciate it. But would kids? Maybe not. It's got some cute animals, a scary villain, and likable characters. But it also has a lot of dialogue, and some adult situations/themes. Plus the relationship between the rat and the human isn't really BFF.

PRO vs. NO

PRO: A satisfying movie with a satisfying ending. Not saying if it's a happy or sad, but the build-up to the ending makes the entire movie worthwhile.

NO: There's a slow part in the middle of the movie that some kids may yawn through, myself included. It may or may not have been necessary, but it did help with character building.

SIX WORD FINISH
"...Gusteau's famous motto: Anyone can cook."

FINAL BELL
-- 5 out of 5 -- Uh oh, two movies in a row with a 5 out of 5. I've seen some other movies recently, and some of them are definitely NOT 5 out of 5 material. Stay tuned. This is probably the finest Disney movie since The Lion King.

WORTH THE PRICE OF ADMISSION?:
Very much so. I'm looking forward to buying this movie when it comes out on DVD so I can introduce my daughter to it. As I said before -- if you love food, you'll love this movie.

IMDB:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0382932/

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/