OMG!

So Hairspray may have started out the year as one of my least anticipated movies, but once again I shall admit defeat. It's totally fun. I think a lot of that fun, however, comes from the source material; the set designers really could have used more flash, glitter, and SHINY NEON COLORS!!!!! (yeah, I know, most of it took place in '60s Baltimore, but even the set of the Corny Collins Show was rather dull), and the movie could have been more campy overall. Still, it's just so much fun (how many times have I said "fun" here) that you're willing to overlook its flaws. The movie is definitely more than worth your time, and it's just nice to see a musical that's just willing to revel in itself, instead of desperately clutching for Oscars (I liked Dreamgirls a lot and all, but...). B+

PS: Zac Efron surprised me by not sucking!

Last night, something shocked me.

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix? REALLY GOOD movie. I consider that book to be the worst in the series by MILES (it's horrible), so I was shocked. It is too dark. I mean this in both the scenes they choose to show (death, death, death, doom, destruction, blah), and the actual cinematography/lighting (there's sunlight in the wizarding world too); remember, at heart, these are kids' books, but this is really the only complaint I have (that, and Voldy was kind of unintentionally funny...if you've seen the movie you know what I mean). They made extremely wise decisions of what to cut out (there was like one scene of Harry being obnoxious, not 300 pages of him talking in all capitals), and while the final battle was just boring in the book, it was totally thrilling here. The special effects are pretty damn amazing too.
OH MY GOD, THE ACTING! Daniel Radcliffe isn't going to get nominated for a Pulpy or anything like that, but he actually gives a good, non-laugh-worthy performance. Emma Watson, for the most part, isn't acting with her eyebrows. Rupert Grint isn't mumbling all the time. It's amazing. Obviously, Imelda Staunton is incredible (and incredibly scary) and is currently #2 in my Pulpy lineup in Best Supporting Actress for the year, and Helena Bonham-Carter is just fricking awesome (I can't believe I just said that either; I can only hope she's half as good with about 3 million times the screentime in Sweeney Todd). I'm so psyched for Book 7 now. The best summer blockbuster yet, Ratatouille excluded. B+

in honor of Knocked Up...

Judd Apatow is best known for writing the TV shows Freaks and Geeks and Undeclared, and the movie The 40-Year-Old Virgin (and now, Knocked Up). These works all have one thing in common among a few others: I pretty much hated all of them. Now most people went dogshit crazy for The 40-Year-Old Virgin, and I thought I would too, so I figure I'd explain why I dislike this movie so very much in very bad, unorganized review form. It's more just like...me bitching.

The 40-Year-Old Virgin has one great asset, this is true: Steve Carell. The man is a genius. Paul Rudd and Seth Rogen are also quite fantastic. Because they're such great comedic actors, they are able to transcend what makes the movie so damn bad: its horrendous script. The writing just isn't funny. Look at Romany Malco and Gerry Bednob. They aren't the actors that Carell, Rudd, and Rogen are, and their jokes fall totally flat. Also, the movie is far too long. The other sex comedy of summer 2005, Wedding Crashers, was too long, too, but it was actually consistantly funny the entire time. Apatow will take an idea that is funny, but then he'll just go wayyy overboard. The movie could have used editing really badly. That said, it does have its funny moments, but you can tell these were done through improv (the ending, which is amazing... the chest-waxing scene, oh my God... "how do I know you're gay?").

That wasn't really much of a review. Dammit, I can't write. But I just felt the need to reiterate that yup, The 40-Year-Old Virgin sucks, and to post something that's not just a picture of a really hot guy. The movie gets a C-

Despite the fact that it looks really bad based on Apatow's previous work and the clips I've seen from it, I'm still strangely looking forward to Knocked Up.

ooh look a review

So, yeah, Spider-Man 3. I was expecting it to be horrendous, it really wasn't. I mean, it's nowhere near the greatness of the first two, but it's not bad. The critics are right, though: it is overplotted. Sandman could have been totally removed and the Venom story, which is far more interesting, expanded. That's the movie's main problem (that, and I hate how they felt the need to "rewrite" the first one, you know what I'm talking about if you saw this movie)... I was kind of like "um, so why is the Sandman here other than to show off the amazing special effects?" I also felt like Gwen Stacy could have been removed but at least I saw her purpose. Speaking of which: Bryce Dallas Howard is horrible. The makeup/hair department washes her out and then her performance is so bland, it makes Kristen Dunst's look fantastic (though it's the best she's been in a Spider-Man movie yet). Bryce, you can act! I saw it in The Village! C'mon!

I don't feel like the movie lost its heart or that the script was particularly bad. I mean, the Spider-Man series has always been kinda wacky. Nobody said anything with the whole Hal Sparks cameo in Spider-Man 2 but you put "Saturday Night Fever" in your movie and suddenly you're a freak. This is Sam Raimi we're talking about, people. Yeah, the script does have some really wonky lines, but Spider-Man always has. I don't know, I'm a bad reviewer and it's kind of shaken my faith in my taste in movies that I thought this was, well, not great, but far from horrible. It's good enough. During summer movie season, I'll take what I can get. And, let's face it. It's going to be better than Pirates of the Carribbean 3: At Series' End, Thank God. B/B- (Spider-Man is a highish B+, Spider-Man 2 is an A- or maybe even an A)

At the late night double feature picture show...

I WANNA GO! oh oh OHHH!

Planet Terror: B+
Death Proof: A-
Grindhouse: A-, and the biggest blast I've had at the movies in a long, long time

I'm in shock.

I just watched Heathers for the very first time (yeah, I know).

It has a few funnyish bits ("lick it up baby! lick! it! up!"), but WHAT THE FUCK??? Did Alejandro Gonzales Iñarritu direct this film? It is nihilistic to the point in which it makes the viewer uncomfortable. While it was supposed to be dark, I don't think it was supposed to be like that. Add to that shitty acting, technicals, and '80s costumes with awful shoulder pads, and yeah... D

an actual movie review

I watched Girl with a Pearl Earring last night (for the second or third time) with one of my classes. The movie has a lot of strengths.
For one thing, and perhaps most importantly, despite being a practically dialogue-free movie (that's an exaggeration, but it is, to say the least, hardly a gabfest), it is never boring. This is probably due to the movie's other two biggest boons: its fantastic lead actress and its cinematography. Scarlett Johansson is incredible in this film, full of unspoken nuance (though I still think those who say she's better here than in Lost in Translation are nuts), fascinating even before she was the major star she is today. Secondly, the cinematography is UHHHMAZING. Maybe because I'm an Art History major, but I can't help but be crazy for a movie when every shot looks like a Vermeer painting, through its use of light and compositions. It's the best cinematographic job of the new decade.
Still, the film does have its flaws. Every character save Griet seems to be kind of one-dimensional or be there only as a plot point (and it might only be by the grace of Scarlett that Griet is not). I'm all for unsympathetic characters, but the extreme bile that the screenwriter and director create toward Vermeer's daughter (and his wife and patron, but to a lesser extent) is excessive, and pointless.
Nevertheless, it is a smart, respectable, and GORGEOUS movie. B+, #7 of 2003

life mystery solved.

an example of a good scene. because they're NOT TALKING.

So, I discovered my problem with Brokeback Mountain.

Brilliant acting (except Anne Hathaway), stunning cinematography, solid other techs, strong directing...

almost RUINED by a God-awful script. Seriously, people, do you think that script was good? The acting out the horrible lines were good, sure. But...okay...take "I wish I knew how to quit you!" The overexposure doesn't help. But that's an awful line. People don't talk like that. And yes, I know, it's a movie, I'll give it that. It's still a terrible line. Masterfully delivered by The Gyllenhaal, but an awful line. The best scenes in the film are the ones with no dialogue. Also, however amazing the actors are, they can't conjure up any real emotions in me because of the script, which demands the audience fill in the blanks - and not in a good way*. I'll admit I cried like a fuckin' baby during Crash. Manipulative? Whatever, it worked. Brokeback, even with its twinkly twee little score, couldn't get me to do much but sit there and check my watch multiple times. It's not a horrible film but sorry, guys, this is one I don't, and will never, "get." B-

* I'm not an idiot, contrary to what you might think. I don't mind movies not spelling it out for me - lord knows I'd actually prefer it. But I don't think movies should require me to do all the work. What I mean by this, is that Brokeback seems to throw random unfinished sentences at me ("Jack, I swear..."), and then demand that I find some kind of meaning out of them. Some apparently did. Good for them. I've seen indication that the movie is more poignant for people in a divided relationship (where, you know, the two people are separate...I guess...)...but you know what? I've done that divided relationship thing, and for a few years. I still can't connect to Brokeback Mountain. I can connect to hundreds of other movies with situations nothing like my life at all.

What it boils down to is, God, I wish I knew everyone knew how to quit this movie.

The Life of David Gale

Wow, what an awful movie. I think you know a movie's bad when Kate Winslet is in way over her head, and you can tell. D

...that said. It's Kevin Spacey's best post-American Beauty offering (not that that says much, so let me rephrase it: save Superman Returns, it's his only notable post-American Beauty offering), and Laura Linney is just fantastic as always. 2003 was a great year for supporting actresses and Linney gets nominated (if I allowed for multiple performances in one award, she would get the win for this, Love Actually, and Mystic River combined). I'd nominate Kevin as well...I think.

I saw Epic Movie.

it was not bad.

and by "not bad," I mean "not quite as bad as Date Movie." D

it's not going to stop 'til you wise up

A+ It is not a perfect film, unlike most of the A+s I would give. However, it is a testament to the utter power of cinema. It doesn't all make sense and things are left open-ended, but it's so fascinating, so utterly absorbing, so daring. And it has perhaps the best scene ever, in the history of cinema ("Wise Up," obviously).

this is the coolest poster ever

ummm. WHAT an amazing poster. the compression kinda makes it lose its effect though, so click here for a better image.

anyway, remember when i promised a review of this movie back on november 22? yeah. well, the prestige was definitely not what i was expecting. in fact, it's a very very disturbing movie. i think that, and the fact that i wasn't expecting it at all, knocks it down a few pegs in my mind, but it's certainly not a bad movie...the twists are just...um, wow. good for nolan for making twists that YOU CAN'T SEE COMING. it also has good production values and is overall well-acted. but i dunno...it really freaked me out. i don't know why. also, i was promised that hugh jackman was shirtless "practically the whole movie" and then he was shirtless in two brief scenes. ew. LIAR! B- but that might just be because i was trying to be harsh

rating the overrated, again

emily blunt is SHOCKED that she found someone on the internet not falling all over herself to praise her performance!

Okay, I don't come to bash Emily Blunt in The Devil Wears Prada. I liked her. She was fun. She's on my Supporting Actress list for the year. ...at #21, but yeah. Now, let's see what Emily does right in Prada:
1. She is funny and she's clearly having fun.
2. She plays it very straight, which works wonders.
3. She has several perfect line deliveries.
...that's it. THAT IS IT, PEOPLE. Yes, #1 and 3 count for a lot, but merely having fun on screen does not entitle one to an Oscar (or whatever your personal awards may be called; in case you didn't pick up on it, mine are the Pulpys). Blunt does the best job she can, but her part is, let's face it, the typical bitchy co-worker, and no, despite what the rest of the blogsphere seems to think, she doesn't elevate it much beyond that. This already puts her at a disadvantage to parts that were actually, you know, written, such as Hudson's, Kirshner's, Kikuchi's, Epps', Somerville's... And no, she doesn't steal scenes from Meryl Streep (she certainly steals them from Anne Hathaway, who is pathetic as usual in the movie...more on her later). In conclusion: a fun performance, but nothing special. I won't ever understand those who say it's one of the best performances of the year.

Meryl Streep freaking rocks this movie though, which is excellent for summer entertainment but then it feels the need to get all moral. Drat. B

wow

it doesn't feel totally complete in some weird way, but god, what a mindfuck... in the best way possible. B

Funny stuff.

undoubtedly the best thing in the movie

let me preface this by saying the producers, the broadway show, is absolutely the funniest thing i have ever seen in my life. i saw it, luckily enough, with the original cast, and hysterical is not enough to describe them. the 1968 movie is in my top 5 comedies ever as well. but...the 2005 movie is absolutely awful, movie-wise. it's compulsively watchable because completely inept direction (susan stroman doesn't do much other than sticking her camera in the actors' faces) and pretty terribleish performances (nathan lane's performance was BRILLIANT!!! on stage, but he doesn't change it at all, and even in a production this ridiculous, it comes off as ludicrously over-the-top; broderick doesn't register; ferrell is over the top as well, but less crazy than lane at least; thurman, though i love her, is woefully miscast and has many accent slips; beach and bart do well, but certainly not fantastic) can't destroy the fact that it is very, very funny and i can't stop watching it every time it's on tv. but as a movie...? i can't give it more than a D+

Death of a Fucking Salesman

it takes brass balls to sell real estate.

...AKA Glengarry Glen Ross, suffers from the same problems a lot of stage-to-screen transfers have: it still feels like it'd be so much better on stage (I do love its jazzy score and the constant blue-tinted images of the train moving), but who cares when the acting's this good - it is, quite frankly, the best ensemble acting ever. The two highlights: Alec Baldwin who appears here in only the best cameo ever, and Jack Lemmon. This is the man that gave us Some Like It Hot, The Apartment, Days of Wine and Roses, The Odd Couple, and Save the Tiger (no, he didn't deserve that Oscar then, but it's hardly an embarassing performance to say the least and he deserved it other years, that's for damn sure!), among sooo many others, and this is probably his best performance yet. He's utterly heartbreaking. You won't find a better Willy Loman anywhere than Jack's Shelley Levene. This movie wouldn't be at all special, or probably even all that good, without the acting - but what else does it have?

Movie: B- Acting: A+ Overall: B+

The Piano

Disclaimer: I cannot write reviews for shit, especially after weeks of writing essays for school. Ugh. This is more just an amalgamation of my thoughts as opposed to a real review.
I was actually shocked at how much I liked this movie. Shocked. It's certainly not the best film ever like I've heard some people say. Likewise, it's not the best film of the '90s. Hell, it's not even the best film of 1993 (Schindler's List, whether you think it's a masterpiece or manipulative trash, just worked for me, okay?), but it is really freaking excellent. For one thing, I thought it was going to be something different; based on what I've heard about it and the stills I've seen, I thought it was going to be one of those films that's easy to admire but hard to love with, you know, Holly Hunter and Anna Paquin just staring at each other on a beach for two hours. Yawn. But, not at all. This film is alive. It is vibrant (gotta love Australia), and even, at times, pretty darn funny. Holly Hunter is simply... incredible, to put it simply. She never says anything, but her performance is completely absorbing and you always know exactly what she is thinking and feeling. Amazing. One of the most deserved Oscars ever. Anna Paquin's fantastic too, and makes me wonder why she's so mediocre in everything she's been in since this movie. Harvey Keitel gives one of his very best performances (but did we really need to see his dick again?), and I just loved Kerry Walker (she bought a lot of the aforementioned humor). No, the movie's not perfect (there were a few too many shots of Hunter just kinda sitting there playing the piano [which is what I thought the movie would be like, actually, heh], and that scene where Keitel sticks his head under Hunter's dress and the dog starts licking Sam Neill's hand? Aaack), but it is pretty freaking spectacular. A- (A?)

And, of course, happy birthday to the person who may be my favorite director, Woody Allen. :D Recommendations of the day: Scoop (underrated, quite funny and I enjoyed it a lot more than Match Point) and Angels in America (for AIDS day. Then again, if you haven't seen this movie already, don't talk to me!).