Change Your Image
dr_brendan
Reviews
Adventureland (2009)
Advenutreland has a misleading trailer problem
Do you know that feeling you get when you've been lied to about a movie. A while back when In Bruges came out, the trailers pitched the movie as a wacky, Guy-Ritche-esquire, comedy with midgets and whores. Imagine the surprise of most of the movie goers when they went to see this film, and it turns out to be a very dark comedy, written about a suicidal hit man who is know facing regret and depression in the worst vacation spot ever. This feeling of surprise can sometimes make or brake how a movie is received for some people. Most of the time the audience will walk out of the film thinking that they've been lied to just so they will have payed for a ticket and other times the audience realizes that, if the movie wasn't pitched to them as this picture that they've seen before, they wouldn't have seen the film in the first place.
This is how I felt when I left Adventureland. Let me get this out of the way, Adventureland is NOT A COMEDY. I know the trailers pitch it as one, the director says it's one, and under the genre section of IMDb it says 'Comedy. But, this film, honestly, has two jokes in it, most of them supplied by Bill "By God You're In Everything Aren't You?" Hader. I'm not saying that this film only has two jokes in it like there are a lot of jokes in here but they're not funny. I'm saying that they're are only two jokes. Yes, Adventureland was pitched to us a romantic teen comedy about a horrible summer job but instead the film is a romantic drama that focuses on 21+ year old, coping with the fact that life is in fact full of sour lemons and you need to take a horrible job because it's the only thing you can do. I too was surprised that Adventureland wasn't a comedy but once you get past that, the film is actually very enjoyable and turns out to be one of the most intimate romance films on the same scale as 'Once.'
The film centers around the double named protagonist, Brennan James. Who is a couple thousand short of the money he needs for his trip around Europe as well as the first couple months rent for when he starts going to school in NYC. His parents inform him that his dad has been demoted and he's gonna have to pay for the money himself. The only job that is still hiring is the seedy amusement park Adventureland where all of the employees do nothing but talk about how much their job sucks, smoke weed and get drunk during their shifts. Brennan-James falls in love with the smart-dangerous girl, Em. But due to his drug connections, the hot girl of the theme park starts to become attracted to him. A love triangle turns into a square, then a hexagon and soon just a big pile of mess.
The film itself could go for a very whimsical style here due to the amusement park setting but because of the directors previous works (Freaks and Geeks and Superbad) he decided to go for a super-realistic approach. I also feel like he chose to direct this drama because he wanted to expand himself as a director. The direction itself is pretty subtle, which is for the best. I was really engrossed in the script itself and I felt like any "special" work the director put in it might have taken me out of this twenty-something romance story.
The story is a very good one. This too goes for the extremely realistic approach. Watching this film I remembered all of the times I had experienced something like this with a girl and that's when I realized that the film had totally sucked me in. I couldn't wait to see what was going to happen to Brennan and Em and once their relationship hit a couple of big rocks I remembered all of the times I had nearly ruined my relationships by doing something stupid. (i.e. listening to my penis and not my brain)
I was worried about the acting at first, it has a newbie as the lead and the twilight girl as his love interest. Not to mention Ryan Renolds playing a mentor figure, one that is a couple of cockiness points away from being the one in Waiting. However the director must have worked his magic with these three because they display some of the best performances I've seen in a while. They emote, they repress, they do everything a real person does in a relationship to the degree where their characters are so well developed your rubbing your eyes in disbelief like some kind f college screwball comedy. Then again, realism seems to be the thing Adventureland seems to do be going for.
This film is trying to grab the attention of the forty-somethings that were twenty-somethings in 1980 by making the most realistic nostalgia trip I've ever seen. The costumes seem like they're right out of value village, the dialog seems like you could have said it today and the acting makes the characters seem as if they're real people.
If feel that Adventureland wasn't pitched to the audience as a dramatic look at young love during the backdrop of the late 1980's because in the latter part of this decade, the only way young people are willing to look at the 1980's is through the eyes of irony. Looking at hot new styles as stupid idiotic fashion choices. Adventureland looks past all of that and makes a film that seem to be a grown up Sixteen Candles and because of this new approach to a beaten down idea, I not only applaud this movie but recommend it to people who have been looking for something new.
Death Race (2008)
Like Nascar But With Worse Dialogue
Only Paul W.S. Anderson could mess up something like this. He's done it before. We gave him Aliens and Predators and said, "All you have to do is make them kill one another." But he must have been deaf, or spaced out, or maybe he's just thick. The public repeated their previous mistake and said, "Hey, Paul! Please remake this film. Just make cars and people explode. That's all we ask." Which, he does deliver, but, since that's all the audience is looking for I can say to them, just watch Death Race 2000. It's the same idea but better and more violent.
Which, I don't understand! How can something in the 1970's be more violent than something now? What about all those Saw films and the recent Torture Porn genre? Are those, just, like, exceptions? Come one dude! You had ONE JOB! ONE! And you messed that up.
My Bloody Valentine (2009)
"Why Should I See This Movie?"
The only reason you should see the film is to see how nice 3-D is now a days. But if you're actually interested in this film, then I hate to tell you but the film itself is dumb. I can tell you that they're no surprises in this film (even thought the film kind of hopes that you -the audience- is the dumbest things since dinosaurs, no likable characters, the film is too long, the gore itself is uncreative when you see it which is too rare for a horror film, the "acting" is dry, the characters in their teen years look like their 30 and when the actors are playing their gown up selves they look like they're 45, there is nothing redeemable about the film at all UNLESS you see it in 3-D and even then you have to pay an extra 2.50...
The Wrestler (2008)
Great Story Strange Amounts of Realism
I thought the down and out fighter character was done with. So imagine my surprise when this film becomes one of the most critically acclaimed films of 2008. Why is this film such a success? Well, I don't agree with all of the reasons why.
Let's address the film will probably be known for in a couple years, I mean the "Return of Mickey Rourke." Now, I've never been that much of a Mickey Rourke fan but apparently his early work is good and he gives the rawest performance you've ever seen. But I did like him in Sin City as Marv because Marv was a character. I thought he had a character in Sin City and in the Wrestler he's really just playing himself.
He does a lot of stunts, get's hurt bad and makes a heart attack look very real but the entire time I'm thinking, "Did Mickey Rourke go through all of this himself at one point in his life?" I Wiki'd up some info on Mickey Rourke cause I was curious about his acting career. It turns out that he was popular in the 1980's, got a lot of props from fans and critics, was seen as a sex symbol, then because he couldn't make it in the acting world he decided to become a boxer. When that didn't work he came back to acting and is career is now seen as a comeback. Now, if you go and see the movie, you'll realize that THIS IS THE SAME STORY. Like, almost verbatim. Rourke's character plays Randy "The Ram" Robinson who was very popular in the 1980's, got a lot of affection from fans, Randy was seen as a sex symbol (that one isn't true), but in the film he has a few rough patches that involve his medical condition and in the end he has to quit the thing that he loves, only to return to it after everyone has said that he's washed up. Again, very similar.
So, how great is his acting? Well, there's no character, because it's just Mickey Rourke. You can say that he's using his own personal experiences to bring a performance that is very close to home, but the thing is, it's way to close to home. It would be like me saying I was acting if Charlie Kaufman made character for me, who was ashamed of himself, used humor as a defense, continued to be awkward with women, not that attractive, and was unsure of where -if anywhere- he was going. If he made that character for me, I would "act" out that part until it bled but, thing is, that's who I am. Mickey Rourke is Randy "The Ram" Robinson and because he is that character along with the fact that there really wasn't any character at all in the film, JUST Mickey Rourke I'm hesitant to say that he knocks the character out of the park. He does in a way, but it's almost like he does it with ease because he's lived it.
Moving on from the complicated of nature of Mickey Rourke performance, I would like to talk about the story of The Wrestler. As I stated earlier this story has been done before and to death. What makes this film different from Raging Bull, the Rocky movies, and other up and coming sports movies is the fact that it's not that he's lost too many matches, it's just that Randy is old. The whole movie is about how you only have the spot light for a certain amount of time and what do you do when you have to give it up. Randy is left with a choice, he can leave the spot light and be stuck in a world where everything he does doesn't work out, or he can stay in a world full of cheering hundreds where everyone knows who he is and everything is planned ahead of time but this world might kill him cause of his age. He's not really a spring chicken anymore. Because of Randy's heart problems he has to give up the life he loves in order to live in a world where nothing goes as planned even though he tries his hardest. Once he realizes that that's a horrible idea he comes back to his old world, full of glory and pain only to realize that everyone he loves is in the real world and can't be there to watch him die in this fantasy world. THE STORY OF THIS MOVIE IS GREAT. Much better than I thought it would be. I remember reading the plot synopsis of it when it hit Cannes and thinking that it sounded a lot like Rocky IV but the fact that this giant thing of a man is actually so fragile it makes emotional teen boys look like Rambo is just a fantastic idea. Which was the films strongest point.
However, one of the weakest points of the film was it's large amount of realism. Now, I was very concerned and interested when I saw the trailer for this film. It looked like Darren Aronofsky really shed his style of small tiny boxes and decided to choose "ultra-hyper-realism." to the point where it's almost a documentary and because of that, the points where nothing is going on are boring as a walking scene in a Gus Van Sant film. The camera work in The Wrestler is this, "follow Mickey Rourke" and I know many different directors would have choked Darren on the spot because that idea is straight out of the "how not to shoot a film correctly" book for dummies. It's boring and while the story was so good the "acting" of Mickey Rourke and the hyper-realism direction the film took just made me think the movie was a lot longer than it actually was. I thought the film was 2 hrs. and 30 min. But it's only an hour and 45. min.
He's Just Not That Into You (2009)
A Letter To The Film
Dear He's Just Not That Into You, You don't need to be 2 hours and 8 different stories. You can be an hour and 30 min and just one story. You would be a better than average romantic comedy. But you aren't. In the end, you remind me of a person trying to do WAY too much and in the end doing very little. Oh yeah, what's up with having a bunch of new talent as well as a bunch of actors from yesteryear? No one cares about Ben Affleck or Jennifer Aniston.
Anyone will tell you I'm a sucker for Justin Long, his recent success in Die Hard 4.0, Zach and Miri and Accepted have gotten him a cult following and you actually gave him the most interesting story. And yet, strangely, maybe in fear of you movie actually being a success, you cut to a straight-to-DVD typical chick flick couple that makes my eyes want to roll right out of my skull.
Be Better Next Time, Brendan.
Hellboy II: The Golden Army (2008)
Now That Guillermo Del Toro Is Famous He Can Do Anything He Wants
I believe that when any director has too much freedom the film can be in trouble and this is one of those cases. You give Del Toro a sandbox and he'll give you monsters that have musical numbers. Half of the film was fine. The audience get's what Hellboy is all about, fighting monsters, balancing his love life and getting along with the people he works, while the other half of it was weird and not really needed in a super hero film. For example the romance felt fake, for some reason there is a musical number and the ending might as well just be the start for another movie.
However, is this what the director was going for? Was he going for an entertaining movie or a serious take on the subject of Hellboy? Whichever this fantasy epic falls flat due to awkward storytelling and strange not needed musical numbers.
The X Files: I Want to Believe (2008)
X Files - Science Fiction = X Files: I Want to Believe
Can honestly be described as a pile. This movie, is like, 4 different movies in one. We have a good idea for a hospital drama and then Chris Carter saw it and added an old filler episode he found recently. Other flaws include, well established characters completely changing mannerisms, bad acting from Xzibit a story that just meanders along, thin plot, terrible script work (a terrible W. joke that was as forced as a crowbarred into an alien skull) and lot of the movie is used for character depth, which I feel is unneeded, cause there are 10 seasons of character depth. There are redeeming points some of the characters are like able, and the old X Files suspense is there and don't worry there is a lot of it, it's just the movie seemed more like a fanfic than an actual movie. This movie could have expanded on the last one, but chose not to, and in the end, just ended up being a waste of time.
Cloverfield (2008)
Fun for a while, then you might get sick.
Here's how to make the best advertising campaign ever. All you do, is just show the most exciting and disturbing parts of the film and nothing to do with characters and then put the title at the end and people are like "SO GOING!"
At least half of the people in the theater found Cloverfield hard to watch because it's all hand-held. At first I was really excited for the film and then one of my friends said "Oh, so it's like Blair Witch Project meets The Host. (I can assure you that, that's what you're gonna get but with a little something extra) I was also really sick throughout the entire movie. However, it's probably the best survival/horror/science fiction all year but what am I really comparing it to? Hmm? First Sunday?
I was worried about Cloverfield because not only did I see it for free, but it was supposed to come out in January (to film geeks, it's known as dump month.) However, rest assured that the film isn't half bad. The characters are somewhat minimal but there is actually a reason for what they are doing. Most of the stuff seems plausible kinda, and they didn't "find a scientist" and he didn't give the "we don't know what it is!" or "Human's played god!" speech that was found in the other horror/adventure movies of last year. When the characters die, you feel for them somewhat, but, to be honest you didn't get to know them that well. It was kinda like seeing a really cool person on the street and then 10 minuets he gets hit by a car. You're kinda sad cause that character was funny, or pretty, or kinda important. Also, you feel beaten up from all the shaky-cam if you're affected by motion sickness. So when a person dies it's like you're drunk and someone told you that a relative died. You're disappointed but you can't really control your emotions at this point so you're already crying. It's kinda like, the film beats you up, and makes you feel sorry for someone else cause you can kinda sympathize with there pain since you're experiencing something similar to a seizure.
NOW FOR THE IMPORTANT PART: The monster. Cloverfield's monster is interesting and will make your mouth drop to the floor, because it's always changing. It's also surprising. You think you have a full understanding of the monster, and then you see a newscast and it totally changes everything think you thought you knew.
I also like how the movie was also like a metaphor for a love. Hold on to people and never let them go kinda thing. It really made you think. And by the end if you saw it with anyone you'll kinda have a group hug at the end.
Still, like I said before, the characters are minimal because the movie is only an hour and 24 min. Which is a fantastic length, because if your the one half who can't stand shaky-cam you'll be like "oh wow, that was over soon." and for the people who aren't affected, they'll like how it got right to the point.
But, because it's so short, you might want your money back if you payed $10. So I heavily recommend a matinée . No one really feels cheated out of $6. Still, an overall fun movie to see with friends if you aren't affected by motion sickness. Also it's a great movie to see Downtown cause when you get out you'll be paranoid for like 20 min cause you don't know if a monster will get you when you're on the way to your car. Overall, I would say, worth seeing if you have a strong stomach, if you don't wait for it on DVD.